essay_id
stringlengths 7
7
| full_text
stringlengths 712
20.5k
| score
class label 6
classes |
|---|---|---|
3f03e94 | Changing our ways on how we use cars for the better? Is it just so happen that people are using there car less than usual? In many places like Germany, Paris, Bogota are changing the ways to use cars. To reduce every little problem cars are causing. Traffic jams, smogs, and reducing greenhouse gas emmisions, people are getting smart about using there cars everyday. Maybe people are tired of using all cars of the time.
When people buy car, it gives them alot of freedom knowing they area able to go where ever they're heart desires. Lately people aren't feeling the whole waiting in traffic if theres an accident or just to much cars. Bus rides, trains, taxi are helping reduce this. People can go somewhere without waiting that long just for a little price. In Germany there are new laws where they put a prices to put cars and there is only certian places you can put there cars at. 70% of families in Germany have do not own cars and 57% sold there cars because of this new law? You would think thats people would complain about having cars and having no place to put them. But many people are accuatly happy that they put this new type of law. Many people prefered to have this happen.
Smogs? what are smogs? smogs are grey clouds that hurt is in ways we dont even know. Cars emmit these deadly gases and we dont know it. Cars arent the only one who emmit they clouds of grey smoke, factories emmit this also. Which is not helping our ecosystem at all. In Paris they had an order to help redude this problem. On mondays motorists with even-numbered liscense plates were ordered to leave their cars at home which on the following day people with odd numbered liscenes plates were doing the same thing if they did not follow this ruling they were have to suffer a thirty one dollar fine. This helped alot with the smog.
Places like Germany and Paris arent the only one who are changing the ways. In Bogota they have a car free day which only allows you to take a bicycle, taxi, buses or whatever you want but do not take a car or suffer the rath of fine. Going on for three years now people are saying they enjoy these types of days because everything is more relaxing it reduces stress and air pressure which is a really good thing. Even when it rains it doesn't stop people from participating from this. There is even a 118 mile bicycle path that shows how much people want to change the way they use cars. "Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city: uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaces by broad, snooth sidewalks; rush-hour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic; and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."
Many sciencetists are believing that the car culture is coming to an end. Cars sales have drop alot. People are taking the bus, taxis, and even trains to avoid traffic. "What most intrigues me is that rates of car ownership per household and per person started to come down two to three years before the downturn." Younges ages don't even drive till the age of 21 or they don't even care till then. They can usually care poll to places like partys, mall and the beach. They don't need a seperate car for each person when they are all going to the same place. Which is feel its a good and bad things. Its good because poeple are caring more that were causing harm to our own home and that they know that they can do all they want together and still have fun. It causes harm to busineses many stores could go out of business.
It does not matter if we try to stop using cars or not we are always hurting in some other way. Traffic jams, smogs and reducing greenhouse emmisions are just the begining of this all. We can do way more if we put out mind set to it. | 34
|
09d976b | Venus is the planet of our solar system. Occasionally Venus is the closest planet to Earth in term of size as well as distance. Venus, also known as "Evening Star," is a second planet from our sun that makes it more brighter and warmer. Venus is covered with a large blanket of carbon dioxide. The temperature on the Venus is approximately 800 degrees Fahrenhite, and also has the atmospheric pressure 90 time greater than on Earth, this circumstances make the Human life quite impposible on Venus. Venusian geology has impediments like volcano eruption and earthquickes.
Do you ever feel how interesting it would be to visit places that are out of this world? Or, do you ever thought, what if we get the chance to visit different planets like Venus or Mars? Well, we are no longer away from the time when we will visit different planets for our vacation trips. Although our neighboring planets are inhospitable of human life, however ; Astronomers are fascinated about Venus because it may once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Long ago Vinus was covered with oceans and could have supported various froms of life. Even today, Venus have some features that are analogous to those on the Earth. Human's have sent plethora number of spacecrafts to Venus but didn't get success. NASA has a compelling idea for sending humans to the study Venus. NASA's possible solution to hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray, as the temperature would be around 170 degrees Farhrenheit above that land, it will make easier for humans to research on Venus. To get samples of rock or gas, scientists has to conduct a mission to understand Venus would need to get up close and persional despite the risks. NASA has discovered that electronic devices made of silicon carbide can last for three weeks on Venus as they will not melt easily. NASA and many other organizations are working hard to make it possible for human to visit other planets.
