Stengths and weaknesses of biometrics mechanis,s Essay

Stengths and weaknesses of biometrics mechanis,s - Essay Example Facial recognition is one of the best technologies but fails perform perfectly (â€Å"Biometric technologies). Voice recognition on the other hand has facilitated hands-free technology but is easily disrupted by additional sounds. Retinal and Iris recognition are one of the safest technologies but can be latent due to database searching. DNA is also a great feature that has solved crimes in this generation. The problem with DNA is that again it takes a long time and has a sample size in erroneous rate (â€Å"Biometric technologies†). Fingerprint has been a dominant technology for years as it is used for identification. The problem with this is the fact that individuals that are disabled cannot use that technology. Hand geometry, similar to its predecessor of finger ID has been a solid technology for integration as well, but layers of debris can play in some role of giving erroneous results. Gait technology has been a prominent force that has been the driving force for signatu re recognition to drive security in which police officials use radar gun, but can never be

Negotiations Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Negotiations - Essay Example The requirement to move the opponents from their preferred solution could motivate individuals involved to go against contemporary ethical standards; they could employ inappropriate influence tactics so as to gain compliance from the other. Guasco and Robinson put the ethical argument in context noting that â€Å"what is one negotiator’s appropriate tactic is another’s unethical trick† (2007, p. 135). Approaches to ethical reasoning In business negotiation, various standards have been used to evaluate tactics, as identified by Lewicki, Barry and Saunders (2007). The end result tactic would be applied where the negotiator chooses to adopt an action based on the expected results. Duty ethics would cause the negotiator to choose a course of action based on such person’s duty to uphold suitable rules and principles. The third standard referred to the fact social contract would cause one to choose a specific course of action based on the strategy, values and no rms of an organization or community they exist in. Finally, personality ethics would cause one to choose to follow a specific course of action based on personal convictions. ... Here, the negotiator aims at distorting the settlement point. For example, a buyer willing to spend up to $10,000 on machinery could indicate to the buyer the willingness not to spend more than $8,000. This tactic has been noted to be necessary in creating a rationale that would make the opponent make concessions. According to Lewicki, Barry and Saunders (2007), negotiators who make extreme demands and have the opponents give in achieve favorable settlements. In bluffing negotiation tactic, the negotiator would falsely state the intention to perform an act. These have been described by Lewicki, Barry and Saunders (2007) as false threats and acts. For example, a negotiator could threaten to undertake a specific course of action should the opponent fail to perform a specific task. But this would be said without any intention to live up to the stated consequences. Guasco and Robinson (2007) argue about the unethical form of bluffing such as the one where a seller lies to a buyer of a pr ospect who has bid a higher price for a car, yet in real sense no one else has participated in negotiations. Therefore, the scholars liken bluffing in negotiation to poker. With falsification, erroneous or incorrect information would be introduced as if it were true (Lewicki, Barry & Saunders, 2007). Some examples include erroneous financial information, false guarantees and warranties. Falsification could be printed or spoken and would be aimed at using erroneous information to distort actual facts, thus changing the position of the opponent. The fourth negotiation tactic, as identified by Lewicki, Barry and Saunders (2007), is known as deception. Here, the tactic would attempt to manipulate the logical and inferential processes of the opponent so as to cause incorrect deduction or