essay_id
stringlengths 7
7
| full_text
stringlengths 712
18.1k
| score
class label 6
classes |
|---|---|---|
7337377 | Why Venus well it's simple "our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation".
The author believes that Venus should be explored because they may be somthig on venus that leads to new innovations or it may very well just be the part that making it to Venus is the innovation. The author makes sure to list the dangers so that there won't be a basis veiw-point and that talks about ways that could work. Even though in the ways there are also flaws which are also pointed out but the author tries to make a point that evenn though we are right next to Venus we know very little and that Venus could have been like Earth in the past. The author tells the reader about how there features that are simlier to thoses on earth like mountains, valleys, craters and may have even had large oceans and could have supported many types of life forms.
While there are many dangers like " a thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide" even though past that there are coulds that contain highly corrosive sulfuric acid in the atmosphere of Venus. Then there is the surface which avgerage temperatures are over 800 degrees Fahrenheit mean that even though it is farther from the sun than Mercury it is still hotter. Another thing the "atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater the what we experience on our own planet" mean that man can't even reach the surface of Venus. Even so "our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation". | 12
|
e2d0be6 | To me I think we should change the election by popular vote for the president because the citizens deserve to vote on who ever they think will help are country. If they make the wrong decsion the it would be there fault and they wouldnt have no one else to blame but themselves for choosing that president or who ever they wanted to win. Also, if the person does make a mistake they should be able to unelect them also cause people need what is best for are country.
When people elect the president they usally go back through there speaches and see what they had promised for our country and make sure it is what they want. If it is not what they want they would probably go to the next person who is trying to be the president. When you are electing always make sure you are mking the right decision and make sure that they please you because they could elect that person because of yur vote you never no what could happen when voting.
Do you think it would be a good idea to elect someone who you are not sure about ? Well i dont think it is because they made the country to a bad situation or even smething dangerous like a war. But if they did keep the Electoral College i dont think they would care about the citizens of the united states I think that they would only care bout themselves and whats gonna please them and not everyone else. | 01
|
3a70d68 | Driverless cars are an intereszting theory.
The thought of someone being able to get in a car and just let it take them where they want to go is definitely appealing, but at the same time I feel that it could have some serious reprocussions.
I am both for, and against this idea.
I have good reason to be in the middle, too.
They're convinient but dangerous.
Also not to mention they're going to need a new system despite our advancing technology.
Plus, what would we use as fuel for them?
Firstly, driverless cars, though being more convinent, could end up being a major safety hazard to those who are still pedestrians. Having a self driving car witch pedestrians around is like letting a wild wolf into a sheep pen.
There's a chance that there maybe a casualty just as much as there isn't.
That brings me to my next point.
I understand that the technology we have now is absolutely outstanding as compared to what it was only 20 years ago, but we really need to step it up.
With GPS, it doesn't quite always get right on the destination.
Say you're letting your car drive you home.
It could very possibly overshoot your drive way and pull right into your lawn that you had been slaving over getting mowed properly for the past hour and a half yesterday.
I think that they need to creat a more accurate GPS system, either that or create a new system all together that can detect speed, what's going on in front of/around you, and be extremely accurate.
As well as going home, going to the gas station will be a nuscience, too.
And that brings me to my last point.
If we were to switch to these cars, what would we use as a fuel reserve.
Would we switch over to electricity, since that's what the HUD system would most likely use?
Even if we did stay on gas and greatly reduce the an=mount used, the combination of all of the people who would be using them would still cause a great deal of pollution.
Plus people would see it as an oppertunity to get out more often without having to do nearly as much as normal.
With that in mind, one would have to think, "Could we possibly end up causing more pollution?"
All in all, I think that though, yes, some of my ideas are a bit far fetched, I have a point.
Yes, having driverless cars is an extremely appealing idea because it would save energy.
I'm just saying that, as there are pros to the situation, there are also cons to it, too.
I'm staying neutral in this case.
It would be great to see, but I guess time will be the ultimate teller. | 12
|
93ae44a | In the three stories, What is the electoral college?, The Indefensible Electoral College, and the Defense of Electoral College, each argue wether or not to keep or over throw the electoral Colloge. The Electoral college has been a crutial part of voting who stays or leaves the offic chair of america, But one thing for sure losing this way of voting is very questionable.
In the story, In defense of Electoral college, it eplains five very detailed reasons to keep the electoral college. The certainty of the outcome of this voting system has been accepted for years. Richard A. Posner explains, "The reason is that the winning candidate's share of the Electoral College invariably exeeds his share of popular vote."This quote given to us shows the certain possibility of who wins the share of the presidents seat. Each vote by the citizens of America is sent to chose the "qualified citizens" to represent their state in th election for president.
The person in the election for president also has to have a appeal to many regions. If the candidate is attempting to gain more votes by stayong in the same region he or she will not gain more electoral votes. When a person runs for president is they go into many regions to pursuade more people to vote on that person for president then they will gain more electoral votes.
The system does have a few errors in its existence. When people are voting someone to represent them they might make a mistake on wich candidate thier voting on. If people did have a direct vote for who becomes president then they have their exact opinion on who becomes president, but the system of voting still stands because most people in America like this way of voting better.
It would be better to have people representing each state with electoral votes because having every vote from every citizen of america sent to an individual slot for who should be president is overwhelming. instead, we have a system where each person votes on a candidate to represent their state in the election. It is a better way of using time wisely in voting for America's new president.
To close, Having the Electoral College system to vote is a fantastic way of showing who should be president for America. The Electoral College should stay because of the certainty of who will be next president and avoiding the run-off elections to prevent uncertainty of who will be president. | 23
|
06fa3b6 | Do you remember when the weather was mild with a slight breeze and you could go and just drive with the windows for about a year? Imagine be able to do that in a car that doesn't need your help to drive. Wouldn't it be nice to have that? I think it would and in the near future it might just be possible. They has been several motor compinies that are on tract to have a driverless model out in the year 2020.
The more you think about being able to absorb nature in a car the better it sounds. Think about driving around the Grand Canyon or taking a tour around Times Square in New York. Both seem like fun places to visit but when you are driving around rocks and trying to avoid clif edges or focusing on the traffic in front of you that may take an hour just to move one block, now that doesn't seem that enjoyable. Now in the future there is a possinbility that you could still do these things, still be in the drivers seat, but be able to look around and enjoy the sereny because your car drives itself.
Now you might be thinking that this is very dangerous and right now at this present moment it may be. However, with the way technology is advancing and the ability we have with it, driverless cars might be safer than cars driven by humans. Us humans have a tendency to always make mistakes and some of those mistakes cause injury and even death when we come to talk about motor vehicle mistakes. There has been plenty of fatal accidents casued by people not paying attetion or drinking and then trying to drive drunk which is one the stupidest mistakes someone could make in their lifetime. With the driverless car these mistakes can easily be prevented. No more do we have to not only focus on the road in front of ourselves but also to the area around us because the majority of driving is defense driving and watching out for other people. WIth these cars you don't have to worry about weather the car next to you is going to try to cut you off or if the person heading the opposite direction is going to veer off and speed into your lane. All of these cars have sensors and can detect what is around them, where they are going, when to stop, and when to go.
These cars are the cars of the future. They will be installed with the best and latest safety equipment. They will change the way of our everyday life. They will change the way we travel. These cars are coming and coming fast, they maybe be expensive at first but it won't take long before everyone has them. They may seem like a tale from a movie or a book, but they will be here before you know it , weather you are ready or not. | 23
|
2a7dcac | Think about the planets in the solar system, how about Venus more than the others. Studying Venus is like trying to study the bottom of a valcano or the inside of Earth. The planet, Venus, has many challenging aspects. Although the planet has these challenging conditons it also is the closest planet to Earth in density and size, it is one of the brightest points in the night sky, and many scientists think that there may have been life on Venus before.
Venus is the closest in density and size to Earth. "Often referred to as Earth's twin, Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size..." The planet is sometimes so close that scientists have tried to land spacecrafts on it. "Because Venus is sometimes right around the corner--in space terms--humans have sent numerous spacecraft to land on this cloud-draped world."
Venus is one of the brightest points in the night sky. "Venus, sometimes called the Evening Star, is one of the brightest points in the night sky, making it simple for even an amateur stargazer to spot." The name however is misleading. "This nickname is misleading since Venus is actually a planet. In our solar system, Venus is the second planet from our sun."
Many scientists think that there may have been life on Venus before. "Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth." The features on the surface are somewhat like Earth too. "Today, Venus still has some features that are analogus to those on Earth. The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters."
Some people might argue that Venus is inhabitable and should not be visited by any human because of the highly corrosive sulfuric acid and thick atmosphere. "A thick atomosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus." However scientists want to create a ship that hovers safely over the planet. "Imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape." "...A vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly ground conditions by staying up and out of their way."
Visiting Venus and studying it would be ground-breaking for the science field. Even though trying to study Venus is like trying to study the bottom of a valcano or the inside of Earth, it would still help scientists to know what the planet is like. The planet is the closest to Earth in density and size, it is one of the brightest points in the night sky, and many scientists think there may have been life on Venus before. So, before people go right to thinking about the dangers of Venus, think about all the good that could come about studying the "twin" planet to Earth. | 34
|
29e3246 | Twenty-five years ago a photo was taken of a natural landform that appears to look like a face. Many people will argue that it isn't a natural landform but, more of an alien artifact. While the two sides still don't see eye to eye they both have evidence that could support their belief.
While, some people think that the face on Mars is "bona-fide evidence" that there once was life there. NASA has defended that remark by saying that they wish that it was a mark of ancient civilization but, it's not. NASA has also made it a priority to photograph the face because, they felt as if it was "important to the taxpayers" to give them evidence that it wasn't an alien landform.
So, in 1998 they flew a shuttle over Cydonia, the face/lanform, for the first time to go take pictures of it. Thousands of people were waiting to see pictures of it. It had turned out to be just a landform ,like NASA had said, not an ancient lifeform. Many people disagreed with the pictures that NASA took because they had stated that it was cloudy during the time they had taken the pictures on Mars so, they couldn't really get a clear shot of the face. While NASA agreed with them that it was a cloudy time of year on Mars they are still sure that there has never been life on the planet.
While NASA hasn't changed there opinion because it is in fact just a landform. Many people still want good proof that it could quite possibly be acient civilization. So, they prepared to send up another. This time they sent it up on a cloudless summer day so that no-one could argue that the weather affected the pictures. NASA was right again. This time they took up a camera that zoomed in the structure and it didn't show anything new that would have meant that there has ever been any life there.
All together, these facts prove that it is just a landform. A scientist named Garvin was quoted saying "That's a lava dome that take the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars." The face is indeed just like a landform that we have here on Earth. Although the other side of this long running debate did have some evidence that might have made NASA think twice, there is still more proof that it is a landform. | 34
|
1852090 | Have you ever wanted to travel over seas to amazing countries, but still need a job? If so and if not you should participate in the Seagoing Cowboys program. In the program,you get to do a lot of fun things over seas.
If you are in the program,you get to go to amazing countries. These countries may include Europe, China, Greece, and wherever else they need you. In the story it stated that Luke, (me) , a Seagoing Cowboy, toured an excavated castle in Crete and marveled at the Panama Canal on my way to China. It was very fun to stay at the countires and to look at the amazing views as we went through.
In the program, you not only get to travel to amazing places, but you also get to help people and animals too. The UNRRA hired the "Seagoing Cowboys" to take care of the animals and people. We sail overseas with the animals and take care of them until we can get it to the people.
On the way back, the Seagoing Cowboys get to have a lot of fun playing games. We play baseball, volleyball,etc. We also do boxing,fencing,and other tournaments like those. We do this to pass the time on the way back and for all the hard work we have done over that time period we were helping the animals.
In the story it states that once on a trip I had a near death experience trying to help the animals on the ship. Although this is true, this event is very unlikely to happen, and I am still safe due to a piece of metal coming in my way to save me.
You or a family member should become a Seagoing Cowboy. You get to not only help people and animals, but you also get to travel through amazing countries, and get to have fun on the way back. The Seagoing Cowboys help a lot of people and it is very fun, and for those reasons you should become one of us, or better known as a Seagoing Cowboy. | 34
|
f28233c | In "The Challenge of Eploring Venus," the author suggests that studying venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. All throughout the artical the author gives lots of information on why we should study venus even with there being danger all throughout the planet. he talks about the dangers there could be, but the reward would be bigger in the long run if we explored venus. because of that he wishes to do so.
in paragraph 8 he states " Striving to meet the challenge presented by venus has value, not only because of the instigtht to be gained by itself, but also becuase human curiosty will likely lead us into many equally itimidating endeavores". he pretty much says that because of human curiosty it will happen with or without venus having dangers and he believes that we should do somthing before someone else does in the future. he believes even if there is high tempatures, radiation storms, and how 92% of the air is carbin dixoide which is all stated as dangers along with many other dangers of venus on paragraph 3. that we need to do more test and make more things to withstand veuns.
With all of these dangers it states in paragraph 7 "looking back to an old techonology called mechanical computers. these devices were fist envisioned in the 1800s and played an importan role in the 1940s world war ll" it wasnt actual computer, they didint exist in those days they were devices that made calculations by using gears and levers. the authour believes that is if somthing like that can survive world war ll than it should be made again to go down for testing and studying on venus.
all throughout the artical he has supported his claim very good on why we should study venus despite the dangers on venus. with loads of things of evedice all throughout this artical he talks about the dangers there could be, but the reward would be bigger in the long run if we explored venus. | 23
|
479e8ae | In my opinion, driverless cars would be extremely dangerous in certain situations. Especially with teenagers drivers. This invention could have a very bad outcome. Cars without drivers is pointless to me. How will cars know where to go how to get there? How will they be able to detect when there is a pedestrian trying to cross? Driving should not be made easier for our community because it is a part of everyday life.
Citizens will only become lazier and have no urge or motivation to not only drive but all other natural things. A car that drives it self will only make our country worse no better. It is cool when we see cars driving themselves in movie and on television, but is it really worth it? There are many pros and cons of this particular topic. Prod are there would be a lower rate of deaths and car related injuries because not many people would be driving. As citizens we also have to think about the small percent on people that could possibly be driving. What if a car without a driver had a malfunction and went out of control. I think the result of this situation could be far more dangerous than two drivers colliding.
As a teenager working to get my listens and start driving, cars that drive themselves are not very smart. I think driverless cars is just another way of asking for more conflict and death rates in our country. inbelieve the industry is trying to make electronics too much like humans. They are trying to make these products almost impossible to work, and in the long run lives will be lost. Then th question will be, "What should we do now? This was supposed to work." In my opinion technology is far too advanced now then it should be. I can only imagine what it will be like in five to ten years. I just hope driverless cars will not be in the near future. | 23
|
b95a421 | This is a great idea, because with those kind of cars there will be no more accidents. People are tired of driving, most of them fall asleep while driving. It will be like having a butler doing things for you exept the part that you have to do by your self for example; showering, brushing your teeth, and eating. The car is going to drive until it requiires the human skills. This project should be approve.
This project has been tested and there has been no problems with it. The car has sensors all over. One of those sensores tells the driver when too take over. Also, the sit vibrates when the car gets of track . The car will required human skills when there's an accident, constriction issues or traffic.
This project should be approve. If they approve this car there will be no more accidents and less people hurt. Everyone will be please by this car. | 12
|
a644369 | Smog, acid rain, high carbondioxide levles, all of these things are due to pollution. In many contries the leaders have put a ban towards cars. Paris France, Vauban Germany, Bogota Colombia, and even the United States of America have/are thinking about putting a ban on cars or other transporting objects. Their are many advantages to limiting car usage; limiting pollutians in the air, saving money, and having a healthier life style.
Cars can cost a pretty penny espically if their new, and many low/middle class family's have trouble keeping up with the bills that come with a car. Car payments alone can run up to $300 a month. Then theirs insurance, and if your car happends to need a change of oil, or breaks theirs another 200-300 dollar payment. That's why people are starting to buy fewer and fewer cars each year. After the peek in 2005 car percheses have droped tramendiously, with less people deciding to get a license.
Not getting you license dosn't mean you cant get around, it just means that you have to find other means of transprotatin. Biking, walking, even riding on your skateboard can get you from point A to point B. Cars are bigining to become obsoliet, not being used in larg suberbs, or highly populated cities. People have started to walk to work and that has a large impact on health. With people having privet cars they dont feel the need to have phisical activity every day. This could be contrabuting to obeasity. With cars being out of mind people are starting to get exersize just by walking to work. Cars have also contrabuted to many deaths all over the world. With new technology comming out many drivers get distracted. Wether its talking on their phones, trying to pick up something thats' dropped in the back seat, or even trying to dig something out of your purse. Not all drivers are a fault tho, many other accidents happen because of padestrians not paying attention. These accidents could be prevented though, by just getting rid of the use of cars.
Passenger cars cause 12% of greenhouse gass admitions in europe, and up to 50% in some car-intensive areas in the Unites States. If we got rid of most privetly owned cars though, it world bring that pecentige down tramendously. In Paris the record high pollution finally had them pass a partial driving ban untill the thick smog cleard the city streets. congestion was down 60% in the streets of paris, and after 5 days of intensifying smog it had finally cleard.
Cars all over the world are slowly becoming less and less used. This could help the pollution, health and save money. these advantiges to getting rid of cars is going to become a topic thast we will talk alot about for ages, until cars become compleetly and totaly obsolite. | 34
|
fb9e259 | Technology adavncements have come a long way since the primitive sticks and stones of the early human era and dueing this time humans have been constanly creating new inventions for different tasks. now there is a new technology that will allow people to calculate emotions. This new invention to read humans emotions to an exceptionally accurate percent can and will be a valuable asset later in life for reading our emotions which in turn will help tell the truth when we dont want to,find what is bothering people so it can be fixed, as well as keeping people focused in their daily lives.
This will be useful in our everday lives because it is a more advanced and accurate form of something we already use daily. for instance we as humans "calculate" these emotions when we are looking at a friend and we can "tell how a friend is feeling simply by the look on his or her face". but despite that we humans still cannot accurately describe and convey the truth behind the emotion. we may see a person who is happy but in reality they are very down and upset or angry. this is where this new technology comes into play. With this new tecnology people will be able to find the true emotion becuase it can detect mixed emotions and the emotions that make it up. because of this peoople then can respond in a way that is needed to either make the situation better or keep it on the same topic that it is currently on. this technology could also keep people focused and alert due to this technology responding to keep attention to the task at hand. for example
" a classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored ." "then it could modify the lesson like an effective human instructor." Or if you are an adult the technology could respond to your emotions and change itself to fit your needs the best. This use of the new technology would help both the people of the working class and students who are trying to stay focused on the class and its lessons. in addition to this the technology can also be used for entertainment. the technology would "make computer -animated faces more expressive" which would ensure more happines from the user.
