ACTIVE/PASSIVE SENTENCE
Active / Passive
Sentences can be active or passive. Therefore, tenses
also have "active forms" and "passive forms." You must
learn to recognize the difference to successfully speak English.
Active Form
In active sentences, the thing doing the action is the
subject of the sentence and the thing receiving the action is the object. Most
sentences are active.
[Thing doing action] + [verb] + [thing receiving
action]
Examples:
Passive Form
In passive
sentences, the thing receiving the action is the subject of the sentence and
the thing doing the action is optionally included near the end of the sentence.
You can use the passive form if you think that the thing receiving the action
is more important or should be emphasized. You can also use the passive form if
you do not know who is doing the action or if you do not want to mention who is
doing the action.
[Thing
receiving action] + [be] + [past participle of verb] + [by] + [thing doing
action]
Examples:
EXAMPLES SENTENCE ACTIVE TO PASSIVE :
- Simple
Present Tense
S + Verb1 (s/es) —– i cook the fish. (Aktif)
Object + To be (are/am/is) + Verb3 + Subject —– the fish is cooked by me. (Pasif) - Simple Past
Tense
S + Verb2 + Object ——– she washed the car (Aktif)
Object + To be (was/were) + Verb3 + Subject ——– the car was washed by her (Pasif) - Present
Continuous Tense
S + To be (are/am/is) + Verb-ing —— they are studying English lesson. (aktif)
O + to be (are/am/is) + being + Verb3 —– English lesson were being studied by them.
ARTICEL :
The
Profound Social Cost of American Exceptionalism
When I wrote my first Economic Scene column six years ago, the
unemployment rate languished at 8.2 percent as the job market painfully
recovered from the jolt of the Great Recession. By last month, only 3.9 percent
of working-age Americans who sought a job didn’t have one.
You are
welcome.
I’m
kidding, of course. How could anybody claim credit for the performance of
something as vast and complex as the American labor market? My columns probably
didn’t have anything to do with the doubling of the Standard & Poor’s
500-stock index, either, or even with the sixfold rise in digital-only
subscriptions to The New York Times.
To the
contrary, as I write what will be the last column of my tenure, I can’t help
but acknowledge how little purchase my writing has had on the substance of
reality. In particular, it has had no discernible effect on what one might call
America’s fundamental paradox.
The United States is one of the richest, most technologically
advanced nations in the history of humanity. And yet it accepts — proudly
defends, even — a degree of social dysfunction that would be intolerable in any
other rich society
My first column pondered why Americans didn’t care
more about the nation’s income gap, so much starker than that of any other
advanced democracy. I suggested that my compatriots
might come to a consensus that inequality is harmful when they
realized how vast inequities could gum up the cogs of economic and social
mobility.
Well,
inequality hasn’t abated much. In 2015, the richest 1 percent of American
taxpayers drew more than 20 percent of the nation’s income, including capital
gains, according to the tabulations by the French scholar Thomas Piketty and
his colleague Emmanuel Saez.
You can bet it has gone higher, given the bull run in the stock
market since then. And Republicans just passed another
round of tax cuts to offer a helping hand to the upper crust.
Most interestingly, Americans still don’t care that much. Sure, two-thirds say they are dissatisfied with the way income and
wealth are distributed, according to Gallup. Still, more than three out of five
— compared with just over half six years ago — are satisfied with “the opportunity
for a person in this nation to get ahead by working hard.”
As my
column has aimed to highlight, too many Americans are, well, sinking. Seventeen
percent of Americans are poor by
international standards — living on less than half the
nationwide median income. That’s more than twice the share of poor people in
France, Iceland or the Netherlands.
Forget
about income, though. It’s hard to square Americans’ belief in their society’s
greatness with the life expectancy of its newborn girls and boys. It is shorter than in Australia, Austria, Belgium,
Britain, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland,
Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand,
Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and
probably a few other countries I missed.
Or let’s
measure our progress in terms of infant deaths. Scientists in the
United States invented many of the technologies used around the world
to keep vulnerable babies alive. So how come our infant mortality rate is higher than that of
every nation in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development with
the exceptions of Mexico, Chile and Turkey?
Our dismal
rank, by the way, is not driven by the babies of white, affluent Americans. The
impact of the nation’s fundamental paradox mostly
failsthe nonwhite and the poor. Black males born in the United
States today will probably live shorter lives than boys born in
Mexico, China or Turkey.