As we know, how many different condition are becoming hindurance for humans to visit Venus, but we are no longer away from the time when human will visit other planets and will research about that planet. Recently scientists has discovered that their is a life possible on Mars. Many organizations like NASA and Space-X are working hard to send humans to Mars. Similarly we will find the way to land on Venus and know more about it. Our travels beyond the Earth should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination. | 12
|
73dcfb0 | Venus, sometimes called the 'Evening Star," is so seeable, that people can spot it by looking through a horoscope. Many people see venus as a star because of its sharp brightness, but venus is actually a planet.
Many people are against landing in Venus, because of the danger it could cause. for example, in paragraph three, venus is stated to be "Temeratured above over eight hundred degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet." But despite all this, the study of Venus is a worth pursuit, even of all the danger it presents. Venus is the closest planet on earth, making it easier if people wanted to land. Just like Mars, venus is known to be an earth-like planet and could have possibly had oceans and supported various forms of like.
As more technology advances, NASA has a compelling idea to possibly land on venus safely. In paragraph five, it is stated: "NASA's possible solution to the hostile onditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray." This means that there could be a bump-like vehicle used to hover 30 or so miles above the roiling venusian. The vehicle would be a safe thing to use, because it is made for the rocky textured planet.
Venus is a planet that many people call the "Evening Star." Usually, it is so visable, because people usually see a sharp, brightness. It is known to be spotted easily by looking through a horosope. | 23
|
84f0f81 | We are coming to an era where driverless cars will be what everyone wants except, workers. Many people drive others, and soon none will have a job. Plus the money that it sounds it will take to make these cars with complete sensors, and to have them running. Finacially the car sounds way out of budget for most people, cars to today are that have high end gear are excluded for everyday people to get, because they dont have enough money to buy them, or that more high classed men, and women earn to only have to most richest technology for themselves. As well the improvment to having to make many more laws for theses cars just to keep people, and children safe.
Men, and women in the driving service mainly depend on that job. Many as in Bus drivers, Taxi drivers, and those who drive the rich, and famous. They may say that the driverless car will still allow them to keep their job, but the more advances they make the more the cars will take over jobs for others. Most depend on the mid-pay salary, and a driverless car wont let them keep their jobs for long. If cars can take over a human's job it can over any other.
Money may not be a total problem for some, but they'll need to take more and more just to make each car, as well as paying the people who work on the cars to make them safe, and secure. Testers will need to be paid for their part as well of checking the car functions right. In hind sight this car will take more money from us, but will also expect us to pay high prices when it comes out as well. If they ecpect all venders make money don't they need us to some how have money to purchase what they sell to us. The sensors themselves sound painfully expensive for us.
Laws now are so strict for any car. We must go a certain speed limit, we must use our mirrors when we are driving, we have to make sure no is coming into on going traffic. The car will make it harder for those who won't have one. The car will have to set to a certain speed limit, will it even have to use mirrors if the car is driving itsself? The laws take time so even if they hav one they'll still probably have to wait to use it. It will back track everone, and everything.
Even though there are bright sides to owning a car such as they come with the safety sensors to stop and watch for children on the move. The car will be able to send signals in any case that someone may be injured and can't call for the help they need. It's camera's will sure be able to make sure breaks are completely functional when it comes to on going pedestrians. The human able to drive the car any moment it has trouble getting through traffic makes it sound easier that there will be less accidents. in all the car sounds as if a protective shield for a human.