Because of all the advanced tasks that the new technology can do such as help tell the truth, keep attention to task at hand, help fit itself to specific needs and create better entertainment. This new technology will come with great benefits and is definetly a helpful recource that should be implmented into classrooms and other facilities to ensure a better and more productive daily life. | 34
|
7b69c8e | My claim is going to be on the negative aspect on driverless cars. The one of the reasons that I am going to use is road problems. Also the next problem that I am going to be talking about is a pass for the drivers crime on a crash. The next thing I am going to talk about is the finacial rate. These are the most troubling thing that are running around in my mind.
The first of the many problems is the road problems that can hurt any one on the road. If there is a sewer problem in the middle of the street that the city workers are working on the driverless cars won't have a way to detect the workers. Yes they might install a camera or a sensor to indicate that and alert the driver, but it can alert him to late and the result on that is there is already a crash. Also the car can't tell whether their is a red light or a green light it can only go to the direction it was programed to go to. There can be many more problems that anyone else can say that I'm not saying and think to your self's "why do they need to alert you before the car doesn't know how to drive a certain way".
The second reason for the negative aspect of the driverless cars is the passes on a crash. I think that if a person is going to court for getting in a crash because of his driverless car. I am not saying that he should get punished for buying that car, but they should understand that that they should be watching the road. And if someone says that the were sleeping while the car was driving they should go to jail for it. Their might be a worst punishment for it, but they should already know the bad side of the driverless car is not a game.
The last reason i am going to talk about is the finacial rate. Well I should call it money problems for everyone, but I wanted to sound smart. The company will have to sell them expensive prices because of the hardware, software, and other technology that is being combined with the car is not cheap. The people that would want to buy or rent it would have to do alot of work just to buy the car. Buy alot of work I mean he has to win the lottery and still work to still make payments on the car.
There is alot more reasons but i leave it up to the different people that are going to write about it. I hope to the people that read this that there is a positive and a negative side to everything. But it is your life but make the right choices and make sure don't make any mistakes. And i wish you the best and the wish you good luck out there in the driverless car world. | 23
|
334d4b0 | Technology is a big part of today's society. I feel that technology is over used. People today are finding ways to have technology do simple tasks for us. For example, instead of using a book, a student looks at a screen all day. Now the idea of autnomous cars has been around for a few years. I am not for autonmous cars because texting while driving will increase, jobs at gas stations will decrease, and it will cause people of the future to become less active than they already are.
In today's society, texting and driving is another issue we have. If a person is in an autonomous car and are only needed when the car cannot navigate through certain driving conditions, the driver could text much more leading to wrecks caused by drivers texting. Therefore, the autonomous care being unsafe for the roads.
If autonomous cars begin to get popular, jobs at gas stations will begin to decrease. In the article "Driverless Cars Are Coming", it states "The cars he, Sergey Brin, foresees would use half the fuel of today's taxis..." This statement indicates that there will be less gas needed to put into this autonomous car which will lead to gas stations around cities will lessen. Some may say that is a plus because they don't have do pay twenty dollars to put in gas every week; however, I believe that if these autonomous cars come about, the need for gas will be less and jobs will be lost. Without people needing a whole lot of gas, what's the point in multiple gas stations around town?
People in today's society are already inactive as it is with all the technology that is available. For example, there is shopping online so they don't have to leave home and cellular phones and computers to connect with people without leaving home. The companies trying to manufature the autonomous car will be another advanced technology that will make today's people even more inactive. It seems today with all of these technology, the world will soon be over ran by all of these techonologies. Therefore, the manufacturers should not continue making devices such as the autonomous car.
In conclusion, I am not for autonomous cars because texting while driving will increase, jobs at gas stations will decrease, and people in the future will become less active than they already are. | 34
|
9aaf6d5 | The author does not support his/her idea to study Venus very well. The author presents mostly negative effects on humans researching Venus. He or she should have showed more facts for their side then for the negative side of visiting Venus for research. There are many dangers with sending humans to research Venus and the author states this.
The author states in paragraph 3 "A thick atmosphere of almost 97% carbon dioxide blankets Venum. Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere." The author goes on to talk about how NASA had the idea to send a hovering vehicle over to Venus to explore but if the clouds are corrosive how do we know how far they go. The temperature at Venus is also dangerous conditions for humans.
The author states that NASA had ideas to study using the vehile or simplified electronics. In paragraph 7 it states "some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simulating the chaos of Venus's surface and have lasted for three weeks in such conditions." If we send electronics over there to get pictures and calculations how would we put it on the surface and take it off of the surface. The author needs more details about this idea before stating it as a good idea. The author thinks that the hovering 30 or so miles above Venus is not a good idea because the scientist can't get samples to study Venus's atmosphere. The author states "Therefore, scientists seeking to conduch a thorough mission to understand Venus would need to get up close and personal despite the risks." The author isn't to worried about the humans getting sent up there and thinks they should do it in dangerous conditions.
The author states facts on previous missions but these do not support his/her idea. Previous missions to Venus were unmanned. The author also states in paragraph 2 "Each previous mission was unmanned, and for a good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours." If spacecraft didn't survive it how would humans.
The author needs more facts supporting his/her idea instead of against their idea. This article should be more like a argumentable essay with stating facts from both sides. The author makes this article more of a persuasive for the opposite of what they want. They need to get more facts and ideas for not only their side but for both sides. I think that this article was more opinionated rather than using facts to support the articIe.I also think the author did well with stating facts opposing his/her side but did not give me enough information to support their idea. | 34
|
9291bf4 | i believe that we shouldnt have driverless cars because it puts people at greater risk and its alot of money people would be putting into this design and we could be using the money for something else. what would be the point of a driverless car if you still potentially need a driver to take over when thngs get bad. in paragraph 7 it states that the car can only steer, accelerate, and brake themselves and all the designes are notified when the driver should take control, meaning that people still always have to be aware and pay attention so way waste money on something us people can already do without all the extra equipment. and whos to say something wont go wrong if the car goes out of control or the computer system breaks that would be alot of money to be able to get that fixed. Dr. Werner Huber said"We have to interpret the driving fun in a new way" there is no reason at all for us to create something that is not needed and could potentially be dangerous just because we want to create somthing thats fun. in conclusion we should not have driverless cars because whos to say something bad wont happen and it would be greatly expensive and you still need a driver to be alert so these computer cars wouldnt be necessary at all. | 12
|
bfaf295 | The author of "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" tries to explain the several complications of sending a mission to Venus. They provide tons of factual evidence about the geography and climate of Venus. They give many good points, but ultimately fail at their task to convince readers that Venus exploration is worth it. Along with a failed point, this author tends to go off on side-tangents that have minimal importance to the story.
"The Challenge of Exploring Venus" is an article about the positives and negatives of trying to land a spacecraft on Venus. He has a decent build-up into his first point while giving more and more small facts about our second planet. Venus is likely the most similar planet to Earth, with its rocky surface, hills, and mountains, but it has much more limiting factors to deter us from traveling there. It has terrible weather in comparison to Earth, with acidic carbon dioxide filling 97% of the atmosphere and with heats of 800 degrees Fahrenheit. The authors gives plenty of information about this planet, most of it relevant to the topic at hand, and therefore succeeds in teaching you about Venus.
Even after succeeding in information given, the author fails to promote the idea that travel to Venus is worth all the cons. They write about NASA wanting to know as much as possible about one of our closest neighbors, but don't give enough reasons as to why it's worth it. With acidic atmospheres ripping through machinery, technologies don't stand a chance on the Venusian surface. With the science that we have, the most we can hope for is a jet-like expirience, flying several miles above surface so that the pressure doesn't crush us instantly. Venus is additionally prone to constant volcanoes, earthquakes, and storms deadly enough to take out machinery. Given all this information, it seems like the author is trying to deter us from missions to Venus instead of promoting it, as they planned.
The final point to take into consideration when reading this article is the authors' side-tangents. Multiple times, the author delves into a side-topic as opposed to continuing on with the topic of Venus exploration. They start off the article with two sentences that have no relation to the story, yet confuse readers. The sentences are about Venus' nickname, the "Evening Star", and how even though it is a planet, it is still called this. This is completely irrelevant to exploration, as everyone knows it is a planet, and the "Evening Star" name is never mentioned again. Later on in the passage, the author rambles on about World War II-age computers and how they functioned properly even before the digital age. Once more, this is slightly irrelevant and does not contribute to the story at all except to add another paragraph instead of focusing on the specifics of how NASA is using them to help with Venus.
Overall, this article about Venus is less than "stellar". The author attempts to prove why Venus missions are a neccesity, but doesn't quite get their point across. They provide great knowledge and information, despite being off-topic occasionally. This article is full of great facts, but the delivery is off and could have potentially been a better read if the author was on the other side of the argument, which has more proof to back it up. All in all, the author does not support their idea the best. | 56
|
bff3d0f | I am in favor of changing the process in which America votes for its president;currently the when you cast your vote you are acctually voting for your candidate's electors whos votes do not become valid until [they] the electors are voted for by the [you] the people. A few problems with this process is expressed in an artical titled "
The Indefensible Electoral Colledge"
. With useing this process citizens sometimes do not have control over who their electors vote for, also voters may get confused and vote for the wrong candidate.
I can understand why other people may think my claim is wrong, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and should also be entitled to their own vote aswell which is why instead of voteing for someone who will vote for our president [
we
] the people should directly vote for our candidates. In the same article"
The Indfensible Electoral Colledge"
It states "Back in 1960, segergationists in the louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replaceing the democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy". They did this as an attemp to take the popular vote from kennedy. This just shows how much freedom the electors have with your vote. | 12
|
9b13fdc | You have just found out that there is a face on Mars. The only question is; is there a face on Mars? I am here to tell you that there is not a face on the planet Mars. The reason that it is not a "face" on Mars is; the time it was taken, that there are butte or mesas on Mars, and the amount of pixles it was taken in.
My first reason that there is not a face on Mars is; the time it was taken. Back in 1976, which was not a long time ago, but technology has changed inbetween the photographs. Their was new technology, but it was not as advanced as it is in 1998, or 2001. Like the sentence in paragraph 3 stating " a "huge rock formation. . . which resembles a human head. . . formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose, and mouth."" The statement is saying that it was not face, but a mere illusion given by the shadows.
The next reason to prove that there is no face on Mars is; There are butte,and mesa on Mars, and on Earth. A butte,and a mesa is a " lave dome that takes form of an isolated mesa."As it says in paragraph 12 also. " About the same heights as the Face on Mars" The paragraph is stating that there are objects on Earth like the ones on Mars, but we dont get the reflection of the Sun on Mars, like we do on Earth.
My last proving that there are is not and never will be a "face" on Mars is; The amount of pixles it was taken in and the resolution. As paragraph 10 states "captured an extraordinary photo using the camera's absolute maximun resolution." The camera in 2001, was more advanced than the one in 1976, but in paragraph10 is also states" each pixel in the 2001 images spans 1.56 meters, compared to 43 meters per pixel in the best 1976 photo." The camera in 1976 was only 43 meters per pixel, while the one in 2001 has 1.56 meters per pixel, keep in mind that they were at their best resolution, Thats over a 200% decrease in the pixels in a matter of 24 years.
In conclusion, science has came a long way from the original picture, and the scientist worked hard to prove that there was no life "face" on the planet. I have done my part of trying to covince you that there is no life, but the final question will be; Will you believe me or not? | 34
|
728ed08 | In the article "Driverless Cars Are Coming," i think its not good to have a tv in the car because its a distraction to the driver. If you have kids they might be laughing, screaming and doing other stuff that can distract you when driving. It is helpful for the car to be able to drive while the parent is taking care of there kids. It's okay to have Google maps and stuff like that to help you out.
Sensors are good because they could help you out when your not paying attention or when something is coming and you dont see it coming. They can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine which can allow the car to slow down quickly.
BMW announced the development of Traffic Jam Assistant the car can handle functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the friver keeps hold of the wheel. None of the cars developed so far are completely driverless, they can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but they are desighned to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills.
Some manufactures hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads up displays. Which can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over. In this way, the in-car system is acutally a safety feature.
Driving laws are focus on keeping the driver, passengers, and pedestrians safe. If we have this then, i think that it will help us out. The reason for this is because we wouldnt be focused on reading our texts, or anything like that. We know that our car can drive on its own.
I think it would be smart to have this in our car. It would help us out in the long run. It would keep the other drivers safe if we didnt have to worry so much about everything. | 23
|
7ac3dde | You may have heard of the new driverless cars! You may heard all the cool technology it has and how you will be the coolest if you have it. But even if you will be the coolest will you be the safest? That is the real question you should be asking yourself. My personal opinion on these high tech. driverless cars is that it should not be the next big thing in the world.
I say that these cars are no doubt cool but I still would not buy one and put my life in risk. I keep saying how these cars are not safe and I believe that because you never know when the car will just start messing up and put you and everyone around you in danger. All technology messes up and has glitches every now and then so who is to say these cars won't. Even though the company says the driver still will not be able to text and call. I know for a fact people will. People will think that the car has everything under control when that is truly not the case and they will stop paying attention to their surroundings. We need cars that people have to take control of and pay attention so they will stay aware and off their phones. Also if you fall asleep at the wheel it says that the seat will vibrate but if you are a heavy sleeper of if you were just extremely tired who is to say that vibration will wake you up in time before crashing? Also I believe people would get extremely bored just sitting there and having the car do all the work for them pretty much. Even though it says you have to keep your hands on the wheel you are still not steering you are just holding the wheel to let the car know you are still in the car and "paying attention".
These companies are saying that safety is their main concern but I just don't believe that is the case sadly. Never knowing if when the car may mess up is just down right scary. I just strongly believe these cars should not be on the roads. I believe they should just stay at car shows and be looked at but never driven.
Another thing in paragraph 9 it states that " traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver." I totally agree with them it is important that a alert person is behind the wheel controlling a automobile. These traffic laws make it illegal in some states to test self driven cars.
In conclusion I just stongly believe we should just stick to driving the cars ourself. We include technology so much in our daily lives already. Is it really necassary to have cars that can control themselves? Not it is not. All the reasons I listed above are really could questions you and the people who make these cars ask themselves. | 34
|
bff0f17 | I am against the development of these cars in the article, ¨Driverless Cars Are Comming¨, because they could be dangerous. I say this because the driver has to stay alert and ready to take over the vehicle if a situation pops up. Yes, there are postive aspects to this article such as: the driver would not have to drive unless needed, it could drive the driver if they are tired (but they must stay awake), the car steers, accelerates, and brakes itself, and it displays heads-up warnings like the vibration of the seat when it is going to hit something. But hose positive things could turn ito disasters quickly. In these disasters i am about to explain the driver coould be hurt, killed, or have a lot of dept due to car dammage.
One of the many disasters that came to mind when i read this article were, the driver getting hurt or critically injured, have lots of dept due to car dammage, or even death. I say this because it is true; these things could happen. One of the examples i thought of is the situation a am about to explain. So here is the situation: The driver got tried, so they set the car to auto drive. The car taakes over and the driver is still awake. Doesn´t sound like a bad situation so far does it? The driver´s eyes start to droop, the driver tries hard not to fall asleep but fatigue wins the fight. The car does not relize this yet and it keeps driving. Then the car senses two crashes have occured just down their road. The car vibrates the seat but the driver is out light a light bulb. The car then goes for the next displaication of giving the driver a heads-up by turning the flashing lights on the windshield. Nothing. The driver is still fast asleep. The car tries all the displays to try to get the driver awake and alert again but to great avail, the driver does not wake up. The car cannot brake yet because it is not near the accidents yet; so it keeps driving.
The car then senses the accidents and breaks; but the car starts to spin out of control of black ice. It had been snowing for weeks there and it had rained the night before and it all froze. The car goes spinning out of control towards the river near the accidents. Then the worst thing happened. The car and the driver went diving into the ice cold river. The driver finally wakes up only to scream with terror right before they hit the water. The driver? head hit the stearing wheel with such an impact that it nocked them out cold. The car sunk deeper and deeper till it hit the river´s bottom. People are above them watching in terror with horrified expressions upon their faces. Some are calling for help, but the help that was there for the people in those accidents had already left. The others are just frozen with terror, unable to move.
The car begins to fill with water slowly, the water is trinkling into the car in every crack it can find. The driver still knocked out does not expect this to be thier last day to be alive, to see thier family and friends, or take a breath of air; but it is. The windows begin to crack from the pressure of the water. Up above them on the road help finally arrives, but it is only the fire rescue and the police. They do not have the right tools to go into frigid water and smash the window open or get the door to open, unbuckle the driver and break to the top of the river´s frigid waters.
The people then see small bubbles, then they become bigger and more faster to break the surface of the water. The car´s windows broke inward and the driver is dead within minutes. later the right toos were brought to the place of the new accident and they bring the car up with the dead driver inside. The driver was a huspand that had just came home from the military and was going to visit his wife and kids as a surprize. Now the family gets to see thier huspand and dad; but he is laying on a table. His skin ice cold to the touch. He is bloated some from the water, he is bruised, bones are broken, and he is dead.
I do not think that anyone who read a story like that in a newspaper or in a book would want a driverless car to be made. Anyone that has a heart would see the dangers in a driverless car coming into this world. This is why i am against the article, ¨Driverless Cars Are Coming¨. | 12
|
3252ee0 | Technology to read emotional expression of students in the classroom is valuable? Is technology in classrom good for students for teacher can read there emotions. I think it would be good to hvae them in classrooms. Teachers should have them so they can read studets emotions. Here are my three reasons why teachers hsould have technology to read emotional expressions.
If the students like the teacher or any other students. If the teacher uses the technology on the students she can tell rather or not if the students likes her. If the students dont like the teacher can at least try to make that student like her. The teacher can tell if the student is going to give the teacher a bdad time by the teacher emotions.
I mean thats good to know because the teacher can know what student going to give her a bad time.