This set of facts seems to me problematic. Your heart doesn’t
even have to bleed to care. The United States risks its prosperity by leaving
so many Americans behind.
The children of poverty who survive will most likely hobble
through life with mediocre educations — lagging their more affluent peers even before
their first day in school and then falling farther behind, deprived of the resources that disadvantaged
children in other advanced nations routinely enjoy.
Unequipped
to cope with the demands of a labor market in furious transformation, they will give “social mobility” a new, all-American
meaning: the tendency to move in and out of prison. It’s hard to believe any
country could waste so many resources and prosper.
And yet
for all the ink spilled by so many excellent journalists — from The Times’s own
Neil Irwin to Vox’s Matt Yglesias, Bloomberg’s Noah Smith and many others — America is doubling down on its exceptionalism. The rich got a tax break. Bankers got a break from
the pesky rules written in the shadow of the financial crisis to protect the
little guy. The poor and near poor were freed from their ability to afford
health insurance.
As Catherine Rampell noted in The Washington Post, populism
— understood as a political movement shaped around giving the working class a
“fair shake” — is pretty much dead.
And yet
writing is, in fact, indispensable. It is because of the writing of journalists
and social scientists — economists and political scientists, historians and
sociologists — that we know what we know about the workings of American
society, its economy and its political system.
From
Lawrence F. Katz and Alan B. Krueger, I learned that the very
meaning of the word “job” is changing, as fixed employment
gives way to contract, part-time, gig and temp work. David Autor, David Dorn
and Gordon Hanson enlightened me about the cost to many American communities of China’s
rise. Michelle
Alexander’s writing told me about the impact of America’s
ruthless criminal justice system on the nation’s blacks. Arlie
Russell Hochschild’s shed light on the politics of its
struggling whites.
To my colleagues in journalism, I owe the deepest debt of
gratitude. From them I have learned how important it is to shine light on
power. In this peculiar political moment, as the powerful promote self-serving
realities, hoping to bend perceptions to their will, my colleagues’ work to
communicate a reality undistorted by political ambition amounts to the last
line of defense against autocracy.
I will miss writing the column. But I relish the opportunity
this opens to write in another form, free of a column’s weekly demands to
explore the drama of American life in greater depth.
I will be devoting the next few weeks to figuring out what to
focus on next — chatting with my editors, as well as with the sources I have
come to rely on for sober, authoritative thinking. The important question,
however, remains: What kind of society does “America” mean?
RESULT :
REFERENCE :
- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/business/economy/social-cost-american-exceptionalism.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fbusiness-economy
- http://grammarbahasainggris.net/pengertian-passive-sentence-serta-contoh-kalimat-dan-soal.html
- https://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/activepassive.html
PHRASE AND SENTENCE
Reference :
- http://pediaa.com/difference-between-phrase-and-sentence/
- The Jakarta Post. Saturday, 10th March 2018
- https://www.eurocentres.com/blog/clause-phrase-sentence-learn-the-difference/
RANGKUMAN AUDIT TEKNOLOGI SISTEM INFORMASI
AUDIT TEKNOLOGI SISTEM INFORMASI
Audit
teknologi informasi (Inggris: information technology (IT) audit atau
information systems (IS) audit) adalah bentuk pengawasan dan pengendalian dari
infrastruktur teknologi informasi secara menyeluruh.
Tujuan
audit sistem informasi dapat dikelompokkan ke dalam dua aspek utama, yaitu:
Conformance(Kesesuaian)- pada kelompok tujuan ini audit sistem informasi
difokuskan untuk memperoleh kesimpulan atas aspek kesesuaian, yaitu:
Confidentiality (kerahasiaan), Integrity (integritas), Availability
(ketersediaan), dan compliance (kepatuhan). Berikutnya adalah
Performance(Kinerja)- pada kelompok tujuan ini audit sistem informasi
difokuskan untuk memperoleh kesimpulan atas aspek kinerja, yaitu :
effectiveness (efektifitas), efficiency (efisiensi), reliability (kehandalan).
Definisi tata kelola TI
Merupakan suatu cabang dari tata
kelola perusahaan yang terfokus pada Sistem/Teknologi informasi serta manajemen
Kinerja dan risikonya
MODEL TATAKELOLA TEKNOLOGI INFORMASI
1. The IT Infrastructure
Library (ITIL)
2. ISO/IEC 17799
3. COSO
4. Control OBjectives for
Information and related
COBIT merupakan
kerangka panduan tata kelola TI atau bisa juga disebut toolset pendukung yang
bisa digunakan untuk menjembatani gap antara kebutuhan dan bagaimana teknis
pelaksanaan pemenuhan kebutuhan tersebut dalam suatu organisasi.