In all togetherness the car sounds like a money bucket waiting for us to soak into it. It surely will amek many lose their jobs at one piont even if they have a human driver setting, they probably won't even think twice, and just say no to using it. The time, and desicion it to ahve so many laws will trul back track those who would like to use it, but will haqve to wait since they're will be many people undecisive about each law. The car sounds like a death trap waiting for people to invest in it thinking the product is truly safe. | 34
|
97fc71d | There are many advantages of limiting car usage. For example: when someone has a car, sometimes they are "always tense". Most people are much happier when they don't have to worry about a car. Some people might be conserned about the gas prices, and miles on a car. Germany-Residents, don't have cars, some places have bannded cars from there communitys. I think if there was less car usage it would help greenhouse gas emissons. President Obama's ambitious goal is to curb the United States of less car usage.
Most people would agree or say "if we don't have a car how are we supposed to get to places on time?" Well there is many other opitions like a train, bus, subway, taxi or even walking. Some people who are out of shape might need less car usage and more time walking, therefore that is another advantage to less car usage. How the world is today, some people might not be able to aford a vehicle. And some would rather pefer to walk or take a cab. Most of are world has centered itself around vehicles. making it almost impossible not to have one.
Althrough a lot of people would want a car if they had children, most kids like to walk or maybe ride a bike somewhere. A lot of students could take the bus and adults could grab a cab. I also think that if there was less car usage there would be less acidents. Young teenagers and young adults get into to much of a rush, and cause more acident but, if there was less car usage proublems like this would'nt happen so much. | 23
|
a28f423 | I participated at a Seagoing Cowboys Progam and changed a lot of lives and you should to. On the job you will have to take care of animals. You will get to take care of horses, young cows, and mules that are shipped overseas. You will get to help other people in their countries and their needs. You can also help countries recover if you participate.
You should also participate because it can change your life as it did to Luke Bomberger. In 1947 I had made nine trips and was the most trips of any Seagoing Cowboy. Caring for animals during the crossing keeps you busy depending how far your destination is and how much time it will take to get you there. It helps make you more aware of the other peoples countires and their needs.
In your spare time there you can do some fun stuff. Such as playing baseball, volleyball games, boxing, and more. You can also sight see on your spare time. It was one in a lifetime opportunity for me to be a Seagoing Cowboy.
In conclusion you should be a Seagoing Cowboy because it not only changes others lives but also yours. It made me more aware of other people in their countries and their needs. It took me through a lot of adventures. It opened up the world to me. | 23
|
b2f1196 | Seagoing Cowboy
Have you ever thought about being a Seagoing Cowboy. If you haven't maybe you should. As a Seagoing Cowboy you can help people, animals, and more. Seagoing Cowboys you travel a lot. you travel to places like China, Greece, Europe, and even Venice,Italy. You also take care of animals while shipping. You can feed them and bathe them. There is also lots of sight seeing you get to tour places like excavated castles the Panama canal and more.
In paragraph six Luke had to travel across the Atlantic Ocean for two weeks. He fed and watered the animals two or three times a day. He also had to clean the stalls. He was kept busy on that ship. He was used to being worked all of the tim on his aunt Katie's farm.
In conclusion I think that being a Seagoing Cowboy is sometimes dangerous, but fun most of the time. The Seagoing Cowboy program is fun you should try it. | 12
|
50dd1a8 | A world where people could see the inside of what you are hidding, hidding the emotions that you hide, hiding the look of disgust you do not show , hiding the face of fear you are not willing to let others see, hiding every emotion you do not like. That my fellow friend, is living in world of chaos.
I strongly believe that the value of using this technology will be used by many staff in the school but enjoyed by none, I would have to go against this value for many reaons, one reason is that students will no longer have a filter they will feel the need to go against the system and pretened to be he opposite of what the Facial Coding System reads as a students expression. I also believe that the students will feel very uncomfortable and will not enjoy coming to school anymore. If the teacher really feels the need to get a FACS then I would suggest the teachers step up a knotch with their teaching skills so stduents will not be bored at all.