The students are in a bad mood or something or they getting bullied by a classmate. The teacher can know by using that technology on the student. If the student is in a bad mood the teacher can sit down with that students and talk to what student bully him. I think the teacher would find out more which students would catch the bullys. I think that technology would be grate for a school.
I think it could help the teachers know if the students would get that material. Like if they dont get it the teacher can use that technology and know if that student dont get. The teachers would ask that student if the students lie the teacher can use the technology. I think that would be great the teacher can help the student more.
Those are my reasons why technology of emotional expression should be in the classroom. Those are my three reasons why. | 23
|
cb7e33d | My Opinion on Facial Action Coding System
I would have to disagree with what the article is saying. Ok i get that technology is everything nowadays but this is a little to far. You might program it to have emotions,but its hard for the software to know what the person is feeling and understand how they feel. Its easy for a person to connect with another person because thats how they feel. Humans can usually give one another help and advice because they most likely have been through it themselves.
Its easy for a person to help and understand it because they understand the emotion that is happening to them. But when you just program something to have emotions its not the same. These people are writing emotional things and want people who understand that. It is very hard for a piece of software to understand that. If I had to write something very personal i would want someone who can relate to read it.
But it could be a good thing for the school because it could help the school know if the kid was upset or bad. The school could help the kid and figure out whats wrong. In paragraph 9 they gave you examples on good ways to tell if someone means the smile on there face. It has some pros but there are alot ot cons to it.
This article has alot of good points in it but I still dont agree with what it is saying. Science can be a good thing but I dont think science can be used and be helpful in this situation. Plus it uses the schools money and it can be used for better things. We can use our time and think of things and that would be useful.
In conclusion i think that this is useless. I totally disagree with what there saying and doing. Technology is soon going to be everything and we dont want that. Its like soon we are going to be run by robots. I just think we can use our time worrying about other things. I dont think this will help us at all in the future. | 23
|
2f46e1d | About twenty-five years ago, something happened around Mars. NASA, snapped photos of the object. On Mars, there is a face printed on the plant. People think it was created by aliens. NASA said it was created on it's own. Scientists figured it was just another Martian mesa. Those are common around Cydonia. A couple of days later NASA saw a nose, eyes, and a mouth. Everyone belived it to be a face of an alien, but NASA said it's just a face on Mars.
The face on Mars has become a popular icon. It has starred in Hollywood films, appeared in books, magazines and more! Some people think the face is "bona fide" evidence of life on Mars. Defenders of the NASA budget wish there was an acient civilization on Mars. The face, is located at 41 degrees north martian latitude where it was winter in April '98.
Mission controllers prepared to look again. Mars Global Surveyor is a mapping spacecraft that normally looks straight down and scans the plant like a fax machine. Thousand of anxious web surfers were waiting when the image first appeared on a JPL web site. The pictures were revealing a natural landform. Each pixel in the 2001 image spans 1.56 meters, com[ared to 43 meters per pixel in the best 1976 viking photo.
"As a rule of thumb, you can discern thinkgs in a digital image 3 times bigger than the pixel size". In egyptia-style prramids or even small shacks, you could see what they were! There must have been a degree of surprise among mission controllers back at the Jet Proupulsion Lab when the face apperared on their moniters. NASA, a few days later, unveiled the image for all to see. The authors thought it would be a good way to engage the public and attract attention to Mars.
What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a buttle or mesa. Landforms common around American West. People say thst it's a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars. | 23
|
4f719e3 | I think that it would be a great idea limiting the usage of cars and what the advantages are beacuse when people have cars u hearing about crahes and all the other bad stuff. so a good way to revent al this from happening would be to get rid of car uasage and make people bike or walk to wherever they want to go to. Also limiting the usage of cars would prevent all the bad stuff from happening and help have a safer life and a longer one too.
In source it talks about how their are now cars in germany in the Suburbs. street parking, driveways and home garges are generally forbidden. In the new approach stores are being placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along some istant highway. Heidrun Walter is a mother of two and use to have a car but sold to move to germany because alot of people alot of people dont have cars and she feels safre their because she knows that her children are going to be safe their. when she drove a car she felt all tense and freaked out. So in germany they tring ti create walking to stores or plaes that are like a block away because they feel like that is the best method.
The adavntages would be that u dont have to worry about getting all thses fines, getting your car impoud and not having to pay the fee. Also when u havea car u have to pay for the car insurance, the gas. Also it wouldnt create any cathos on the road and u would be much safre if the usage of cars went away because u wouldnt have to hear about car accidents that killed people. It would be a stress free world if cars went away. Also an advantage would be that u dnt have to worry about getting stuff stolen.
Ive explained to u that the limiting of cars would be a great idea because then u dont have to worry about all the bad things that could happen to the u if u had a car and u could walk somewhere or bike somewhere and that would be better than cras because it would be safer than a car. | 12
|
c1c3dc4 | How do you now there is an intellegent life form making these so-called supernatural phenomona? The fact's show that this is just a natural landform. I know the other side to this. You might be thinking to yourself"Why does it look like a face in the 1976 picture,Then suddenly goes back to a "natural"landform."The answer to your question would be that the image was unclear and really blurd in 1976,and as technology evolves the image gets sharper and cleaner. Thats when people start to think "How did this face on a planet we know little to nothing about desapear of the span of 25 years."Thats where conspiracy therios come in,and then we get protesters and signs say"NASA is lying"then we get no funding because of the conspiracy. the point here is that this is a perfectly scientific,logical phenomena that we can explain with a simple theroy. Erosion of time is one of the reasons there are so many land slides or avalanches. The mars "face" may have been a face at one point because it is a landform. Erosion is a simple little matter of eroding and object over time with the natural elimates and/or manmade objects. That is why The face on mars is not a face but Just mesa or a butte. | 23
|
018ff85 | Driverless cars are the future! "Google has had cars that could drive idependently since 2009. Thier cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash, but so far , Google cars aern't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when dealing with complicated traffic issues.'' Driverless cars have been around for a while now; even though they are not fully developed they are becoming more and more relavent and it's time to imbrace that. Imbrace that they may even help prevent any sort of crash in the future. While also getting people to thier destinations fast and saftely.
There are still problems to face even in the light of things. For example.
"Most driving laws focus on keeping drivier, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states t is illegal even to test computer driven cars." There are still many strides to take in acheving driverless cars on rode but as soon has those obsticles are tackled everyone will be much happier. With saftey has the main concern the laws that will be made for these driverless cars will insure that the utmost care and concern for health take precident. As soon
has the laws have been made the states wil also be more open the idea of a drverless car on thier streets.
Has stated earlier there are still a few problems with the idea of driverless cars but they are really close to frution. Possibly even on the cusp on perfection. "In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completly driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the rode ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires."
All of that simply means driverless cars are not 100 percent driverless but they very very close. If they can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves thats half the battle and the rest will follow in suite with time.
"Google's modified Toyota Prius uses postion-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotatng sensor on the roof, a video camera mountedd near the rearview mirrior, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS reciver, and an inertial motion sensor. The most impportant bit of technology in this system is the spinn sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR, it uses laser beams to form a constanctly uppdating 3-D model of the car's surrondings." The technology is there for the drverless cars to start becoming a real prossiblity in the near future. They may even fully take over and allow for a much more easy going experinces while driving. And also allow for beyond human level control of the ride.
" Telsa has prjected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on the autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plam to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. The rode to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us. but we grow closer to the destination everyday." Fully driverless cars really are in the near future. There are small little pushes that still must be made but right around the corner of those is a paradise of safe relaxing transportation for all to use. With driverless cars the future will be a bright one. And saftey while driving will no longer be a concern. | 34
|
cff14e2 | Venus is an extremely inhabitable environment for people. Although Venus is alike Earth in many ways, it has plenty of risk factors as well. In this text, the author makes it clear that there are bountiful amounts of information on Venus that humans could collect, but it is far too dangerous. He shows that we could find so much worthy evidence and history on this planet but it is simply too extreme. He makes note that even though it can reach 800 degrees, astronauts should still pursue the idea.
In the text the author states "Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also because human curiosity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors" (The Challenge of Exploring Venus). This shows that getting into Venus could potentially help NASA dig deeper into other planets. A whole world of information is neighboring our planet every day.
The author also states "imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape. Just as our jet airplanes travel at a higher altitude to fly over many storms, a vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly ground conditions by staying up and out of their way" (The Challenge of Exploring Venus). This shows we could still escape the harsh climate to get needed information.
Venus is an incredible planet, and with time humans will be able to explore it. This text shows strong proof that traveling there is worthy. With the technology we have today, the day NASA decides to go to Venus is just around the corner. | 23
|
dbd15ac | Well what do you think? Aliens on Mars are as likey as th moon being made out of cheese meaning, that is not possible. The idea of of that can be struct down by facts. It is simply a natural landform because it looks to much like a human face and if aliens made it how would they know what we look like. Also, there are no signs of life on the planet, and lastly it is just a bunch of creators on a mountian.
Lets look at some of the facts, while there is possible life on there it looks to much like a human face. If this was proof of aliens how would they know what we look like. It would have to many similarities to us. If it were an alien structure, they would have to be here living among us and they would stick out a little bit.
Another fact to shutdown the theory is Mars is not inhabitable. While still being about the same size of Earth, it is not possible to live on it. Mars is not able to produce oxegen because it does not have any trees, and while you would probably say aliens woud not needed oxegen, but I say every living thing needs oxegen.
Lasty, when you first look at it can be hard to see it is just a mountain. When you look at it, it does look it has a mouth, nose, eyes, and freckles. Though when you look at it closely, you can see the freckles are just creators. The mouth it is simply a dips between two mountains, the eyes are also just large creators. Also when you look at the nose, you can see an extention of one of the mountains.
It can be hard to see the diffrences and think t is an actual face, with fact that is not possible for it to be a sign of alien life. It can not be a sign f aliens on Mars beccause, it looks to much like a human face, The planet is inhabitable, and it is just creators on a mountain. | 23
|
61a90d9 | No it does not work because it is very un fare to the millions of voters in the U.S. Mainly because alot of the states donot even see an ad for the presidential campaign. Also because it is not winner takes all like it is for most states. So it is not fair mainly just because of bad publicity. Also because the presidential campaign could come down to one persons vote and depending if he is bias or not it would be very unfair.
The electoral college does alsonot work because it was created by our founding fathers. Which was all the way back when this country was first starting out. So the ways that they do it is so old and does not work anymore. These are the reasons why i think that the electoral college does not work. Anymore in todays modern times where it is all out dated. | 12
|
bed37c5 | Driverless cars are a newer technology that has greatly advanced in the twenty first centuary, but they are a long way away form seeing them on the road. It is evident driverless cars have a negative impact on society through safety harzards, lack of legal laws, and unreliable technology.
It is guaranteed driverless cars will be a safety threat to everyone on the road becasue they can not be trusted. Driverless cars would rely only on the car itslef to get you somewhere, and people who no longer have to drive themselves. In doing this people are no longer able to be held responsible for any crashes caused by these vehicles, because they would not be in controll of their own car. It is known that crashes would be much more likely, and this too means more death would occur. Many people will become turned away from driving on the road if they know others are not in controll of their own vehichle.
In todays society there are very few laws put in place about driverless cars, which would create many conflicts if these car were to exist on the roads. It is said in article about the intentions of traffic laws that "the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times." This means it will be very difficult for new laws to be passed which support driverless cars since a human would not be in controll of it. New laws would need to be put into place because it is evident when it comes to accidents with driverless cars people would need to be aware of whose fault it is.
Technology will always have issues where it fails to do its intention, and this is why we can not trust it with our lives. The human brain has the ability to think in a much different way than a machine would becasue they are just robots. If these machines which run off technology were more effictive than the human brain then everyone woudl have robots doing daily activites for them. As you can tell this does not occur in our socity today, because they are unrelliable. When driving a car you have to think and predict what could possibly happen. With the human brain we have this ability, but the technology driving the car has the ability to suddenly break and then the person in the vehicle would have there life potientally harmed. It will always be more reliable if you trust human knowledge over technology.
The safety hazards, lack of legal laws, and unreliable technology are all ways driverless cars will have a negative impact on the roads. Driveless cars may seem appealing becuase of the convience of everyone have a personal taxi driver (the car itself), but the negative impact outweights the prositive impact. | 34
|
265499b | In the passage, "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" the author suggests that, studying venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. Some of the reasons the author staes that venus is dangerous is because, the clouds have a highly corrosive sulfuric acid in the atmosphere, the surface's temperature averages over 800 degrees Fahrenheit while the, atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we are used to on Earth. Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system. Adding onto that there are, erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and freuqent lightning strikes. Venus is actualkly a lot like Earth with its, volcanoes, density and size.
Despite The planet's dangers, Venus is a very interesting planet with many things that astronomers are astonishes by. They believe long ago, that venus was like earth by a lot. They also believe that venus was covered with oceans and could have supported tons of forms of life just like planet, Earth. Even today,Venus has feature that are very similiar to Earth's. One of the biggest reasons for wanting to find out more about Venus in a serious note is for a planetary visit, if the time were to ever come. A lot of scientists and astronomers are very intrigued into the idea of exploring Venus even more. NASA has one idea for sending humans to study venus. They want to scientists float above the surface of Venus in some sort of blimp-like vehicle.
I believe that we should explore venus, i would love to know more about Venus. It's always fun learning about things that you never knew, which a lot of people like the astronomers and scientists. I think that exploring and studying Venus is very dangeous consdering the surface tempersature and the risky weather. I think that NASA would have their best astronauts be prepared and safe at all times. We dont know all the possibilties of what could happen while a visit at Venus, but if we ever do get to explore Venus we should be prepared with the best technology. I don't know if studying Venus is the most important thing scientists and astronomers are worried about, but at one point it would be great if they took it to another level. I think the autho explained why studying Venus is so important and why it is dangerous also. | 12
|
97d0bfd | The Electoral College was a system thought up by people who lived in a time much different than our own. And in that time, it made sense. It made sure that those who cast their state's votes for president, the electors, were well informed on the issues and the stance of the candidates for those issues. However, now that everyone has access to a wealth of information through the internet, newspapers and television, this is no longer a problem; this is why election by popular vote would be a better system.
With the Electoral College, voters don't have a direct say on who becomes president. They have to trust their votes in the hands of people they don't even know. People who could cast their state's votes for any candidate they want. This system is completely unnecessary now that citizens have a wealth of information about the candidates and their stance on certain topics.
If our nation switched to election by popular vote, everyone's vote would matter. In the Electoral College system, many people in states that are decisively one way or the other, don't vote, knowing that the overwhelming majority of the population of their state is against them. This makes certain people, like Democrats in Texas or Republicans in California, feel that their vote has no power. In an election by popular vote however, every vote matters because the people's votes directly decide the president.
Our Founding Fathers were geniuses to have come up with a system that worked so well in their time, however, old methods don't always stand the test of time. Election by popular vote makes more sense in today's world. The Electoral College eliminates the power of some people's votes and puts those that matter in the hands of people who could do whatever they want with them. This is why election by popular vote would be a better system for determining the president than the Electoral College. | 34
|
031bbb0 | Do you think this "face" was created by aliens? I think not because this "face" was not created by aliens but created by a natural landform. Landforms happen all the time, just because it happend on another planet doesn't mean aliens did it.
In the article NASA unveiled the picture for all to see and THEY captioned it "huge rock formation" . Which basicly means even NASA doen't think it was aliens who created it. Also after the articles states what NASA captioned the picture, it says "formed by shadows giving the ALLUSION of eyes, nose, and mouth." Its just an allusion not even a face really.
Also, the aticle says "there was no alien monument arter all." if NASA really believed aliens did that I don't think NASA would release it to the world. I'm sure the government is strict on them on releasing things to the public. NASA probably wanted people to pay attention to them so they can have their one minute fame. Skeptics think alien marking were hidden by haze. Come on really, all the great technology NASA has and you think it was hidden behind clouds.
The technology they have is great. When they finally got a clear shot to take a picture, they took it. After they took it, they zoomed in three times bigger... nothing. NASA said if there were any small shacks or evidence of aircraft you would have seen what they were. Marvin, from NASA says it reminded him of landforms created on Earth, so if an expert that works at NASA
thinks that it was created by a landform, then why do we think it was an alien or aliens that created it?
In conclusion, the "face" was not created by an aliens or aliens, but was just created by a landform. | 23
|
4408754 | There have been conspiracy theories going around that the Face on Mars is actually created by aliens, but it can be proven to everyone that the claims are false. The Face is simply a natural landform, and NASA is not trying to hide or distort the truth. Some may still be skeptical, but there is proof that the Face is not an alien monument of any sort.
As stated before, the Face is actually a natural landform. It's the Martian equivalent to a butte or mesa found commonly in the American West. Fellow researcher, Jim Garvin, even states that it reminds him of the "Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho"(paragraph 12). It can be proven that Earth landforms definitely aren't made from aliens, and the same could be said for the Face.
The Face isn't even an actual face, so it's unlikely it even is an alien monument. The only reason the rock formation resembles a face is because the shadows cast an illusion of facial features such as eyes, a nose, and a mouth. Pictures of the Face were captured two other times using the camera's absolute maximum resolution. Skeptics may believe that NASA messed up somewhere or that something was flawed, but it is highly unlikey that this is true. The procedure was performed on a cloudless summer day with the best camera at NASA's disposal.
Some skeptics may still doubt that the Face wasn't created by aliens, believing that NASA is just attempting to hide the evidence of an ancient civilization. In truth, this is false, but many defenders of the NASA budget wish there were signs of alien life. How can one believe NASA is keeping secrets about alien life from the public when it would benefit to do the opposite. Proof of an alien civilization would be more helpful to share than hiding it, so why do people believe otherwise?
Whether or not people believe the Face is actual just a Martian landform, it doesn't affect the researchers of NASA. Evidence to support the claim has been provided, but what proof do the skeptics have? Can they really disprove the truth or are they just desperate for attention? | 34
|
6c9fb6f | Dear State Senator,
I think that we should change the election by popular vote for the President of the United States instead of keeping the electoral college. The reasons I think that we should have it changed to the popular vote is because I think the people should be able to choose who should be our next president instead of having the electoral college also voting for the president of the United States.