Domain dan Proses Pada COBIT 5 memiliki 5 domain yang
terbagi dalam domain governance dan management, masing- masing domain memiliki
proses yang memungkinkan untuk mencapai tujuannya.
Terdapat 32 proses yang dipecah kedalam masing-masing
domain sebagai berikut :
1. Align, Plan and Organize (APO)
dengan13 proses.
2. Build, Acquire and Implement (BAI)
dengan 10 proses.
3. Deliver, Service and Support (DSS)
dengan 6 proses.
4.
Monitor,
Evaluate and Assess (MEA) dengan 3 proses.
Ilmu Forensik adalah ilmu
untuk melakukan pemeriksaan dan pengumpulan bukti-bukti fisik yang ditemukan di
tempat kejadian perkara dan kemudian dihadirkan di dalam sidang pengadilan.
Dari pengertian-pengertian forensik
maupun kriminalistik terdapat beberapa unsur yang sama yaitu :
1. Ada satu metode, peralatan,
proses dan pekerjaan.
2. Dengan mendayagunakan ilmu
pengetahuan dengan teknologi terapan
3. Dilakukannya terhadap suatu benda
yang berhubungan dengan suatu tindakan pidana.
4. Bertujuan untuk membuat jelas
suatu perkara sehingga hasilnya dapat digunakan sebagai bukti di pengadilan.
IT Forensic (Detectiv Cyber)
IT Forensik adalah penggunaan sekumpulan prosedur
untuk melakukan pengujian secara menyeluruh suatu sistem komputer dengan
mempergunakan software atau tools untuk memelihara, mengamankan dan menganalisa
barang bukti digital dari suatu tindakan kriminal yang telah diproses secara
elektronik dan disimpan di media komputer.
Ada beberapa
subdivisi dari Ilmu Forensik, antara lain :
– Criminalistics
– Forensic
Anthropology
– Digital
Forensic yang juga dikenal dengan nama Computer Forensic
– Forensic
Enthomology
– Forensic
Archaeology
– Forensic
Geology
– Forensic Meteorology
– Forensic Odontology
– Forensic
Pathology
– Forensic
Psychiatry dan Psychology
– Forensic
Toxicology
Forensik IT
Forensik
komputer adalah cabang yang berhubungan dengan deteksi dan penyidikan tindak
pidana seperti dengan analisis jejak digital. Isu-isu seperti pendidikan
setelah serangan oleh hacker atau cracker hanya sebagai relevan sebagai deteksi
anak data material pornografi atau ilegal.
Tujuan dari analisis forensik
setelah serangan hacker atau kasus sabotase komputer, pencurian data, spionase
industri atau insiden keamanan yang berpotensi serius lainnya biasanya:
§ identifikasi penyerang atau pelaku,
§ deteksi metode atau kerentanan yang
bisa mengakibatkan intrusi sistem ataU kejahatan,
§ penentuan kerusakan setelah intrusi
sistem atau tindak pidana lain dan
§ mengamankan bukti untuk
tindakan hukum lebih lanjut.
Tujuan IT Forensik
Adalah untuk mengamankan dan menganalisa bukti
digital. Dari data yang diperoleh melalui survey oleh FBI dan The Computer
Security Institute, pada tahun 1999 mengatakan bahwa 51% responden mengakui
bahwa mereka telah menderita kerugian terutama dalam bidang finansial akibat
kejahatan komputer. Kejahatan Komputer dibagi menjadi dua, yaitu:
1.Komputer fraud Kejahatan atau pelanggaran dari segi
sistem organisasi komputer.
2.Komputer crime Merupakan kegiatan berbahaya dimana
menggunakan media komputer dalam melakukan pelanggaran hukum.
SUMBER :
1. http://indonesianbacktrackbali.damai.id/2015/05/28/kenal-lebih-jauh-dengan-it-forensic-cyber-crime/
5. Aprianto, A., 2012. Audit Sistem
Informasi menggunakan Standar Cobit 4.1 Domain Monitor and Evaluate pada
Universitas Pembangunan Nasional "veteran" Jawa Timur. Aris Aprianto.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