In the article it says that Mona Lisa was 83 percent happy, 9 percent disgusted, 6 percent fearful, and 2 percent angry. Such as the painting if anyone who looks at the Mona Lisa would see a painted woman just smiling. Looking happier than ever, as if she was sitting in a park on a warm summer day enjoying life, but how would I know that she is truly happy inside? Exactly I do not. I cannot tell if Mona Lisa is happy in this picture but neither can a computer software system.
To the extent of what I have stated I believe that the Facial Action Coding System will not be any value to bring it into schools, I know that a system program cannot tell the emotions you will be expressing. In conclusion this system has no significant value to it. Just as we all have all grown up always remember the saying "Never judge a book by its cover." | 23
|
2103089 | The article "Driverless Cars Are Coming" talks about the positive and negative aspects of the driverless cars. I am totally against the development of these cars. They are not safe, they are not necessary, and anything can go wrong. I do not like thinking that the production of these cars can lead to harm or bad things in the future.
I am against the development of the driverless cars because they are not safe enough to be on real rodes. If there are children in the car and something happens to the car it could hurt the kids and be very dangerous. Also not having control of the wheel at all times is dangerous because even now when people don't have their hands on the wheel there are multiple risks like crashing. Another thing that is not safe about these cars is that if it goes out of control on the road many lifes could be in danger and no one would know if it was the driver or the car.
Another reason I am againt the driverless car is that they aren't necessary. Cars now are simple. People know how to press on the gas and turn the stearing wheel the way they want to go. It isn't necessary to make a brand new car that can drive on its own if people know how to drive with their hands and feet perfectly fine. A lot of people in the world drive. If they don't like driving they catch busses or taxis. Even with the driverless car the car still needs a driver. And if most people drive there is no point in making a driverless car that you still have to drive. There is no point in paying a lot of money for a driverless car when you stil have to drive it. Also why take chances on a car that you still have to drive when you have a car that you know how to drive? You would pay all that money just to still end up driving.
A third reason I'm going against the development of the driverless car is that something can go wrong. There are so many things that could go wrong with the driverless car and no one should take that chance. If a sensor messes up and doesn't detect a wreck coming up instead of notifying the driver it could keep driving and crash into the other vehicals. There are so many different issues involving construction, wrecks, and traffic on the road and if one thing goes wrong with the car it could mess up everything and something very dangerous could happen. If it doesn't sense that their is construction ahead and it keeps going something bad could happen and people could end up paying a lot of money.
Having a driverless car isn't worth the risk. There are many reasons the driverless car doesn't need to be on the roads. They are not safe, they aren't neccessary, and anything can go wrong at anytime. They shouldn't put the driverless cars on the road because if anything goes wrong everyone around could be in danger. The companies need to make sure that A sensor will never mess up and that everything is 100% perfect with the car before they put it out for anyone to use it. | 34
|
54081d1 | I am strongly against having the technology of driveless cars just for the reasonable fact that it is very hazardous and you will not learn the skill to have fun and driving on your own. Also it isn't a good aspect upon life because we as people want to feel 100% safe, and to trust technology is not a good idea. What will happen if the car disfunctions and dosen't stop on time in an accident?
As it states in the article, "why would anyone want a driveless car and still need a driver," because the manufactures of this driveless car company knows that it is not a 100% guarantee that the car will stop on time or keep you save from accidents. Even though it wouldn't be one as of driving on your own, because you can't help the faults of other drivers on the road, there still would be more accidents with a driveless car than it would be on our own, because you have full control of what you want to do with it. And this where the big question falls in, "If technology fails and someone is injured who fault is it the driver or the manufactuer?" It would be the maunfactuers because they say even with a driveless car the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation rquires for them to get into an accident.