Its not only me senator, but also these important men of our country all agree with me that we need to abolish the electoral college! These men are Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerse.''The single best argument against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster factor.'' I just find all of this unfair because its not just the United states giving there opinion on who should be there next leader but some other men who have favortism for the opponets also vote too! One example of how i think the electoral college voters are unfair is back in the election of President Obama and Mr. Romney the electoral voters had 29 electoral votes for Obama and Romney only had 3. So, that election could have been more fair if we didnt have so much favortism for one person to another. When we could have had a fair vote from the people and had the opinions on who should be there next President.
Now, in the defese of the electoral college it does help situations in which no canidate recieves a majority of the votes cast which can be very helpful when examples happen like Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 when they both had only 43 percent of the popular votes and the electoral college helped not make those elections as complicated. But, they still had a say so on who should be president and who shouldnt be president. I think that question should be answered by our own people!
Thank you so much State Senator for reading my opinion on the electoral college versus the popular vote for the President of the United States. I hope you understand where my opinion is coming from, in just saying that we need our citizens voting for who there next leader should be and not just the electoral college putting in there favortised vote!
Love,
Renee Edwards | 34
|
e8e2728 | In the artical "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" the author is trying to convince the reader that studying Venus is woth pursuing dispite the dangers in may cause and shows us. Sending people to a planet we know is dangerous is not a good idea if we dont have the technological advancements that we think we may need to protect the people going to Venus. The history of this planet is important to know about because it is very similar to Earth and not is one of the hottest planets in our solar sysem.
The author states that in the past Venus is thought to be a lot like Earth. Scientists think that Venus was "covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth." Since Venus is thought to be the planet most like Earth scientist want to discovey what happened to in that made in inhospitable and why it happened to this planet. They have shown that Venus still has a lot of similar features that are very closely related to Earths. The author says scientists would like to get more information by landing people and spacecraft on the surface of Venus but the spacecraft has been proven to last only a couple hours on Venus. This is why "not a single spaceship has touched down on Venus in more that three decades."
Although the spacecraft cant last very long on Venus it isn't NASA's fault says the author. Venus has a "thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide"
It also has clouds that contain sulfuric acid which are "highly corrosive" and causes serious damage to the spacecraft and in unsafe when coming through the atmosphere of Venus. Since Venus is so closely related to Earth it still does have earthquakes, stormes, volcanic eruptions and many more things that could make the mission even harder for them. The author knows that if or when the spacecraft gets though the atmosphere of Venus the planet has a surface temperature of about 800 degrees Farenheit and that is nowhere close to what we have here on Earth.
NASA is working on creating a "blimp-like vehical hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape." This would be a more sustainable temerature of about 170 degrees Farenheit and would rest easy at about sea level on Earth. This would allow the astronauts to view the surface of Venus without being severly harmed. NASA is still looking in on other ways to make the trip to Venus mush safer and effecent for them. NASA may not even send people up to explore the planet it may send up a robot that can sustain the harsh terain that Venus presents. The author explains that this still could not be the way they should do this. He compairs it to putting a cellphone in acid or heat and doesn't think it is a smart idea.
The author suggests that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers is presents. The artical was mainly focused on the dangers in and didnt really show that Venus was worth studying and mainly showed why it was too dangerous to study. The author explains that the history of this planet does tell us a lot and since it is one of the most closey related planets to us we should learn more about it, but a lot of dangers come with that and we need to be willing to face them. We need to work on our technological advancement to make sure the mission is safe. | 34
|
ec9466b | Have you Ever wanted to round up the cattle or take a daring job as a seagoing cowboy? My reasons are that a seagoing cowboy is hardworking, bone breaking and strong personthis is what luke faced In the text "A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves" By Peggy Reif Miller
First why do was a seagoing cowbiy is becuase that he was a heardworking cowboy Don his best friend was the one who Invited him to to go on a cattel boat in Europe. And luke just couldn't say no. At that time many contries were left in the ruins. so he sined up for a seagoing cowboy so it was his best friend Don that made his dream come true
Second why they chose to be a seagoing cowboy is that it is a bone breaking job.So they joined this program becuse they could help the contries that were left in the ruins. This is one reason why people shold perticapate in the UNRRA, And people should join the UNRRA becuase People could help the earth be a better place by giving the people food, or milk a dairy cow.
last why he chose to be a seagoing cowboy is that he is strong I think luke's claim is that this is not an easy task Becuse you will get hurt. The text states" a small strip of metal along the edge stopped his slide, keeping him from flying overboard into the dark Atlanic" This shows that you might be left with a few broken bones, Just a few right?
This shows that this job can be a bone breaking expience. Now you know what a seagoing cowboy is a hardworking, bone breaking, strong kind of a man. | 23
|
a361a02 | Imagine a world where people no longer control their vehicles, the machines they used to buy for the pleasure of driving and not just to get around while playing on their phones. Terrifying right? With the idea of driverless cars coming into view in this modern day and age we must pause from imagining the cool idea of these automated automobiles, and imagine the scary possibilities that very likely could come along too. Many of the people who push for driverless cars only see the idea of a car coming to them withouth them even having to move a muscle. However, these people most likely haven't conscidered the dangers and downfalls of the self driving cars. With these driverless cars comes the possibility that we as a people will become lazy, forget the enjoyment that can come from driving, and most importantly create many new risks and dangers in the driving world.
These days many people are already too lazy to even walk, but imagine if people no longer even have to drive. With automated cars becoming a possibility many are losing their minds over the idea of being able to get around without having to put forth any effort. These people may have learned to drive at one point, but with automated cars they may forget how to drive causing huge problems if they ever need to drive a car that can't drive itself. If we create these self driving cars we will end up with an entirely new breed of lazy people who most likely won't drive their car, let alone walk. The possibility of these lazy folks may be tragic, but is easily moved aside by the fact that self driving cars will take away the enjoyment driving can bring.
Many years ago an idea was fromed that would bring the demise of horseback travel and this idea was the car. Since the day the first car was produced driving has brought many people an immense pleasure that is unrivaled. For years people would save their hard earned cash for the newest car just to feal the power or gentleness it had while they crused the open roads for hours just their car and them. Now that pleasure is being threatened by the idea of self driving cars. With these new cars we will no longer have this pleasure. These self driving cars take away the enjoyment of showing off how nice your car handles or how fast you can drive it as the car does the driving and controls the speed taking away the freedom and pleasure we once had. Although losing the enjoyment of driving is robbery, the dangers of these new cars heavily out weighs our loss of pleasure.
Today's dangers of driving are things such as speeding and lack of awareness; however the dangers of self driving vehicles are much worse. When in a current vehical the dangers of driving are mostly things we can prevent such as rekless driving and lack of attention. With self driving cars they could malfunction leaving no time to correct the vehical meaning an accident or even worse such as death. If a self driving car is having issues the driver may not even be away and seconds later could lose their life. With human controlled cars we have time to correct ourself and most of the time are aware of problems with the vehicle, but not with cars we don't control. These possibilities brought on by self driving cars should be seen before we make the leap to the next generation of travel.
When lazy people, no enjoyment of driving, and new dangers are the risk of self driving cars we should stop and take a moment to think. When I see the risks of these new vehicles I already know that they outweigh the non existant need for self driving cars. These self driving cars bring much more negative than positivie and I disagree with the idea entirely. Take a look at people driving in this day and age and the answer of yes and no for self driving cars is obviously no. | 34
|
c60eda0 | The facial action coding system for emotions was developed to detect different emotions. It may seem creepy to know everyones emptions but it can benefit teachers. It can even help out people in general to identify different emotions on people. The technology should be used to read students expressions. The technology should be used in school for its uniqueness, lessons, and overall connection to students and teachers.
With the system, teachers can detect truthfullness in their students. It can help connection with students and their teachers, or even just peers. People can force different faces to convince others to think they are different that how they actually feel. But, with the system you can tell when someone is genuine about a emotion. For example, there are certain muscles that move when someone is truly happy. The muscular units move around, the muscles at the cheek bones lift, and the crow feet around your eyes move.
The system itsself is highly intelligent, and completely new to our generation. The technology is advanced and had never been created before. The sytem can calculate the percentages of different emotions on people. There are a variety of emotions that it detects such as happiness, surprise, anger, disguist, fear, and sadness. It can even be used for ads to see if someone is interested in a certain thing. If they remain happy, they will show similar ads.
The coding sytem can be used by teachers for lessons. Students can appear bored and not interested in class. With the sytem, teachers know when they are into and engaged into their learning in the class. The system would detect the facial muscles to recognize them as uninterested. Then, they can adjust the lesson to engage more students and improve their learning overall.
In conclusion, teachers and schools should utilize this system and work it into their lessons. It has tons of benefits to learning. It is something new and advanced to the society. Also, it can be used to get more students invloved in learning, and ensure excited engaged students. Overall, the coding system can help with lessons, connection, and its uniqueness to society. | 23
|
c47b3d5 | Many people question why we use the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. They think it's outdated irrational but we have been using this system for 100 of years. The Electoral College is a fair way to elect the president.
Certainly, the Electoral College has some flukes. Using the Electoral College system "your not voting for the president, but for a slate of electors," asserted Bradford Plumer, author of The Indefensible Elecotral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of system are wrong. Instead of voting directly towards the future president; the citizens are voting for the states electors for that party. What if it's a tie? "Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote," Plumer claimed. If it's a tie it is no longer up to the people, but it moves on to the House of Representatives and they decide. In the contrary, both parties select a slate of electors in trust to vote for the nominee and the trust is rarely betrayed. Also, there hasn't been many times of when the vote comes down to a tie. Therefore, the Electoral College should not be changed.
Above all, the Electoral College is fair and doesn't spark up as many disputes as popular vote. Richard A. Posner, author of In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President remarks, "a dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote is possible-it happened in 2000- but it's less likely than a dispute over the popular vote." It is less likely because the winner-take-all technique even the smallest range of votes turns into a landslide. "A tie in the nationwide electoral vote is possible, but it is highly unlikely." Even though the Electoral vote consists of 538 votes there is a possibility of a tie. The overall vote for each party would both have to equal 269 votes. Proof shows the Electoral College is fair.
Furthermore, the Electoral College doesn't have a majority vote. Plumer claims, "the Electoral College avoids the porblem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast." This exemplifies why the Electoral College has more fairness then the popular vote. If there isn't a majority vote the people are voting on what they truly believe. "Voters in the presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people who thinkg that a single ovte may decide an election," Plumer asserts. People voting don't just vote for the fun of it. They vote because they want a president who can make their lives better.
In final consideration, the election of the president should be casted by the Electoral College. It is clear that the Electoral College is the better choice because we have used it ever since it was created. Why change it now? | 34
|
f3e38db | I think the Facial Coding System is valuable for students in a classroom because then it could recognize students emotions. "A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored" Dr. Huang predicts. Then it could modify the lesson, like an effective human instructor." Most human communication is nonverbal, including emotional communication, " notes Dr. Huang."
The Facial Coding System is a 3-D computer model of the face. Eckmen, the creator of the Facing Coding System, classifies six basic emotions including, happiness, surprise, anger, disgust, fear, and saddness. Then, he associates them with characterisric movements of the facial muscles. For example, your frontalis pars lateralis muscle raises your eyebrows when you're surprised; your orbicularis oris tightens your lips to show anger.
"The facial expressions for each emotion are universal, observes Dr. Huang, even though individuals often show varying degress of expression" (like not smiling as broadly). The new emotion-recognition software tracks these facial movements-in a real face or in a painted face of Mona Lisa. The software can even identify mixed emotions.
This helps to know how students are feeling. | 12
|
00ccc2d | Space travel is something we people of Earth have just only begun to tinker with. Even after our many launches of aircrafts into the atmosphere, we know very little of what it truly out in the endless void of space. In the article, "The Challenge of Exploring Venus," the author suggests that studying Venus specifically is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. The author would be correct in this statement as we humans know very little about the planet because of numerous factors making it a difficult planet to study, but solving those problems would lead into advancement. Including that becuase the planet is closely related to earth, that could mean it supported life long ago. Lastly that striving to meet the challenge presented, despite the roadblocks, would lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors.
The planet in space we call Venus has a reputation for how troubling it is to study because of numerous factors. As included in the article, Venus has "A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets...clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid...planet's surface tempurature average of over 800 degrees Fahrenheit...Atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater..." Venus is an extremely difficult planet to study which is why it would be such an amazing goal to study it fully. If NASA and the people of Earth fight to overpower these issues, we would advance as a species, developing more solutions to fight these problems. By facing the problems presented by Venus, we would finally be able to study it and even find out is there is, or was life on Venus.
In the article, "The Challenge of Exploring Venus," the author stated that "Astromoners are facinated by Venus because it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system." Shortly after this, they also stated that "Long ago, Venusm was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth." The search for life in space has been one outrageously demanded by the public and Venus may very well be the place to look, after we can penetrate the bounderies it has in store. It was even stated in the article that Venus even has features extremely similar to some found on Earth, furthering the support that Venus could have or does support life. Regardless if Venus supports life or not, if we as a species can get past the barriers of Venus, would lead us into many equaly intimidating endeavors that we can surpass.
The author sugests that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents and supports that when they say, "Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also because human curiosity will likely lead us into many equaly intimidating endeavors." They also say in the next sentence "Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation." By surpassing the challenge of Venus, we will have the technology an wisdom to surpass other difficult challenges we may encounter, overall gaining the knowledge and power to gain more knowledge and power.
The exploration of Venus is indeed a difficult and dangerous task, but in the end would be worth while. By advancing our technologies we can bypass the dangers of Venus and pave the road to move onto even more dangerous and difficult tasks, both on out planet and outside our planet. We could gain the knowledge of how similar Earth and Venus are, finalizing if it could have or did support life at one point in time. And the factors making Venus so dangerous, would be minimalized and surpassed. | 34
|
9b42220 | In the passage "The Challenge of Exploring Venus," the author believes that studying Venus is very viable despite how dangerous the planet is. The author, however shows many reasons to support this belief.
The main reason why it is so difficult for us to explore Venus now is that the planet has an atmosphere made up of sulfuric acid and carbon dioxide, meaning that for humans and machines alike this planet is uninhabitable. There is also the fact that Venus is the hottest recorded planet, and that mere metals would turn to liquid being on there. Even with these challenges, astronomers still believe they need to explore Venus, as it's structure is very similar to Earth; meaning that it may have been able to produce life at some point. Although the odds seemed stacked against us, many scientists have been trying and testing out theories for years, such as with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, believes that they could send astronauts near Venus in a blimp-like vehicle, avoiding the immense heat and radiation that awaits on it's surface. Even with this theory, it does not fully help our curiosity of the planet, as with staying above means there is no way to collect samples of gas, rocks, or virtually anything. Other people at NASA have also theorized and worked on other approaches to studing Venus. They believe that simplified, silicon carbide reinforced electronics could help emmensely, as the metal can stay intact in Venus' harsh conditions for over three weeks.
Even with all the dangers of Venus being known, researchers are working on innovations that will help us learn more about our neighboring planet. The author states that "Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation." And with all of the facts he presents, he is very certain of this claim. | 23
|
d4c78e7 | In 1976 the queation was and everyone was also talking about the face thats is on mars. Most people think it is created by aliens but this essay is going to tell you some facts about the "Alien face". People think it is an alien face because of what the viking 1 photo from 1976. They also had it all over magazines which was also all over the world. They were in places like grocery store check out line, books, people also talked about it on talk shows.
April 5,1998 when Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia for the first time Michael Malin had his camera which was also a Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC). Him and his team while going around snapped a picture ten times sharper than the original Viking 1 photos in 1976. they figured out there was no alien monument at all it was just a natural landform.
May 24, 2001 It was just twenty five years ago when the pictures that were of the face on mars were being taken. NASA had an spacecraft the was circling mars and while the space craft was circling the planet mars it took a few snap shots of possible landing sites for the sister ship to land. which the sister ship was Viking 2. then thats when they seen the shawdow of the landforms. There are some facts about the "alien face" on mars. | 01
|
aa5c6ea | Most people might want to get rid of the Electoral College and change to popoular vote, because of how unfair, voters have no say so in who gets pick president.
One reason you might want to change to popular vote is because of how unfair they can be all because of the winner-takes-all system and this this system is in easch state, and because of that candidates dont spend time in states they know that wont vote for them. Just like you can't pick who you want your president to be.
Voters can't pick who they want their president to be its all the Electoral college. Voters don't even get to vote for the president thay vote for a slate of electors. just like if you live in Texas and you voted for Kerry you didnt vote for him you voted for 34 demcartic electors.
The only argument against the Electoral college is what we call the disaster factor. Americans should feel lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest problem election in a century.
Given that most voters vote one party for president and another for congress they do this becaus ethis think a tie or deadlock will happen but, consider this. In 1968 a shift of just 41,971 voters would of dead locked the election yet in 1976 a tie would of happen but 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voter in Hawaii voted the other way.
This right here is the most basic level the electoral college is unfair and should let the voters have their voice when voting. | 23
|
e57b857 | Autonomous cars seem like they would never happen, but our world is changing and they are just around the corner. Autonomous cars are cars that are driven by a computer and not a human. Although, a driver can still take control when needed. The computers know know to drive and when to stop or go. In the article it states that the autonomous cars will use half the fuel of today's taxis and they are more flexible than a bus. The new cars though are not in total control, the drivers still can drive. I do not think that the driverless are a good idea and they should not be developed. They are dangerous, very expensive, and making our world more lazy.
To begin the driverless cars are extremely dangerous. Some people will have the driverless cars and some will be normal. The driverless cars let the driver take over if needed. The seats will vibrate, the voice control will come on, or any way to get the drivers attention; according to the article. What if the driver fell asleep and is a very hard sleeper. The cars might not be able to wake him or her up in time. Then, resulting in a crash or even more tragic. I think that the cars that are not driven by a computer are in danger. The driverless car will know when to stop and go at a stop light, but what if another car goes on accident and they did not mean to. It could be a pile up and a mess. The cars are just not safe enough for me to think that they should be developed.
Another reason I do not approve of driverless cars are that they are expensive. Yes, they do get better gas millage, but the cost of the cars to begin with is going to be outrageous. Somepeople and companies are not going to be able to afford the cars. The cars savings on gas will never compare to the crazy cost of them to begin with.
It states in the article that the upgrades to existing roads will be simply too expensive to be practical. I agree with this statement completely that the money will not be practical. The cars do have more flexible schedules than busses, but i would rather ride a bus than a very expensive car. There is a possibility of it getting into a crash and then you would have to get it fixed with even more bills. The car is just too expensive and crazy.
Lastly, the car in my opinion is lazy. The world today would rather have someone else care for them and for them to just relax. Yes, relaxing is nice, but you have to know what work is. The car is just another way for the world to be lazy. Driving is not that hard on your body, it is moving your feet and paying attention. The car just allows the world to have another way to be lazy. I think that it is good for your body to pay atttention and keep your eyes on the road. It makes you not drift off and think about what you are doing. The people that will have to take control after the car can't go through crashes or traffic will not be on their top watch. They probably will be sleepy or not paying attention. I just don't like to think of another way for society to have a reason to be lazy.
In conclusion, I do not agree with the development of driverless cars. They are dangerous, cost a lot of money, and they are a way for people to be more lazy. They will not benefit our society in any way. People have more control over a car than a computer. The money that people don't have should be used on food not cars. Somepeople are having a hard time providing for their family let alone having a car payment too. Also society is lazy enough without these driverless cars. The development of autonomous cars should not happen because the cars are never going to benefit society. | 34
|
a28a827 | In the article "The Challenge of Exploring Venus," the author suggests that studying Venus is a worth-while task. Although Venus poses many risks to humans and technology, the information and resources that can be taken from Venus are overwhelming.
In the beginning of the article, the author explains the many complications that come along with trying to study Venus. Previously, more than three decades ago, there were numerous attempts to study Venus, but shorty after landing spacecrafts, they were destroyed due to the conditions. This is because of the daunting environment Venus possesses, the atmosphere is almost 97 percent carbon dioxide, temperatures can acceed 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the pressure is 90 times greater than the pressure on Earth. Although these environmental factors seem to be disasterous for almost anything that would dare set foot on the planet, the author decribes two possible ways to get around this delima. First the author describes an idea posed by NASA. NASA says that sending people to Venus is possible, as long as they're above the intense conditions of the planet. They say that hovering at around the height airplains fly in hot airbaloons, humans could uncomfortably survive. Second, simple systems that use mechanical parts, have been proven to last up to three weeks in a simulated recreation of Venus. Theses "rovers" could prove useful for grathering test samples that the balloons above the atmosphere would not be able to, also they would be able to take greater quality pictures and study the land more effectively. Scientists say that Venus could have supported life long ago; as well as have similiar aspects to Earth such as: large oceans, valleys, mountains, and craters. According to the author this would prove usefull if similar conditons arose on Earth, and would give us insite about the rest of the universe.
The reward of knowledge that would be yeilded from the daunting exploration of Venus out weighs the risks and complications that would arise. The author supports his argument well and makes a convencing claim. | 34
|
52f452e | Dear Senator,
The Electoral College is very important, but on the other hand it is rather strongly disliked. People crave mostly one thing and that is fairness. Fairness is needed for almost anthing, from how much you pay for groceries to the rules of Monopoly. Though fairness is at its most demanding during a presidential election. Picking a president is obviously very important but the way it's done has been a discussion for awhile. It's between electoral votes and popular vote.
To state my opinion, I think that popular vote is the way to go. I agree with this way because I feel like everyone could make independent decision and would feel like their vote had a little impact on the presidential race. Also, people could tend to bandwagon. For example, if someone is a republician and believe in the republician ways but all your friends or family are democratic, theres a slight possibilty that that person could vote for the democratic president just to fit in.
Another reason is that if you get your own individual vote you wouldn't worry about what the majority of your state is voting for. Plus instead of a whole state voting for one party the presidential | 12
|
d21cf9b | What if a computer could read your emotion?
In the University of Illinois, and the Univrsiy of Amsterdam Dr. huang and his colleague are experts at developing better way for humans and computuers to cummunicate.
This technology would alos benfite us in classrooms.
Making computers smarter and faster is more usefull.
The new technology would get more students involved with class and work aswell.
This technology would help students interact with clss work, and or school projects.
The way it would make students interact more is, when they are using a computer or a type of technology.
The device would read ther eemotion, if they get bored it would change into somthing fun and that wikll get them back on task.
A quote to support my claim is " A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored, Dr. huang predicts. Then it could modify the lesson, liken an effective human instructor".
The quote expains that the computer can read the emotion of a student if hes getting bored or confused, the computer can read it and change it to somthing else.
This technology could also help play video games or video surgery.
Another way this type of technology would be helpful, it could get people to do there task faster.
If we could get technology at the same rate of what us humans are capable of, life would much easier. A quote to support my second main topic " In fact, we humans perform this same impressive "calculation"
every day.
For instance, you can probably tell how a friend is feeling simply by the look on her face".
This quote explains of how us as humans can recongize what feeling, in our face expression looks like.
Another reason why this technology would help us is it would be able to make a 3-D model of past pictures to find out what there emtions were at the moment.
A quote to support my third and final claim " She's 83 percent happy, 9 percent digusted, 6 percent fearful, and 2 percent angry. No, that's not your science teacher, grading your lastest lab assignment.
It's the subject of leonrdio da Vinci's Renaissance painrio=ng, Mona Lisa".
This quote explains on how a 100+ year old portat can be simpled down and 3-D printed to show what the emtions of the Mona Lisa's were when the picture eas drew.
The overall look of this essay is that whether to use this technology or not.
This technology is very usefel and perfect for school.
This technology is good for doctors or sicentist to figure out other stuff.
This type of technology can go back into time and figure out what the emtions were, of whoever was in th picture.
The type of technology is usefull and smart. | 23
|
2835045 | I am in the Seagoing Cowboys program and you should be too.
You take care of cattle that are shipped over seas. Some people are proud of me some people are not. The text states, "UNRRA hired Seagoing Cowboys to take care of the horses, young cows, and mules that were shipped over seas."
We take not only cattle but supplies like food supplies. We took these to help. We help countries that were in ruins. The text states, "It was 1945, World War II was over in Europe, and many countries were left in ruins."
The text also states, "To help these countries recover their food supplies, animals, and more."
I turned 18 befor we got to greece.
Which means I can join the military.
They let me keep doing what I was doing for survice.
The text states, "Luke turned 18 which means he can be drafted for military survice."
The text also states, "When my draft board learned that I was on a cattle-boat trip, they told me to just keep doing that for my survice. | 12
|
91db757 | I don't think it would be worth the money to put in technology in a classroom to see what a student is feeling, because not everyone wants everyone knowing what they are feeling. What if that student just wants to be left alone? When I'm mad I don't want everyone knowing what's going on, I'd rather not talk to anyone unless I ask them for help about the situation. If they did put the technology in a classroom to tell what every child is feeling everyone would know each others business.
In the article it stated that it could help teachers know if the child is bored or confused, but does that child want the student to call him or her out on it? Probably not because if that student is struggling in class they don't want everyone knowing, if that student is struggling or confused then they need to ask the teacher at a seperate time if they don't want everyone to know how they struggle academically.
Not everyone is a emotional person they don't know how to share their feelings but they probably don't want some machine telling them how they feel and how they are feeling by how they look. Because anyone can fake a smile or a happy moment, but if that student doesn't know how to express themselves without a machine telling them, then they most likley don't want everyone else knowing what they're going through.
Technology has advanced majorly in just the past few years, but we are humans and we need to be able to show our emotions without a computer telling us how were feeling by how we look on that day. We all have bad days and we all have good days but on the bad day if that computer tells me I'm depressed then I could believe that and my mental state not be stable anymore because that computer told me I was depressed based on how I looked and felt one day.
We as humans need to learn how to express ourselves without using an emoji on our keyboards. Technology has made our lifes easier but again has changed too many things in todays world. | 23
|
1d580b3 | The Face? Created by Aliens or just a landmark?
Did you beieve that the "Unmasking the Face on Mars" was just created by aliens. NASA has given us many reasons to believe what they say, and not many reasons for us not believe them. I am a NASA researcher and I'm telling you why the "Face" is actually just a landmark.
There are many reasons why the "Unmasking the Face on Mars" is a natural land form. The first reason is that NASA took three different pictures, one picture was in 1976 in the picture you can't really see anything. Scientists just thought it was another Matian mesa. At this time the cameras weren't very 3D like. So how do we know it's an actual face?
The seacond reason it is a landform is because NASA
sent another crew to take more pictures of the "face." The crew took ten pictures that were sharper than the first one in 1976. In this picture you start to see something appear. They even say "when the image first appeared on a JPL web site, revealing... a natural landform. People were not very happy when they heard it wasn't a alien monument.
Another reason is that they thought alien markings were being hazed. So, when they went back it was a cloudless summer. In the text they say "Each pixel in the 2001 image spans 1.56 meters, compared to 43 meters per pixel in the best 1976 Viking photo. That is a huge difference from 1976. What the picture shows is the Martian equivalent of a butte or messa.
If you really think about it though, how come they jumped to conclusions so fast? In the passage it says it would be a good way to engage the public to Mars. Wouldn't it just attract more people to NASA to though?
In many ways there are more reasons to why this "Face" is more of a landmark than anything. From the different years they took the years, to the landmarks being hazed. You could probably think of a lot of questions to ask NASA about the photos and what the scientists are saying, but until you go up to Mars we will only know what they are telling us. Which is that the "face" is a mesa. They clearly say many times in the passage for people to believe that they are not trying to trick you. | 34
|
d1cf792 | This technology should not be used in a classroom environment. This way of telling emotions is just telling your facial expressions but not judging your emotions on the inside.
The pronblem is that technology can't tell all emotions. sometimes people look mad or sad but are really happy, if the computer is just looking the expression on your face then its really not doing anything. "Empathy (feeling someone else's emtional state) may happen because we unconsciously imitate another person's facial expression"(Ph9), when the author states this it shows that not all of our humanliy facial expressions give off our emotions. They have only tried this on a still frame pricture.
Emotions are not just expressions on a face but its also a feeling inside so if the computer can actually feel the way someone is feeling then this sort of technology could work. "of course, most of us would have trouble actually describing each facial trait..."(Ph5), we have these troubles because we are notfeeling what they are feeling.
In all this would not be a good idea because the results would not be accurate. Emotions are like feelings and can't 100% told by a computer. The pricing on this all of this must be tremendous and if school do want this technology they would have to consider that aspect of the deal. | 23
|
44e4879 | Recently scientist's have invented what is called FACS (Facial Action Coding System). FACS is a system that can detect what your emotion is, wether you are sad or mad it can detect how you are feeling through your facial expressions. The software can even identify mixed emotions explains Dr. Huang. The software does what people do everyday whether its noticing our friend is upset or knowing your mom is mad by just looking at her. FACS is becoming so popular its even being talked bout to be used in schools. The computers would detect if you are understanding what is being said or if you are confused about what is being said. Personaly I dont think this would be a good idea.
The reason I dont think this would be a good idea is because if the computers are seeing if you are understanding or not that takes away a big part of a teachers and students job. If a teacher notics a student not undertanding they should help the student, but its not only a teachers job its a students job. If a student if feeling confusd they should take it upon them to ask the teacher for help. If a student is not asking for help because they are scared of feeling embarrsed they should know that its okay to ask for help. If schools started using FACS students would never get a chance to come out of there shell and they would stay scared to ask. That would effect them when they leave school and enter the work force. If their boss asks them to do something and they don't undertand there won't be a FACS to detect that and they won't know how to aks for help because they ahve never been exposed to having to ask.
If changing our shcools to having to have computers detect a student isn't understanding we are in trouble. It might help at first but in the long run it would not be a good thing. Asking for help is a great way to learn social skills and not having that chance could make someone have bad social skills. I do not think FACS should be is schools for reasons I have stated. | 23
|
42b1a61 | This is a natural land form and i'm here to tell you why. Its a landform becasue on April 5, 1998, when Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia for the first time, Michael Malin and his Mars Orbiter camera (MOC) team snapped a picture ten time sharper than the original Viking photo. After reavealing. . . a natural landfrm, there was no alien monument after all. Another reason why I know it's just a land form because, when NASA actually gets a sceond look at the picture, it actually shows it is equivalent to a butte or mesa-landforms common around the American West. Garvin said it reminded him from the Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho. The shadows gave the the illusion of the eyes nose, and mouth. so, it wasnt really facial features it just was the shadows making it seem like it. In conclusion, thats why I know its not a face those couple of reasons and It would have not been able to be showing that clearly, unless that incident happened recently. | 12
|
0a31858 | The author do it a very good job, because, its very elaborate
Firts, the thougth of computers existing in those days may sound shocking, but these devices make calculations by using gears and levers and do not requiere electronics at all, and then maybe this issue explains why not single spaceship has touched down on Venus's in more thn three decades, numerous factors contribute, to Venus's reputation as a challenging planet for humans to study, despite its proximity to us.
However, peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited inshigt on ground conditions becuse most forms of light cannot penetrate the dense atmosphere, renderig standard forms of photography and videography ineffective, more importantly researchers are maybe we should think of them as challenges, many researchers are working on innovations that would allow allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowledge of venus.
my conclusion is this essay is very specific, because we need learn, about The Challenge of Exploring Venus. | 01
|
d1ec52e | There are alot of
new innovations being made. One of which is driveless cars. That may sound weird, but some car companies such as BMW, Audi, Mercedes-Benz, and Nissan plan to all have cars that are able to drive themselves in a couple of years. How would you like it if your car took over, but alerted you when needed? Crazy right. This might sound cool, but there are also downfalls and regulations to inventing these "driveless cars."
Even though some driveless cars come with antilock brakes and driver assistance, these cars can still have a mind of their own. Some car companies take it to the extreme and spend billions and trillions of dollars to make sure the car is safe and secure, but accidents still may happen. So would it be the driver's fault or the maufacturer's fault? That question is yet to be answered because the car was controlling itself, but also the driver might or might not have been alert and caused the accident to happen. Most people would blame the car simply because it was supposed to be driving itself. There's no surprise that with these type of high-tech cars, accidents may happen because anything could go wrong. It's more important for the driver to be very alert bacause it's just a car, it doesn't have a brain and is not built to do what a human can.
Another problem would be the sensors. Yes, sensors could be very helpful in any technological situation. There are also downfalls for this too. What if it has a glitch and makes the car turn or stop in a sudden? The driver would lose control of the car because it is doing what it wants. So the most that driver could do is pull the emergency brake in hopes that the car will stop. It might and it might not. Not saying this is a usual everyday situation, but it could happen anytime without expectancy. Alot of problems come with things that are built with many things and high-tech products, anything is bound to happen.
There are alot of questions that are un-answered about these cars. The most the companies can do is test a couple tie for glitches and setbacks. Accidents due to the car can result in a untasteful lawsuit to the company. | 34
|
7ccba59 | I am for the value of using this technology to read people emotional expressions. A few reasons I am for this experiment is because you can see how people feelings are, if a person has a hard time showing/ expressing their emotions to others, and see how others feel about you or another person.
This experiment can contructn a 3D facial model on a computer and pop right out and see how that person is feeling. The computer can classifiy the six basic expressions on a person, such as happiness, surprised, anger, disgust, fear, and saddness. Scienctist did a lab experiment on the famous Leonardo da Vinci's painting Mona Lisa. The experiment was to see if Mona was trying to smile or if she was being serious, so they experimented to see her expressions.
The technology associates with facial movements and mussles, that the computer can detected a false smile and a netural expression. The technology of the computer can detect if a person has a real smile or a forced smile on their face. A way to see if a person is forcing their smile is by looking at the sides of their mouth because the smile is stretched on the sides of your mouth using a different mussle, the risorius.
The theory of the experiment is not only tp show and figure out you expressions/ emotions but it can also help you with producing them. The whole story is talking about showing the emotions of your peers. | 12
|
3b564b2 | In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile." by Nick D'Alto he is talking about a new Facial Action Coding System. This coding system detects the emotions a person is feeling at the time. They rely on the muscles from your face to tell them what emotions you are feeling. Their are six basic emotions, happiness, surprise, anger, disgust, fear, and sadness. Classrooms and schools should not use this technology for multiple reasons.
Classrooms should not use this technology for more than one reason. First of all in classrooms all over the world there are teachers, and those teachers are just trying to give there students the education they need. So when there is a computer operated coding system in there telling you the emotions of all your students every ten minutes that might be a big distraction, ecspeacially for the students. Can you imagine a classroom full of first graders trying to get anything done when there is practically a robot in there classroom? Another reason why this technology should not be used is for the students sake; maybe they like to keep there emotions to themselves and not be told how they are feeling.
Finally the cost to install or buy one of these for every classroom would probably be threw the roof.
In conclusion, classrooms should just rely on the teachers to do there jobs and ask a kid what there emotions are if needed. Now maybe in the future this could be a good experiment to test out, but for now things are fine as is. Because technology has brought us so far, it is hard to completly go aganist but everything comes with time and im sure this will to. | 23
|
af85030 | Dear state senator,
I believe we should change the election process. You should change it to an election of popular vote and give the people power to decide not on the electors for the candidates, but just on the candidates themselves. It would be a much easier process, and at the same time, a much less expensive way of electing presidents.
There was a Gallup poll in 2000 that even states that 60% of the population of voters prefered a direct election instead of using the electoral college. That year, Al Gore won the popular vote, but, thanks to the electoral college, he lost the presidency.
Also, the electoral college is an unreliable way to elect the president because the people can't know for sure who chose the electors. Anyone could have chosen them!
This is why we should change the election process to an election of popular vote and let the people decide on the candidates themselves. It would save money by not having so many people in the electoral college to pay and it would be a much easier and fair process. | 12
|
1545f83 | My position to driverless cars is on the negative side. The reason i say negative is that i know nothing about it and it just doesnt seem safe to let a car, something with no brain, something that cant even think for itself drivea car for you. Technology is driving the car for you but wouldnt people get nervous because they dont know if the technolody would stop working or not thats kinda scarey. But i will explain why i am more on the negative side.
I think smart cars is a really good idea but i dont think its a good i dea to not drive the car and let the car drive itself. What happens if the car runs out of fuel or stops workin all of a sudden what are you supposed to do because alot of people know absolutely nothing about technology or even cars. What if the technology starst going out of control and theres no way to stop it, things can get really bad for the passenger and the company the car came from. They said in a driverless car some thing that is not available is texting while the car is driving, if the car is driverless it should be able to handle itself thats why it says driverless. They also said its 90% driver less so basically the car can run on its own for a long period of time without the drivers assistants and they never explained how far the car can go, the distance of the car can travel. They also didnt explain how many years the car can last without it causing any problems. In the passage said automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved but what about the near future what if the problems accur again how would you solve them ?