Even if the google car announces for them to be prepared and when to take action, don't you think instead it should prepare itself to disregard getting into an accident. Before they even though about selling these cars and having people ride in them, they should've did a better investment and more use of technological differences to actually help citizens out. They could've even had the installation for the car to teach student learners how to drive with a person to test them in the car, because this technology of a driveless car is just not good enough. The manufactures also didn't even have a thought to actually care for other citizens out there driving the car because if they did they would've had to car do everything needed to precaution itself from hazardous situations.
In conclusion, this is why i strongly disagree for the manufacturing of driveless cars because it could tend to be very hazardous and it's not good to belive in technology will save you. Also if it's a driveless car why should you still have to have somebody in the car and have them still steer and take over in dangerous situations? Just think, who are you to blame for getting into that one accident, will the company pay for your damages and utilities you have to handle on the car? It's not worth spending thousands of dollars on a unreliable investment. | 34
|
827ffc5 | I think its ok so you can know how the person is feeling. If you know how a person is feeling then you can react to them in a way. The process begins when the computer constructs a 3-D computer model of the face; all 44 major muscles in the model must move like human muscles. Eckman has classified six basic emotions- happiness, surprise, anger, disgust, fear, and sadness. If your in a classroom and you don't have one of those (FACS) then one day a student can come in all calm in the from out of nowhere there's a fight. But with a FACS when that person comes in the room, and the computer scans the person and it shows that the person is angry. Now that the teacher knows that the person is angry an they can see if they can calm them down. In paragraph 6 it's says "a classroom coomputer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored." | 12
|
82d3796 | On May 24, 2001 NASA had thought that they had discovered a face on mars that was created,by aliens. Because any human face can look like that. It couldn't have been aliens because aliens doesn't even exist.
The only reason that they think it was aliens because everyone around the world always talk about how aliens live on mars! You can tell by how the face looks like that it is a human face. The reason that make it look like an alien face because of how long it had been there for,and that was about twenty years,and also that its covered up with rocks and dirt.
But to let you know that its not a person that aliens had created,because if you look at paragraph seven that Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC), took good,very sharp picture of it,it revealed . . . a natural larmform.
That it was no alien monument after all. But they had to get more evidence to really make sure that it was a ordinary human and that was not created by aliens because lots of people belive was not satisfie,and actually belive that it was created by humans.
So whe they look back at it they discover somthing, they discoverd that it was a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars. And thats what had lead people to know that it was landform human face. | 12
|
29f91ca | Car usage all over the world has reduced and been reducing slowly. Some of the advantages of limiting car usage may be the reducing of pollution or just to save moeny. Also due to many different reasons, even if it's for their own needs, or to just minimize the pollution going on in different parts of the world. In many places car usage has been being limited for countries all over. If it's China, Spain, Columbia, Paris, Germany, or even the United States of America. Not all countries have taken part in trying to reduce the use of cars to an all time low. That may just be their own choice. While other countries are sure trying to cut the usage of car for a variety of reasons. Some places in the world are doing it so they can cut some of the pollution done to the world. And if you think about it if half of the world tryed as hard as they possibly could to try and minizie pollution the world wouldnt be so pulloted. I know cars aren't the only things that cause pollution, but its a pretty big part of the daily life for any person no matter where they are.
In Vauban, Germany a suburban area has almost completely given up driving and even owning a car. "Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two places to park" (Rosenthal 2) but it cost a lot of money to even own a parking space. "Car-owners can buy a space, for $40,000, along with a home." (Rosenthal 2) That price may just be enough to keep people from owning a car all together. According to the article "
In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars
" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, 70 percent of Vauban's Families don't even own a car and 57 percent sold a car just to move there. Isn't that crazy? Imagine life without cars, it has advantages and disadvantages of course but advantages can lead to a positive outcome no matter what the reason is. By people in Vauban not owning cars they are most likely saving a lot of money because they don't have to buy the car, pay the ridiculous amount for a parking spot, and pay for the gas thats going to end up pollution the world anyway. Just a few of the many advantages in reducing or cutting out car usage completely.