Smart cars isnt a bad thing but i dont think their safe and thats just my opinion. I dont think its safe for people to drive in an autopilot car and have no worries at all. I wonder if the cars stop working how many people are going to be without transportation or how many people are going to be broke just because they spent every last dollar into a car they knew nothing about, it was jsut interesting to them. I wonder how many people would think about their choice then. But in the end people are still going to but these cars. And another thing if its a driverless car than will you need a drivers liscense? | 23
|
11acec7 | Happiness. More money. Healthier living. Are all types of advantages that limiting car usage have.
In source 1 paragraph 3 the author Elisabeth Rosenthal put the qoute "When i had a car I was always tense. Im much happier this way" said a media trainer. Having a car means always having to drive around and figure out how to get much for gas and break downs. Without the car it brings happiness and you can clear your mind on a nice walk go to where you have to go. Also stated in source 1 paragraph 7 "All of our development since World War II has been centered on the car, and that will have to change." Americans and people around the world really havent thought about any other type of transportaion except the car. Just imagine giving your community a break for one day without driving how much cleaner the air would be.
In source 2 paragraph 10 author Robert Duffer states "After days of near-record pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city." No one wants their city to be full of pollution and breathing smoke all day. In source 4 paragraph 32 author Elisabeth Rosenthal states "But America's love affair with its vehicles seems to be cooling." Every year fewer and fewer people arent getting their driver's license because they dont feel the need to have them because of other forms of transportation.
On the other hand many people desn't like the limiting of limiting car usage. In sorce 2 article 12 Duffer states "Almost 4,000 drivers were fines, according to Reuters, twenty-seven people had their cars impouned for their reaction to the fine." If its only one day of nondriving its not like your going to die if you dont drive, walk or take public transportaion. Also in sorce 2 paragraph 18 it states "Delivery companies complained of lost revenue," if public transit was free of charge from Friday to Monday then why complain, it might take you a little longer but youll get it to the.
Their are all types of advantages that come with limiting car usage. Limiting car usage now will help us in the future by helping the community and keeping down pollutiong, and many people around the world will save money. | 23
|
6f371e5 | In the article "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" it talked about on how Venus is a worthy pursuit to explore but it has a great danger that it presents for the reason that theres procaution to take before going to Venus.They would have to see how the oxegen it gives out and also to see if theres anyone living there such as humans or creatures or animals . Another thing they would have to worry about visting Venus is the way its planet gives out enegry,tempature,"impediments such as erupting volcanoes,powerful earthquakes,and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface"(3)
The author explained on this article on how Venus would help us to find new planets that we are able to live at and to also grow and expand the human population in different planets.In Venus they also believed that we are able to explore new expirements.The author explained on paragraph 4 that " Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life,just like Earth." This short pharse that the article has it explains on how there can be life in this planet that theres humans or some type of people who we still have not seen yet. The author also explains on how he considers Venus as a "twin " of earth that theres water at venus and maybe be oxegen at Venus also . Venus is the closest planet to earth .
There is also dangers to seek a new planet. Theres alot of procautions to go to new planet . It says in paragraph 3 that " A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon diocide blankets Venus.Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere. On the planet's surface, tempatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet." This part of the paragraph it explains that if we did go to this planet the heat would be so hot that i believe that we will melt the second we get there . It has a great danger of death if we do go to Venus and its a risk to the people who are still studing Venus.Venus has the hottest tempatures for the reason that it goes a fast rate around the sun so it keeps hot all around its planet. Its also a great danger for the reaosn it has additional impediments such as valcanoes ,earthquakes,lightning strikes .(3) All of these inpediments we will have to see before going to Venus.
All of these explains its reasons on why we should and should'nt go to Venus.For all of these reasons i believe and the author too that we should start studing Venus becuase it is worthy pursuit. What the article says that they may be new chances on finding new areas and explore new things that may benifet us in the long run . Theres a chance on finding new humans and new type of cures and to be able to find new types of examples .We have noted that theres water in Venus and that there heat and we see that Venus is close by our orbit and it the closes to Earth . But we should not stop seeking new things to explore we should let the human mind to knowlege even more that we should not stop for danger situation that we should risk and hope for the best . For the reason that theres even more things that
we havent seen with our eyes. | 34
|
8dbbcc8 | Dear Senator,
I am sending yhis message to let you know that i strongly believe that we should have Electoral vote. With the Electoral collage it allows for us to make there a set number on the amount of votes we can get. That being said the Electoral collaeg wpuld make it alot easier so the states adn national governmant to get the right amount of votes.
With the Electoral College, it all depnds on if you state agrees to have a certain person as president. As informed in "What is the Electoral College?" it states that " The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the president. This makes it a majority vote i order for you state to win for which ever candianate.
During the 2012 election with Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, Romney had to win Ohio and Florida's Electoral vote. But becasue Obama won Florida he remained in office as our president. With this Electoral vote its a amke or break. Its not always the best thing but its the right thing. With the Electoral College you vote for a slate of voters who then vote for president. As Richard A. Posner informed us, " Its entirely possible that the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote. Yet that has happened very rarely. It happened in 2000, when Gore had more popular vote than Bush yet fewer electoral votes." This shows you that the Electoral Vote is more important.
The Swing States are what determines the election. These states are different for every election becasue they will always find which one is better. The Big States is the states witha lot of electoral votes , including California who has 55 electoral votes. The higher the population the more Electoral votes you have. When a Run off election happens the Electoral College doesnt allow for Majority of teh votes cast.
Overall you should not take the Elctoral College away. Without The Electoral College there would not be a fair shot for the canidate to win. You should keep the Electoral vote!!! Help A canidiant bye keeping the Electoral College. | 12
|
e45e3ee | In "Driverless Cars Are Coming," the author gives examples of both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. The article has more convincing exaples of negative aspects of "driverless cars". "Driverless cars" are something that should only be seen in movies.
"Driverless" cars can only drive under certain conditions, so why pay extra money for a car that can only do basic things when you can do them and more yourself. According to the article,"The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents."
Why would anyone want to go 25 mph in a 30, 35 or even a 45. People already complain about how slow traffic is. ow about getting to work in 10 minutes with out traffic in a "driverless car", when it only takes 5 minutes with traffic in a regular car. The "driverless cars" are not really driverless all they can do is steer, accelerate, and brake, but the driver still has to do every thing else. Is the "driverless car" really worth wasting money that was earned by working hard? Americans are already struggling to find money, are they now just going to be broke because everyone wants a "driverless car".
We have laws for a reason, why would we change them just because someone watched back to the future where they had flying cars? The car manufacturers believe that states are going to overide the laws just because California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have passed a new law were "driverless cars" are only limited. Laws are put in to place for a reason, this particular law was put into place because no one really knows if "driverless cars" are safe. The text states, "Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that saftey is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times."
There are so many unanswered questions about "driverless cars". Do we really want to put something out in the streets that we hardly know anything about? Most people are scared when they do not know the basics of something.
According to the text,"If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault-the driver or the manufacturer." Most people would not buy it if they can buy it get injured in an accident and it be their fault because the car is not safe.
Although the article has more evidence leading to why we should not have driverless cars, some might argue that it is fun to adventure. The "driverless car" would be a easy way out if you do not like driving, and can put enough faith into something you harldy know about. Some might argue that change is good, but change can sometimes be bad.
"Driverless cars" are something that people should not have. Why waste money on something that no one knows if it works or not? Is taking a risk better than being able to assure the safey of everyone? Car manufacturers should get all of the questions answered before they start selling "driverless cars". "Driverless cars" are something that should only be seen in movies. | 34
|
d5081a7 | Do you think the Face on Mars is a legit person or just a landscape? Is it just mother nature pulling tricks on us? I think it's just a landscape trick. It happens all the time. Like the potatoe with a face on it. Here is why. First, the face doesnt seem to have a body attached to it. Second it looks like it is attached to the ground and, third there has been no sign of life on mars.
First of all th face looks like it was sculpted. It has no body that can be seen. Unless it is a decatetated head. The land scape couldv'e played an trick on us.
Second of all It looks attached to the ground. If it were a readl head the end outline wouldnt be smoothed in to the ground. It would be laying on top and have a shadow showing the back side the the skull.
Third, there have been no sign of life on mars. Yes, we have found flowing water but we have not found any type of living orgamisim.
So here is why I think that the landscape is playing illousions on us. First, The face looks scultped. Second, It lookes attached to the ground and third, there is no sign of life on mars. | 12
|
78c57a0 | For many decades scientists have tried to land spacecrafts on Venus but any of them had succeded. One the reason is because of Venus extreme temperatures which there average is 800 degrees Fahrenheit, making it really hard to land because it will even melt submarines who are used to dive in the deepest part of our oceans. Another reason is he's thick atmophere of 97% carbon dioxide that will make things even more harder but that is not all; Venus also have highly corrosive clouds of sulfuric acid.
Then why try to visit Venus by such extreme conditions? This is because astronomers are amazed by the similarities that once had with the Earth. Long ago Venus once was covered by with oceans. Imagine that a living hell once had water that could have supported forms of life, just like Earth. Scientist also says that the Earth have a future of were it can get to amazingly high temperatures in which no human can't live no more and they are considering moving to another neighboor planets.
In conclusion Venus sounds not a option but the fact that once had water it make us this a option to. By this the NASA have a idea to hover 30 miles or so above the ground to have a sight on Venus, doing this can have a limited insight of the ambient and scientist cannot make experiments with Venus's rock, gas, or anything else, by such a distance. NASA is also making other approachment to study Venus. They are trying some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide which has been tested and can last around three weeks in the conditions of Venus. | 23
|
b4885af | The development of driverless cars has been going on quite some time now. I think that since they have already wasted all this time and money trying to build a self driven they should keep on working and trying to build a car that is completely 100% self driven. There are many positive aspects of having a self driven car, but there are also some negative aspects.
One of the positive aspects of having a self driven car is you would no longer have to suffer trying to stay awake on long car trips. You could just set the destination for your car climb in the backseat and take a long nap until you reach your destination. Or you could watch a movie until you get there. Another positive aspect is you would be able to text while the car is driving. You would be able to do that because the car is driving itself so you don't have to have your eyes on the road the entire trip. One of the most positive aspects of a self driven car is there would most likely be a large decline in car accidents. If there's a decline in car accidents that would also mean there would be a decline in deaths because of car crashes.
Now for the negative aspects. One of the negative aspects of a self driven car is there would have to be a ton of law changes. The laws would need to change because like the passage said "traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times". Because of that most states don't allow self driven cars to even be tested. That is one law that would need changed because if you continue to develop the car and its still illegal to drive then you have just wasted a lot of time and money to make a car you can't drive. Another negative aspect is someone "driving" a self driven car and they get in an accident and someone gets hurt, who should be at fault, the driver or the person who made the vehicle? Another negative aspect is that the car still isn't 100% self driven. The human in the vehicle still has to take control sometimes to navigate through certain situations.
Like I said in the beginning there are both positive and negative aspects of a self driven car. I think they should continue to develop the car because it could be very useful in the future. With that being said I don't think I would ever want to own one because I like to be in control of my vehicle, but I would like to test one out someday. | 34
|
e80f2b4 | I agree with having driveless cars. I think that having driveless cars could be good, but with some changes made to it. Yes, it uses less fuel than what most people already use today to go places, but if Google is saying that it's going to be driveless car, then it has to be a driveless car. You can't drive it, it has to drive itself, know when to stop at stop signs or red lights, know when to go at a green light.
As I read the passage, I noticed all these different things that the car cannot do that we want it to do. If this is suppose to be a driverless car, then why do we still have to have our hands on the wheel? Can't we just get in and have it atuomatically turn on as soon as it feels weight being put upon it? Then all we would have to do is buckle in, take out or phones and scroll through picutres and what not.
If Google really wants to make this a driverless car, then make it one. Don't make it to where we would still need our hands on the wheel, helping the car. It should know how to do everything already. We shouldn't have to back out on our own. The car itself should be alert when there's an accident, not us. The car should be alert when there's work zones, again, not us. The car should be alert at all times.
Everyone in this generation is already trying to text while driving at the same time and try not crash, but it still happens. Alot of people now are driving drunk which is bad. With driverless cars though, that won't happen. Everyone would be safe and we wouldn't have any accidents anymore.
When we get into the car, the car should back out on its own. It should know when to make hard stops if some other car gets in the way, it should know when right away where it needs to go when we tell it.
I honestly still think that having driverless cars will be better than what we drive now. More people will get into less accidents, no more reckless driving, no more texting while trying to drive. Everyonr will be safer with driverless cars. The world could be a better place with them and no one would ever have to worry anymore. Parents wouldn't have to worry about their kids going out and not crashing. This could solve a lot of other things. Drunk driving being one of them. With driverless cars, the driver has no control over the car. So, if someone decides to go out and get drunk and then head home by themselves, the car will get them home safely without any trouble. No one will get hurt.
We'll be a more safe enviroment with these cars. Less fuel, less accident, less reckless driving, less impatient drivers as well. There will be more less drunk driving and those drunk drivers hurting or even killing others while driiving. Everyone has different opinions about this topic, and this is mine. | 23
|
571a8fb | In the artical Car Free Cities people all over the world are going carless. In German suburbs life goes on without cars. About 70percent of famles go witth out cars people there walk or ride a bike to where ever they go. In Vauban Germany street parking and driveways and home gerages are forbiden in sted people park there cars in a huge parking gerage. they buy a space when they buy a house there
In Paris after days of near record poluuution paris enforced a partial driving ban so they can clean the air. In congestion it is 60% of the captil of France. After a couple days of smog in the city on monday people with cars wth even numbered license plates. Were ordered to leave there cars at home. Almost 4,000 people were fined and some people had there cars in pounded for there reaction to the fine.
In Bogota Colombia it was the third strate year cars have been baned with only busses and taxies permited. The captil of 7 million people the goal is to the reduce of smog and to finde alternate transport. The day with out cars is part of an campaign that began in in Bogota in t emid 1990s. For the frist time two cities joyined the the day with out cars.
The End of Car Culture president Obana has ambitiouus goals to curb the United Sates greenhouse gas. Recent studies sugest that Americans are buying less cars and driving less and getting fewre licents when each year goes on. the United States is the home of the modle T and home of Detroit the place where mustang Sally was immortalized.
At the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona,spain,Bill Ford the executive charmin of the Ford mtor compiney lade out a business plan in which personal vehicle ownership is impratcil or undesirablel.
Excerpt from "The End of Car culture"by Elisabeth Rosanthal
Excerpt from "car Free Day Sprining into a big hit in Bogoat" by andrew Selsky
Excerpt from "Paris barns driving due to smog" by Robert Duffer
Excerpt from "In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars " by Elisabeth Rosanthal | 01
|
61c7b5a | The author of "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" is able to suggest and back up their claim of Venus being a worthy pursuit despite it's dangers by stating facts showing how science and technology will help us in the pursuit of exploring to Venus. They gets us concerned by stating the perrils of exploring venus. Then they state why the audience should be interested in exploring Venus, and proceeds to counter the perrils by stating technological advancements being made to lessen the extreme environment on Venus.
The author shows the perrils by first stating the dangers and compare them to intense atmospheres on Earth, such as how the ground temperature on Venus is over 800 degrees fahrenheit and would instantly melt most metals. Another example that he gives would be when they states that the gravitational pull of Venus would crush a submarine that was meant to explore the deepest depths of the ocean at Earth. One more example of this would be when says that staying above it is still a danger because of how hot and unbearable it would be. Those are the situations that he has listed.
After saying all the dangers of exploring Venus the author decides to mention why scientists are still attempting to explore the dangerous planet. An example would be that Venus is very much like Earth. In the article the author mentions Venus and Earth having many of the same features, such as mountains and valleys as well as evidence showing Venus possibly containing water and oceans. Another thing the author tells us is that the planets orbit at different times, so at times Earth may be closest to Venus, and other times we are closer to Mars. Those are all reasons why scientists wish to explore Venus further.
The author, after having told us the conditions and reasons to explore Mars goes further. The author then states technological advancements being made to help survive the conditions on Venus to obtain samples and such. An example the author gives us would be mentioning A device that would lessen the conditions on Venus to make it at least tolerable. Another example would be creating a lab that would create the same atmosphere as venus so scientists could create machines capable of surviving the harsh environment. Those are all examples stated in the text.
After stating the perils, the motivations, and the advancements towards Venus, the author is able to canvey their message in a clear and concise way. The evidence used to back up their claims are able to show how important Venus is to Scientists and mankind alike. Venus should be further explored despite have harsh conditions because it's the closest thing to Earth. There are also technological advancements being made to adapt to Venus in order to possibly inhabit Venus. | 34
|
0e680b3 | I am personally against the idea of driverless cars. Some people are already dangerous behind the wheel as it is. I don't think a computer would do any better behind the wheel. Dirverless cars can be very dangerous and I think people would be better off not being lazy and driving themselves where ever they needed to go.
One reason that I am against driverless cars is that they are not 100% driverless. There are still issues that the car can't handle on it's own and will require the driver to take over. Driverless cars can be very dangerous because if the car would ever require the driver, and it fails to alert the driver in time, there could be fatal consequences. Drunk drivers could also try to take advantage of the fact that the car would be driverless and have the car drive itself. But if he driver were to be too drunk to take over, it could casue a very bad accident.
Another reason that I am against driverless cars is that they would be compter dependent and would run on it's own. And every skilled programmer or hacker would know that you would be able to hack the computer driven car to do what ever they wanted it to. Hackers can already hack a lot of vehicles as it is, they can send codes to a smart vehicle to unlock and even start the car without owning or having the key to the car. There are way too many dangerous things that could possibly happen with that to list. Hackers could change the course of the vehicle to any given location, they could make the car crash itslef, and they could make the car failt to alert the driver and every one would blame either the driver or the car.
One final reason that I am against driverless cars is that people today are already lazy enough as it is. We don't need computers taking over our lives. People are becoming more and more dependent on technology causing them to be lazier. One example that has already been made is in the Movie Wall-E where everyone was in floating chairs that were controlled so no one would ever have to walk again, making them even lazier and very obese.