Due to all the terrible and mass amounts of smog in Paris, France, they enforced a "partial driving ban to clear the air or global city" (Duffer 10). For example, in this article called "
Paris bans driving due to smog
" by Robert Duffer, on monday motorist with even numbered license plates were told to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22 euro fine which turns out to be $31 U.S. Dollars. And then the same thing would happen to those whose license plates ended in an odd number the following day. This had to have cut pollution a huge amount. If you think about how many people are living in Paris, and you think about them all staying off the road due to a ban then you may be able to understand the amount of pollution that wasn't produced during this ban. Now Paris, did this for the advantage purpose of reducing the amount of pollution they had in their air and by not adding more to it. It couldn't have a negative impact they were doing something good for the enviornment even if it didn't really help that much. Out of the whole city of Paris about "4,000 drivers were fined," and "27 people had their cars impounded for their reaction to the fine" (Duffer 12). Another advantage that Paris had due to them banning car usage was that "Congestion was down 60 percent" (Duffer 14). The ruling French lifted the ban when the smog cleared up enough.
Bogota, Columbia turned what they did as a tradition, into a big hit to tons of poeple in other countries. "
Car-free day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota
" by Andrew Selsky informed the public about what was started a few years ago back in Columbia.
For a day cars except for buses and taxis were banned. In the city of "7 million, the goal is to promote alternative transportation and also reduce smog. Violators faced $25 fines." (Selsky 21) Due the day without cars, the city of Bogotas has "118 MILES of bicycle paths, the most of any Latin American City." (Selsky 27) One advantage they had was that because of the day with out cars the parks and sports centers have been in the best shape they could possibly be in. They also did have to reduced the amount of pollution that was being put into the air, because it was such a big hit to other cities and countries.
Yet another article by Elisabeth Rosenthal called "
The End of Car Culture
", is stating the advantages in the United States and what has happened with the reducing of cars. "Recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by." (Rosenthal 29) The minimizing of cars in The U.S. has some advantages those being, "Obama's ambitious goals to curb the United States' greenhouse gas emissions" (Rosenthal 29). New York City for example is home to the heart of public transportation due to all the taxis and the subway. Not many people in New York city drive or even own a car due to the congested streets, and the ridiculous amount of money you have to have just to park it like it was in Germany. Crazy amounts of money to park a car is just an outrage. The advantage here would be the money saved by not even owning a car and storing it. Another one would be the traffic is bad but not as bad as it would be if more people had cars. Public transportation is huge in New York. It's already expensive enough to live in New York imagine if there werent as many taxis and if the subway wasn't there at all. Picture all the pollution there would be.
To wrap up everything, as stated there are many advantages to reducing car usage all around the world. If it was to reduce smog or pollution of just to save money they are still advantages to decreasing the amount of times you use a car. If something is in walking distances why not just walk instead of taking a car and wasting money and also polluting the air (unless it's a hybrid). The limiting of car usage is slowly but surely growing all over the world. Yes, cars are faster to get places, but why waste the money and clean air to be somewhere quickly? Think of all the advantages there are in reducing car usage not the disadvantages. | 34
|
9c6dd12 | In the article "Driverless Cars Are Coming", the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. I am not against it or up for it. These cars
yes they have their positives and negatives so here is what the author said in the article that was really interesting. For example some of the positives might be that the car can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves , but the human must remain alert and ready to take over when a situation is required for a human.
Lets say that there is something that the driveless car can not do. When the car is in danger
it can quickly get the drivers attencion when there is a problem. The drivers seat will vibrate if in danger. Also the google car announces when to take over sonat least you get the heads up. Yes, i agree that it sounds vey nice and that you dont want to drive know and then. However the car will not allow you text and drive because that can lead to getting injured.