I am really against driverless cars and I think that they would do way more harm than good no matter how much time, effort, and improvements they have made on it. I think we are better off just driving ourselves where ever we needed to go and that we should be less dependent on technology istead of being completley dependent on it. | 34
|
b35f2a2 | Driverless cars are defintiely something that not only will make lives much easier, but will also make traveling in a car much safer. The introduction of them is revolutionary, and soon, lawmakers will not have a case to ban them from being used. With these cars, human civilization will be changed forever, for the better. Driverless cars are the future of luxury and safety in automobiles.
First of all, the cars could make lives exponentially easier and more luxurious. With the task of having to drive themselves, people could take driving as a time to relax and think. As stated in the article, there could also be entertainment systems in the cars themselves such as televisions, gaming consoles, and computers. So long as the devices are ot operable anytime the car requires human input, there would be no safety issue involved, and may even serve as a safety feature, alerting drivers of possible imminent danger.
Next, safety in driving would be increased to a near accident-free point. With every car making safe, legal turns, following the government mandated speed limit, and using a GPS to ensure following a safe path, how could any accidents even occur? The only cause of an accident would be a malfunction in the vehicle, which is very rare in even today's cars. Human error would be almost completely eliminated, making today's cars seem like deathtraps compared to driverless ones.
In conclusion, these cars would bring a new level of safety and entertainment to people's lives, maing the highways cleaner and the driver's seat more enjoyable. With driverless cars just ahead in the future, human civilization will be drastically in day-to-day life for the better. | 34
|
02f6c8a | Since the time of its discovery, the "Face on Mars" has baffled many people. Its resemblance to a face has caused it to gain much popularity, which has even led to a movie being made about it. Unfortunately though, there are people that would like to believe the Face is a sign of alien life on Mars. They have named and stated a number of arguments about why it is a sign, and even have claimed NASA is hiding it from the public. This is not true however, as the Face is simply just a peculiar looking landform. Yet, several counter-arguments and points must be made to drive home the fact that the face is just a landform.
Many theories that the Face is a sign of alien life on Mars have been spawned by the creation of books, magazines, and even movies that have been made about it. Almost all of the stories these things tell about the Face are science fiction, with a key emphasis on the "fiction" part. Sadly though, some people have chosen to accept these ideas made by an author or producer as the truth. Most of the theories about the Face were made for good stories to the people, so that their books and magazines would sell more. But, one must not forget the people who claim they have the scientifically correct reasoning behind why the Face is a sign of alien life on Mars.
The people who claim theories that aren't from commercialized stories regarding how the Face is a sign of alien life are a little more credible than the others, yet still can be easily proven wrong. This is because their main, and in many cases only, argument centers around a 1976 photograph of the Face. When another photograph was taken in 1998 however, the picture showed that it was simply just a landform. One counter-argument to this is that the camera must've malfunctioned or the picture wasn't clear enough, in which there is one fact that makes that counter-argument dissolve. The camera in 1998 reportedly "snapped a picture ten times sharper than the original Viking photos.", which would lead to the assumption that the 1976 photo wasn't clear. If that's true, then the "Face on Mars" actually isn't a Face at all. Simply put, the Face is a natural Martian landform.
In conclusion, the "Face on Mars" is certainly an interesting landform, but is in no case a sign of alien life on Mars. All theories about how it's a sign of aliens have been swiftly and easily disproven, and has been further proven through updated pictures that it is just a landform. Even though finding a sign of alien life would have been more interesting, one must always stick to the facts to know the correct solution. | 45
|
9235e6e | The driverless cars are a bad idea. In theroy, they sound wonderful. But in reality they are a safty hazard. To start with the driver needs to stay aware of the car and traffic, they cant go through construction, and are still are not legal in some states around the U.S.
The driver has to stay aware of the other things around them. Even thought you still have to keep your hands on the wheel because of the touch sensors. The article states, "In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless." This statment shows there is still room for human error in these driverless cars.
Even though human error is still involved, these cars still can't go through construction areas or around wrecks but they still alert you when you come across it.
the prompt states, "But all are designed when the road requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around acciedents. this means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires." People are still needed to drive these cars, but we still have to do the hard part the old fashion way.
Even with accident warning, these cars are still not legal in some states like California and Nevada. For example, "As a result it is illegal even to test computer- driven cars. California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have led the country in allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars." They don't Think it's safe enough to be driven in highly populated areas.
These driverless cars are a hazard. even though they could be helpful in the future. In some way they seem to undertested amd people don't want to trust them. Manly because you would still have to pay attention to the road, still have to drive through construction and wrecks, and are technically still not fully legalised in some states like California, Nevada and Florida. With a bit more field testing these driverless cars could be one of our greatest achivements. But they won't be totally ready until 2020. | 23
|
5246ba5 | The unmasked face? Some say it's aliens, but i have proof that it is just a natural platform.
Mars Global Surveyor and Mars Orbiter Camera team snapped a picture ten times better than the original vikings photo. The picture revealed that it was just a natural platform. Thousands of web surfers were waiting to see the image. They waited just to see there was no alien monument after all. Which made a lot of people unsatisfied. Few scientist believed the face was an alien artifact. Which made photographing a priority for MGS. And thats what they did.
It was winter in April '98, so it was a cloudy time of year on Cyndonia. The cameras on board MGS had move through clouds to see the face. So they thought maybe alien marking were hidden in the haze. April 8, 2001, a CLOUDLESS summer day in Cyndonia. MGS drew close enough for a second look. Malin's team captured an "extraordinary photo using the camera's absolute maximum resolution. The picture actually shows that the Martian equivalent of a butte or messa. Which is a common landform around the American West.
This "face" had became a pop icon. It starred in Hollywood films, appeared in books, magazines, radio talks. It even haunted grocery store checkouts for 25 year! Some people think the face is a bona fide evidence of life on mars. Evidence that NASA would rather hide. Defender of the NASA wish there was an ancient civilzation on Mars.
The unmasked face? Or should i say the butte or the messa? | 23
|
b0ea0e8 | Driverless cars could be the future of our world. Citizens around the world could relax in a diverless car after a long day at work but still be alerted to their surroundings. Development of driverless cars could help people all around the world. I would like the development of driverless cars beucase it could demenstrate how a young teen is supposed to drive, how safe it would be with all the side features, and small problems could be fixed quickly.
A young teen that is learning to drive could ride with an adult in a driveless car to see a visual presentation of how to drive. Many young teens learn by paying attention so if they do that while in a driverless car they could driving in no time. Teens could see how easy it is to drive a driverless car when they want to take control of the steering wheel. This would be a good example of stopping most teens from texting while driving becuase it would make them so focused and alerted to their surroundings they wouldn't have time to text. Teens would be even more safe however, with all the safety features in driverless cars.
Driverless cars would be even more safer than a regular car with all the new developed features. Companies like BMW developed a traffic jam assistant in their driverless car to help the driver see what their around. BMW have made progress in trying to intercept driving fun in a new way. Heads up displays and vibrating seats are other ways that have helped driverless cars be developed in the future as a change to all drivers. Driverless cars have many equipped items to make driving safe however, driverless cars have some problems that can be fixed easily.
Driverless cars would be ran by technology and could have problems that can be fixed. Driverless cars would need an engineer that knows what to do to keep a driverless car from going out of control. Mechanics would also help an engineer with technology by helping the exterior like the wheels. Driverless cars would need insurance to help with accidents and car replacements. The devleopment of driverless cars would be great for us in the future but, what would be argued against the development of driverless cars.
Driverless cars are going to have some problems that are good and that are bad but that wouldn't stop the development of it. Driverless cars would be a great way to teach the young teens how to drive and be on alert while in a car. It would develop a great sensory system with enough protection for all the passengers of the driverless car not just the driver. With enough hard work from engineers,mechanics, and technicans a driverless car problems could be fixed in no time. The development of a driverless car could change the world dramatically. | 34
|
4049cd4 | In the article the author believes that we need to try to see more of Venus, however, going to Venus is very dangerous. Many people believe that the trip to Venus would be too dangerous given the real dangers on the planet. The author gives us both sides of the argument as to if we should keep trying to go to Venus or if we need to stop and focus our time on something less dangerous. We do have the chance to see what Venus holds because of the technology we have in todays world. It would be a very major accomplishment if we could get a person to land on Venus.
Venus is a dangerous planet, we do not know what is under the "carbon dioxide blankets". The author of this article says that although Venus is 97% covered in a thick atmosphere, we still hve a chance to see what is under it. One way the author included was to send a hovering vehicle to Venus and have it take pictures of the planet 30 miles abover the land. Although they do say that because of the thick carbon dioxide you would not see anyhting because the lights we have will more than likly will not be bright enough. Yet the author still believes there is a soultion to that problem and all the other ones I might add.
At the end of paragraph 5 the author says "Not easy conditions, but suriviable for humans." you see the author says that it is "around 170 degrees Fahrenheit and the air pressure is close to sea level on Earth " and it seems unlikly for a person to be able to handle the 170 degree heat let alone the air pressure. Then the author goes on to tell us that we can use a hovering car, still it is a good idea but again the pictures would not be clear at all, which would defete the idea of a hovering car. There are many good and bad things about sending things up to try and get a look at Venus, and the author seems to think there is more good than bad. They do tell us that NASA is working on taking new approches to study Venus, like he said " some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simulating the chos of Venus" and if that is true then we may be taking a step in the right direction.
Winding down the author says that " striving to meet the challenges presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also becuase human curiosity will likly lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors." this quote proves that we are going to want to try and see more planets but if we can not get close enough to one of the closest planets around us, how are we supposed to get any further. The author makes many good points in this article, we should try to go to Venus, maybe not send a person up there right away, but we need to see what Venus has in store. The universe is bigger than just our solar system, if we can not even find a way to see Venus how are we going to go anywhere else. The author shows us both sides of the argument and the good that could come from going to Venus is just amazing. It could even be the greatest accomplishment in a long time. | 34
|
5a40c03 | Have you ever thought about the future? As a day gose by we have to start think about what will today be in 10 years from now. i can picture my self getting into a car that has automatic opeing doors and the car driving it self. We are living in a society where new thing are being made every day, just like the new cool hoverbored.
There are many pros to the new invention people are coming out with. Several of the ones i have herd are about how they will make life a lot easier. For example look at the new hover bored, a flat surface that can move right left back forward yes this make life easier but it also effects us. You could be walking places that will give you good extercise.
When you take a look at car driving themselfs that is kinda scary though. just imagen what could happen if the car took a wrong turn and there was a big trailer coming that could be your last day alive. We see on televison and movies that have long been fascinted with cas that could drive themselves but that is all but in reality that is all fanticy made by a computer. this world has taken it a step to far on how we are just being here for nothing why dont we just have computer do everything. Because that is what it looks like.
In conclusion I feel that this is a very hard topic to arrgue about beuase yes I would like to make life easier but at the same time I want it to be safe. I feel like we should be take life nice and slow and more car driving on there own for a bit firther in the future. | 12
|
04e1cec | Have you ever been really bored of something, but your teacher in class can't tell? The Facial Action Coding system can be enabled on computers that can identify human emotions. There have been many scientists and researchers that are working on this so it can detect your emotions by the muscles in your body. It is kind of like when you are trying to detect a friends emotion because you can tell how they are feeling.
Imagine this a system that can read your emotions based on your facial expressions that is based off of facial muscles. This is something we already kind of do when we try to tell a friends facial expressions. This is something that we humans should be happy to have we hate being bored and a computer would be able to tell that we are, so it would never play that video or ad again which would make it would modify the lesson for each person according to Huang. Also if you really liked that video or ad that was just played they would play simliar ones to it.
Dr. Huang also explains that most communication is non verbal in fact most of our communication is non verbal.
So, what is the Facial Action Coding System you might be thinking. Well the facial action coding system is a computer that constructs a 3d model of each persons face. This must take a while since we do have 44 major muscles in our face. This computer is basically supposed to be able to detect at least the 6 main basic emotions. Happiness, surprise, anger, disgust, fear, and sadness. The machine can do so by it can tell the characteristic movements of each facial muscle. The article describes like when you raise your eyebrows you show surpise and when the muscles around your lips it shows anger. This can be benificial in a lot of ways especially when it can tell that you don't like something. Also humans might try to guess facial traits, but we can't describe each facial trait someone has.
Surely you are thinking that a machine can't detect somebodies emotions, but it could detect that the Mona Lisa she was 83% happy, 9% disgusted,6% fearful, and
2% angry. The machine might have some faults at first, but surely if they can make something like that they could improve it. This could be what humans need something or somebody that actually knows how we feel. If that's not convincing if we have psychologists that can detect our emotions based on our smile why can't they help the people coding these machines and get everything right.
In conclusion, is there a machine that can detect our feeling. There could be something or someone that can help in the near future, but currently this is just a project. This is something that could be in the future that will replace our current computers and/ or our smartphones. This is a start to something that could reveal al lot about us, our faces, and our emotions. | 23
|
82af6a6 | My name is Luke I had joined the UNRRA program in 1945. In article " A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves " talks about the participation in the Seagoing Cowboys program .
In the passage they talk about me and my adventures although breaking my ribs wasn't so plesant . In this passage
I will tell you what I think IF more people would have joined the UNRRA program.
I think that joining the UNRRA( the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation
Administration) would be fun and exciting because you would be able to vist many countries , and you would be able to learn and see many new things every trip you made . That is one of the many reasons Don and I joined the program .
UNRRA about hiring "Seagoing Cowboys" to take care of young horses , young cows , and mules that were shipped overseas. UNRRA was formed to help Eroupe and many countries that were left in ruins by World War ll,to help these countries recover their food supplies , animals, and more .
In August 1945, I had recived orders to report to New Orleans. The day I arived was the day the Pacific war had ended.
I got seaman's papers and boarded the SS Charles W.Wooster, heading to Greece with cargo of 335 horses im addition enough hay and oats to feed them . My birthday had passed before arriving to Greece I had turned 18 which meant I could be drafted to military service . By the time I it was 1947 I had made nine trips the most of any Seagoing Cowboy.
I got to see many new and cool things on my trips . In the passage it tells what I got to see on my trips in the passage it tells " Besides helping people, I had the side benefit of seeing
Europe and china . but seeing the Acropolis in Greece was special, he says . So was taking the a gondola ride in
Venice, Italy , a streets of water." I also toured an excavated castle in Crete and marveled at the Panama
Canal on my way to China.
I had so much fun and it was an exsperience of a lifetime besides the picking after the animals and breaking a few bones ,but it was all worth it, and I bet so many people would enjoy it as well as I did . That is why I think that morepeople should join th UNRRA . | 23
|
0a7fbd0 | There has been a fuss about the Elector College. Many people get confused about how it works and if they're satifyied with the whole process. Show we "abolish" the Elector College? Should we keep it? Honestly we should keep it. We the peope have more then enough control on who is chosen for the president of the United States Of America. We don't really vote for the president but our vote impacts the decision.
Many citizens of the United States Of America think their vote doesnt matter, it does. Why? Well, first the government is runned by the people. Its very rare to not get the president that has the most popular votes, the last time when the president wasn't chosen was in 1888. It's less likely for the president with the most votes to lose the election. For example, Obama received 61.7 percent of the elector votes compared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and Romney. Plus, almost all states award elector votes on a winner-take-it-all basis.
Perhaps, there was no system. Would it be simpler? Yes it would but we have to also be fair, there is 538 electors and a majority of 270 elector votes is required to elect the president. When you are voting for the president ypu want to win,you are actually voting for your canidate's elector. How does the system work? First it's the process that has the selection of the electors , the meeting of the electors where they vote for the president and vice president , and last but not least the counting of electoral votes by congress. Obviously it is kind of confusing because it would be much simpler if the winner would be the one with the most popular votes.
Did you know that the Elector College avoids the problem of elections? They do due to how much pressure the candidte can go through. It can easily complicate the presidential process. For instance, Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had only a 43 percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the Elector College (301 and 370 elector votes exactly). When avoiding the elections and campaigns , there a better chance of clear winner.
So there you have it,three main reason's why we should keep the Elector College. We have why the process is important and why we have it. How the process work's because it was confusing to many people , so it's defined and hopefully you'll like to stay and support the Elector College. Your vote does matter. | 34
|
7979641 | I my name is Luke I am a seagoing cowboy. Being a seagoing cowboy is a lot of work but I managed to have some fun on board with my buddys and I think you will meet a lot of nice people if I could have fun you can to.
My Buddys and I like to play table tennis , volleyball, fencing, boxing, reading, and whittling.
There are a lot of responsirbiltes, you have clean the stalls and have night watch. You get to see a lot of amazing places, I have been to italy and China. You have to be very careful when its raining it can be very silpery and watch where you step if you know what i mean (poop).
Another reason why I became a seagoing cowboy is it held some new adventure so if you are the advertures type you might want to be come a seagoing cowboy someday.
I'm just trying to say it is a great opertunatie to becaome advertures person or an exicting person and you never no maybe you go down in history some way some how. Even if you don't go down history you will have a lot of story's to tell the grandchildren. | 12
|
2421da3 | "The Face" on Mars has brought up alot of attention. People are debating whether or not it is real or fake. There are two sides to the argument. Is it a sign of aliens or civilization, or is it just a natural landform on Mars? Some people even say is it even a face at all. Let's find out what it really is.
The face can be argued as a landform or something that an ancient civilation made. We as a whole, NASA, have confirmed it is a natural landform found on Mars, a mesa. Mesas are actually quite common in the American West according to the article. There has been no signs that an ancient civilization has lived on Mars, so it is highly unlikely that the face could've been built by aliens. Although it is possible, it is highly unlikely.
If there was alien life on Mars, we (NASA) wouldn't deny it, because all it would do is bring us more money and more exploration to do. If there would be one sign of ancient civilization on Mars, then that might just mean that it could or once did support life. We have checked to make sure that there is signs of life on and near the face by taking multiple pictures like the pictures in 1976, 1998, and in 2001. Some said that alien markings were hidden by haze but we have proven them wrong as seen from the pictures.