Lets say the driver wants to take over and drive for him/herself
this display is allowed to get turned off but something that is not available to drivers would be texting with a phone. The car in general is a safefty feature an safety is really a big concern in todays world. The car does however watch the driver while the driver watches the road. There is going to be new laws towards this driveless car. If the technology fails and
someone ends up getting injured , whos fault is it really? Could it be the driver?Would it be the manufacturer? It would honestly depend on how bad the situation was. | 23
|
bf5aec4 | The time of the founding fathers is long gone. Times have changed which means we have to change our way of thinking. Our way of voting. The Electoral Colege needs to be replaced by popular vote elections because the Electoral College discourages people from voting for their prefered president, influences future presidents to ignore some states, and does not clearly reflect the views of the American people.
Initially, by keeping the Electoral College individuals are less incentivised to vote if they know there is little chance it will do anything. "Voters in presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people who think that a single vote may decide an election" (Source 3, 23). However, by implimenting popular vote, many more people will want to vote knowing that even if their side does not get the majority vote in the state, it still counts for something. Also, from that same source it says "The advocates of this position are correct in arguing that the Electoral College methos is not democratic in a modern sense." (Source 2, 15). So one would have to ask if the source is even reliable if it contradicts itself. In addition, even if they usually vote "candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the 'swing' states." (Scource 2, 13). This shows that states with more electoral votes will have more power over the people. Clearly, the Electoral College is a problem and popular vote is a much better way to vote.
Furthermore, because some states old more power than others wen it comes to elections, presidents often ignore the "smaller" states looking only for votes. For example, "During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad." (Source 2, 13). Candidates are not interested in the states, in the people, who do not give them enough votes. This is why the Electoral needs to be abolished and replaced with popular vote elections.
Moreover, just because a president wins the campaign, does not mean that the candidate won the people's votes, it only means that he won the Electoral College's votes. For example, in the 2000 election and the 1888 election, one party won even though majority of the votes went to the other. In the 2000 election, even though Gore had more popular votes than Bush, he still lost because he had fewer electoral votes. This shows that there is something broken in the system. Something that can't be changed and needs to be replaced. As you can see, popular votes are the way to go in such an important election like the presidential one with so much on the line.
In conclusion, the Electoral Colege needs to be replaced by popular vote elections because the Electoral College discourages people from voting for their prefered president, influences future presidents to ignore some states, and does not clearly reflect the views of the American people. The Electoral College might have been good in the past however, now it just complicated the process and is unfair. | 45
|
0fcc1b3 | Companies should stop the development of driverless cars. I believe there should not be driverless cars because they are no safer than or better than people driving the cars. If there are driverless cars there may be more accidents, the driver won't have complete control so they cannot try to prevent accidents from occuring, and people still do not know who to blame for when an accident does occur.
Driverless cars may cause more accidents to occur. They may cause more accidents because the cars cannot sence or see everything around them. People can see when someone is backing up at the same time as them in a parking lot and know to wait their turn, but a driverless car cannot.
The car may also not be able to know if a car is backing up in front of them or not. The article mentioned that in a driverless car the car will let the person in the car take over if need be. The problem with this is that the person may not be paying attention and may not take the wheel in time. This would then result in an accident since no one would be driving. Another thing is that driverless cars cannot see everything. They do have sencers, but the sencers could fail. If this were to happen then the car would not know about anything coming towards it or anything that could possibly be in the way. It would be like a drunk driver.
Another reason there should not be driverless cars is because the person in the car will not have complete control. This is a problem because then they will not be paying attention. It is mentioned in the article that drivers will probably get bored. Being bored may result in falling asleep, which will then run into the problem of accidents again. This is because the person will not be able to take control of the car in time if need be. In the artilce they mention that the passenger still has to be holding on to the wheel. With this in mind it seems that it would just be easier for the passenger to drive themselves rather than a car drive them.