In conclusion, "The Face" that has been argued about is just a natural landform called a mesa. It is not alien made, it is natural. Although it is possible for aliens to have created something on Mars, we have not found any signs of alien life capable of making such things. So for now, there is no signs of aliens that we know of yet. But once we do find a sign, you better bet that we, NASA, will tell as soon as possible. | 23
|
9040279 | The solar system, venus is the socond planet from the sun. Simple to see from the distant but safe vatage point of earth.and Venus is the most closeat planet earth twin vunus is the closest planet to earth it items of density and size.Maybe this issue explains why not a single spaceship has touched down on vunus is more the three decades. And a thic atmophere of almost 97 percent carbon diovide blankets venus. and also notable venus has the hottest surface temputure of any planet solar system.Venus covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life and it was just like the earth.At thirty- plus miles above the surface temputure would still be a tasty at around 170 leveldegrees fanrenneit, but the air pressure would be close to that of sea level on earth.Striving to meet the challenge presented by venus has value not because human curiosity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating. | 01
|
7a738ab | In the article "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" the authors support to his knowledge of Venus is very informative. In the article the author provides information about the planet to inform the reader that even though it may be hard and risky that it'd be outstanding to be able to put humans on the planet, but because of it's "thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide" or blazin temperatures no space craft or human are able to last on the planet without getting crushed or burned to crisps. Venus atmosperic pressure is 90 times greater than what us humans and living things experience on earth making it impossible for someone to last on the planet, with all of its cons many would rather admire from a view but some would rather get closer.
The evidence from the article that would make you want to avoid venus as much as it may seem nice and plesent the information provided would make you not want to put a foot on the ground of Venus. In the article it states that the planets weather consists of "erupting volcanos, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning stikes to probes seeking to land on it's surface" not hospitable for any space craft nor human life.
Astronomers believe venus to have been "covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth." According the the knowledge of the article "the planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters" stateting that Venus and Earth are and where once similar at a point in time. NASA believed to be coming up with multiple ways for humans to set foot on the planet without any complications, at the moment NASA's only way of getting near the planet with stable temperatures and pressure is by having a "blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape."
In conclusion the author puts into words that visiting Venus by foot seems impossible but by the rate of the technology and people willing to help with making it happen setting foot on Venus will be sooner than many believe. In the future humans will finally reach the land of Venus but in the mean time many more features about the planet are yet to be seen and uncovered. The space craft can only provide so much information from a distance that with better technology a space craft may be able to get closer to the planet for more indetailed information. As far as that is it's closer than you'd think and the author's information and details of the planet in the article are very ear listening for any reader looking for information of the planet. | 23
|
20b3b91 | The 3D computer that can recongnize facial movements that can tell you what the person is feeling is the next step to new technology. It makes the world better with good outcomes to make a person feel better. This creation is amazing and I am all for it.
This 3D computer is a new look in life that can help you know when a close person to you is down or happy. It can even help children/teenagers in school when confused with work. "A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored," Dr Huang predicts. "Then it could modify the lesson, like an effective human instructor." This type of computer can have you home school because of your facial expressions and it knows when you need help even without you telling someone you need help. Also, "if you smile when an Web ad appears on your screen , a similar ad might follow. But if you frown, the next ad will be different." Huang and Sebe software is a great use of technology that helps you out with different task you do daily.
Prof. Thomas Huang and Prof. Nicu Sebe are developing a 3D computer that allows it and you to read you and other emotions. While Dr. Huang relies on Dr. Paul Eckman creator of Facial Action Coding System. The six basic emotions is happiness, suprise, anger, disgust, fear, and sadness. The reason I am all for this device because it benefits us to help everybody in the world out more. Like counselors, if a person comes to the couselor but is scared to say what they are feeling you can use the emotion software. Even if you are a teacher and doesn't know when a student needs help or is losing intrest in the assignment it can notify you when the student needs help or even help the student out on its own. "Muscles called orbicularis oculi pars palpabraeus make crow's feet in your eyes." This can help the computer caculate when your are showing an emotion of happiness by reading your face and notice when that muscle is moving.
Huang and Sebe software invention that can tell others what a person is feeling is absolutely the next step into technology. I feel that this is a good idea becuase it can affect people in good ways and help others out. It's all about the way you use it and the outcomes you get out of it. | 23
|
47dc56f | Dear state senator,
I think the Electoral College should stay because like most well educated Americans the people of the Electoral College know who they want to lead this country. Most Americans complain about how there vote doesn't matter but it really does. Your vote is what's making the electors decied on who should lead America.
The Electoral College is a group of well educated people that understand congress better than the average American citizen. In order to choose the right leader we need to have the highly qualified people for the job. Most Americans don't know what toppings to put on their pizzas, now imagine what kind of trouble they would have choosing someone to run our country. when you vote you don't vote for the president or the secrotary of state or the governor, you vote for a slate of electors that then choose who to elect as the leader of the country, state, or city. the Electoral College is widely regarded as an anachronism, a non-democratic method of selecting a president that ought to be overruled by declaring the canidate who recieves the most popular votes the winner. but each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee and the trust is rarely betrayed.
There are 5 reasons for retaining the Electoral College.
Certainty of Outcome
A dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote is possible but it is less likely than a dispute over th popular vote.
2. Everyone's President
The Electoral College requires a presidential canidate to have trans-regional appeal. No region has enough electoral votes to elect a president. So a regional favorite, such as Mitt Romney was in the south, has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states, for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his plurality in states that he knows he's more favorited to win in. this is a desirable result because a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to become a succesful president.
3. Swing States
The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes induces the canidates to focus their campaign efforts on the toss-up states. Voters in toss-up states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign knowing that they're going to decide the election. They are likely to be the most thoughtful voters and the most thoughtful voters are the ones that are going to be deciding the election.
4. Big States
A large state usually gets more attention from presidential candidates then the smaller states 5. Avoid Run-Off Elections
There is pressure for run-off elections when no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast; that pressure, which would greatly complicate the presidential election procces, is reduced by the Electoral College, which invariably produces a clear winner.
A good precentage of Americans want the Electoral college to be gone but i think that the Electoral College should keep doing what it is doing because they know how to choose the right candidate and they have a great 5 step procces to choose who should lead the United States. | 34
|
f03682c | This technology could be useful for students in a classroom. A reason this technology could be helpful is because students might get bored in a classroom. This technology could detect that the students are bored. With this technology a teacher can give them an assignment to were the students are no longer bored.
This technology can help the learning process because students dont learn when they are unhappy are even angry.
The Facial Action Coding system would improve test scores, learning process and much more. In the text it states how moving you face can improve your emotions, "Accoriding to the Facial Feedback Theory of Emotions. moving your facial muscles not only expresses emotions,but also may even help produce them. So if a student is unhappy and the Facial Action Coding System detects it, a teacher can help the student with the problem that is making the student unhappy or try to undertand why the student is unhappy and just put a smile on the student's face to make them happy so they can procced on with their work and duties.
If this technology can read the emotions of a painting, then is most definetly can read the emotions of a human student. This technology can be the beginning to student learning for every student sad or happy. This technoloy can really bring out the improvement teachers have been looking for. | 23
|
cad0481 | There are many reasons of why we should all join the program of UNNRA. There are many other possible ways to get people to join, and I will show you a few.
One possible reason is that many people care and love our pets and animals of the world, and we can all help them out more by joining the UNNRA team. You can give them shelter, and food. Another reason why we should join is to explore the world and make it a better place. When you join the UNNRA team, you can visit other countries and help them out with hunger and shelter too. Another possible reason is that if you join, you can be known as a famous helper, caring with animals and people. The best thing is knowlege, so if you join, you can visit other countries and learn things you never know about unique places. Some people like to have something to work for in life, such as goals. If you sign up for this team, you can consider yourself working for a goal to celebrate in your life.
Some people are sick of staying home all day, doing your daily chores of work, but if you sign up, you won't have to do daily boring work like you always do. If you join, you can consider this as a job, but also a adventurous job, that you can have fun doing, with a smile on your face, showing you care. So hop on over to the UNNRA team, and sign up. You can make a difference in this world. | 12
|
839a2b5 | Limiting car usage has lots of important advantages. By limiting car usage, we can, lower harmful greenhouse gas levels, reduce smog, and improve our environment and society. It wont happen immediately, but i do believe that if we start to limit car usage, that it will greatly benefit the world.
To begin with, cars cause a lot of the problems we are having with harmful greenhouse gas. "Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emmissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some car-intensive areas in the United States." (Paragraph 5, Source 1) Greenhouse gas emmisions are extremely harmful to the atmosphere. The greenhouse gases harm the earth's atmoshphere and we as humans, need the atmosphere to protect us from harmful radiation. By limiting car use, you are technically saving the planet and everyone on it.
Second of all, cars cause smog. Smog is extremely harmful to breathe in and is also bad for the environment. For example, in Paris, France, the government enforced a driving ban to alleviate the thick smog. After a few days of less cars on the road, the smog cleared up! (Source 2) This proves that if we didn't have cars in the cities that have smog such as Beijing and Paris, then smog would be much less of a problem and cities would be a much more healthy and safe place to live. Therefore, limiting cars results in less smog.
The last reason that limiting car usage is beneficial is that it will improve the environment and society. "Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city; uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth, sidewalks; rush-hour restrictions have dramtically cut traffic; and new restaraunts and upscale shopping districts have cropped up." (Source 3) This shows that by reducing car usage, it has helped the city's economy and created a better place to live for its citizens. Bill Ford, executive chairman of Ford Motor Company, envisioned a world where personal vehicle ownership is impractical or undesirable. He saw a world that would "save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety," (Source 4) This shows that by reducing car usage, the environment and society can be improved drastically.
All in all, I strongly believe that by reducing car usage, we can make the world a better place. By doing so, we can limit harmful green house gas, reduce smog, and change society for the better. These are only a few of the advantages of limiting car usage but you can already see why it is such a good idea. I hope you can take this information and make the world a better place. | 34
|
9fa501b | Have you every wanted to go visit Venus or just see it through a telascope? Well NASA have been tryign to go and see Venus, and sent robots and other things there to take picture or recording what is going over on the planet. The are a few problems with sending humans to Venus and things could go wrong if we are not prepared to go there. But here is a few problem with sending humans there.
Venus is very common to earth and some call it our sister. It will be very hard to try to have humans walk on planet Venus. In the text it says that "On the planet sruface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenhit, and the atmospheric, pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet". That means it is going to very hard to withstand the temperature on Venus surface.
Another problem is that in the text it say that " Beyond high presure and heat Venusian geology and weather present additional impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking to land." What that mean is that is very challenging to send human on Venus and it could destroy the space ship and other things NASA sends.
Even though Venus has though things as well as earth they both are still very much in common. Studies have shown that Venus has have largely oceans and could have supported life on the planet just like Earth. But still Venus do have some landscape features just like earth. Venus have valleys, mountains, and craters all the same as earth.
Taking a trip to Venus will be a challenge and it will happen some day. NASA will some figure out a way to get there. But Venus is still a little different from earth and dangerous. Venus do have some simliiar like features as earth do. And the planet will remain earths sister. | 23
|
b185c75 | Venus, along with Mars are the closest planets to Earth, they also at one point or another might have been similar to our planet. Yet, we have explored Mars much more than we have Venus. Venus has left us mind-boggled on how to study it with it's dangerous conditions, such as the thick acid rain, the average temperature of over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure that is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet. Though the exploation is worth these risks for we can explore a planet that scienctists believe could have been once similar our own. Nasa has developed many ideas and solutions to hopefully find new ways to study one of the closest planets to us.
The first way that NASA has created to help us observe Venus is a blimp-like plane to fly over Venus. This idea of the vehicle is stated in paragraph 5, "Just as our jet airplanes travel at a higher altitude to fly over many storms, a vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly gorund conditions by staying up and out of their way." Also later on in this paragraph where it states, "At thirty-plus miles above the surface, temperatures would be toasty at around 170 degrees Fahrenheit, but the air pressure would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth levels." Now these conditions would most defintely be harsh, but would be capable of living through, escpecially astronauts who are/would be trained for these conditions. This would at least give us an above look of Venus and be able to study some of it's physical features.
The problem that NASA would now have is figuring out a way to study up close and on the surface of Venus. They have a solution for this issue as well in the form of old World War 2 computers, the solution to this problem is explained in paragraph 7 as it says,"Another project is looking back to an old technology called mechanical computers..." Also further on in the paragraph it reads," The thought of computers existing in those days may sound shocking, but these devices make calculations by using gears and levers and do not require electronics at all. Modern computers are enormously powerful, flexible, and quick, but tend to be more delicate when it comes to extreme physical conditions." And even later in paragraph seven it states, "By comparsion, systems that use mechanical parts can be made more resistant to pressure, heat and other forces." These older computers would be able to be dropped down onto the surface of Venus and take samples of the terrain and it's geological features allowing NASA and it's scientists to study the information gather and create better models to study more of Venus and understand the planet.
Another way NASA is thinking to study Venus on it's surface is simple electronics, the ideas and princples of these machines are stated in the beginning of paragraph where it states, "For example, some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simulating the chaos of Venus's surface and have lasted for three weeks in such conditions." The simplified electronics would be used the same way as the mechancial computers, in which to study the terrain of Venus and collect data from Venus and to send it back to NASA allowing them to study the data.
Venus is a very interesting planet with many disadvantages and conflicts like the difficulty of being able to study the planet's terrain or even to be able to observe the planet in a hover-like state from above. If the challenges that NASA faces can be solved with solutions stated above, then Venus could be a very worhty pursuit, so that we may discover the secrets of one of the closest planets to us. | 34
|
c382fe5 | In the article Unmasking the Face on Mars the face is just a natural landform. The reason this is is because there has been things found like this before. Another is that there is no solid proof that the landform was made by aliens. A third reason is that the people that got the rumor started about all of this are conspiracy theorists.
There has been things like this found in space before. In the article the author states that the sensation of finding the landform was short lived because scientists figured it was just another mesa. Since the scientist said another that means there has been things like this found before. If there has been others found before why is this one so special. The scientist state that they were not actually consstructed there.
Besides that there is actually no solid proof that this landform was made by aliens. That is just an opinion. The fact that it looks lika face is the only reason people believed that the landform was made by aliens. Nobody has ever actually been on mars to investigate this landform and prove that it was made by aliens. The only things we have of it are just pictures. So that means that there is no solid proof that the landform was alien made.
The people that came up with the rumor are conspiracy theorists. That means that the thought of this landform being alien made is just a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory is just a buch of bits and pieces of infromation that the theorist put together and think is suppost to mean something. These bits and pieces of infromation are put together even if they didn't happen in chronological order. That means that all a conspiracy theory is is an edjucated guess. Once again that also means there if no solid proof about it.
All three of those reasons go along with the fact that the face looking landform in space is not alien made. All of the rumor about this landform beging alien made are just guesses and theories. With that being said I hope that now people will stop believing everything that people say about this subject unless they have solid proof that what they are saying is true. | 34
|
130935b | "Look Adrian, I know you might think that, that landform is a face carved in Mars by aliens but the facts are right here," Keilah says gesturing around the room. Adrian scoffs and chuckles saying, "I know a face when i see one, especially if it is up on Mars because none of our astronauts could have been able to make something like that and for what?" - he pauses then continues, "Of course it had to be aliens!"
Keilah starts to explain, "First, us scientists figured it was just another Martian mesa. You know something common enough around the Planet Cydonia only this one had shadows that made it look like an Egyptian Pharaoh." As Adrian jumps right back in almost as he wanted to interrupt her but had waited, he gives his own reasons. He says excitedly, " Yeah but, after that a few days later we (NASA) unveiled the image with a caption saying that there was a huge rock form which resembles a human head, formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose, and mouth. Right after noticing all the features I had to believe it was real! Not only that, but that aliens had put it all together! KEILAH, DONT' YOU SEE IT?"
"No I do not Adrian. I see the facts and what the picture actually shows. It's clearly the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa- LANDFORMS COMMON AROUND THE AMERICAN WEST! hmm I seem to agree with 'Gavin' when he stated that it had reminded him of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho. Also when Michael Malin and his MOC team snapped a picture ten times sharper than the original Viking photos it revealed a natural landform and there was no alien monument after all. Sorry buddy I guess you'll have to do more research or look a little closer next time haha." Keilah says as she puts an end to the 'Face on Mars' argument. | 23
|
eb71b85 | I did not know that there are driverless cars where being made. I think the cars will help us drive better. If i was driveing i would use one of this cars.
I think that this cars will help us because some people drive to fast with the car it can speed up by its self with no problem. It can tell you when there is danger in front or behide you so you know when to take control of the car. They can help you streer so you dont take to wide of a turn and hit something. They can stop by themselfs so if you cant push on the break fast the car will stop for you.
They said they can make the car safer by adding a in-car enertainment and information system. This allows the drive to see headsup displyas that can be turned of instanly when the driver needs to take over. If you are doing something the car can get your attion abd you will be able to take control and safely drive. The diver wont be bored because the car has its own entertainment system so you dont fall asleep.
I am not all the way with the cars becuase what happens if the car fails to warn the driver about something that can cost the diver their life. The cars may be to much money for anyone to get ot just to much money to make. They said if their was a crash who is to blame the peopel who made the car or the driver witch can cause many problems like law suet. What happens if the car stops working when you are driveing and you caome to a turn and you dont turn.
All in all i think it is a good idea and can help a lot of people,but I just dont think many people will bye the car because it cost to much. I hope they find a way to make the driverless car come true and less expenive so many people would like to get the car. | 23
|
57fa317 | "The Challenge of Exploring Venus." The author thinks that Venus is a worth pursuite despite all of the dangours things that can happen and have had happen. In my own persnal opinion I think it is a horrific idea. Why send people to an unfirmilar plaent when a tiny space craft cant survive. I think even with ihs evdince its a horrinle idea.
In the artical
"The Challenge of Exploring Venus.", the author suporrts his idea of
"Venus is a worth pursuite despite all of the dangours". with facts. In the artical it states "Humans have sent numerous spacecraft to land on this could-draped world. Each pervious mission was unmanned, and for a good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours." Why would someone want to explore a planet that not even a space craft can handel? He also states "NASA's possible spulution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float aboove the fray." This is one of the most pathetic pices ideas i have ever heard us. Why send someone where the weather is so harmful it can destroy a robot?
In conclousion I dont think that the author has a valid reason to send human's, his own kind, to a plaent that can kill them witin secinds of being there. He did nothing but support his idea with facts about how dangrous this plaent is to humans. He is living on the edge, it seems as if he does not care that peoples lives will be in extream danger on that planet. With the facts and evdince that i have gathered i think that the author did very porly trying to suppor his idea. | 23
|