Lastly, no has decided on who to blame if an accident were to occur. The do not know if the car manufacturer should be blamed or if the passenger who owns the car should be blamed. This is a big question because if there is an accident, liability has to be covered. It is especially important to know who to blame in an accident if someone is injured. Some might think it would make more sence to blame the passenger because they were in the car when it happened. Others would blame the car manufacturer due to the fact that they made the car and the passenger was sitting in the car without any control.
It may seem that driverless car are the way to go but they are really no better than what we have today. If anything they may be more dangerous. I believe there should not be driverless cars because they are no safer than or better than people driving the cars. Driverless cars may cause more accidents, people will not have control over the car, and there is a big question on who to blame for an accident. So while it may seem like a great idea and alot of fun, driverless cars shoud not be developed because they are dangerous. | 34
|
49023dc | The Seagoing Cowboys are a groupe of cowboys that haft to work on ship. take care of the animals and shipping them to countrys that need cattle. The UNRRA needs more Seagoing Cowboys these are the reason why you should be one.
As a Seagoing Cowboy you would get to see new plases and meet new people. Help people that dose not have cattle the Seagoing Cowboys deliver young cows, horses, and mules. Having fun after the animals are gone they play basketball, vollyball, table tennis tournaments, fencing, boxing, and reading to past the time on the boat.
Luke loves being a Seagoing Cowboy they give people cattle. The cattle boat trips were unbelievable opportunity for a small town boy. One benefit was seeing Europe and China. But the Acropolis in Greece was special,he says. Helping on aunt Kates farm help prepare him. Everyone of the Sea going Cowboys gets to play games like basketball and vollyball.
These are the reason why you need to be a Seagoing Cowboy to help people that neeeds cattle, food and work horses, and mules. Jone the Seagoing Cowboys you will make a diffrents for the people. | 12
|
d5221c2 | There are a whole lot of positive and negative aspects about these cars. I truly agree with what's going on with the negative aspects of these cars. For example, things can happen with these cars that can drive by itself.
First, these cars could be a big safety issue. It can be a safety issue because the passage states that if there is any road work the driver should be ready to prepare to take over. Not only take over but also be ready when something happens with road work. Road work can be scary with the roads being bad and going around the road work can be difficult.This is where you think to yourself as, "Why drive this car if you can be prepared and be alerted when you are responsible for your own car?"
Another safety issue is during traffic. Traffic is where a lot of accidents happen in the process of drivers. Yes, this car can break by its own but remember that anything can happen with this car. Expect the unexpected because if anything happens you may never know. The car could probably get a problem and miss understand something because it is computer authorized. It may not break when it is supposed to, or maybe not even get the alert that there is road work ahead.
Lastly, there is states that are still checking if it is reliably safe. This is still not proved at all if it's even safe. That especially is a big problem because you don't want to have a car that you don't even know if it is safe or not. If the car gets into a crash, that may be a responsibility that relies on you or the car. Think about it is the car going to get the ticket or is it you that's going to get it. We all don't know just remember safety first.
I disagree with having a car and I say this because I rather be safe then sorry. There is cars that I could get and have control over it than having a car that controlls by itself. If getting into an accident and I know how to explain that I had the control over it then it won't be a problem. That way I don't need to be worried or question about the car twice if in an accident knowing it controlls itself. | 23
|
3745735 | "Being a Seagoing Cowboy is an amazing and fun experience. You get to see a lot
of new things maybe you've never seen before. When I started doing this, I started in Greece when I was 18 which was the age you had to be to be drafted in the military for 2 years. But the Greek Government said I had to join the military for 2 years, or be a Seagoing Cowboy so I decided to be a Seagoing Cowboy for 2 years. Being a Seagoing Cowboy is a lot better than joining the military, and it is a lot more fun if you do this with a friend.
I enjoyed seeing a lot of new places, especially China and Italy. The fun part about being Seagoing Cowboy is when you're not on a ship you're on a farm. While you're on a farm you can explore around and look at all the animals and feed them. There is also fun you can have on a ship. You can play sports such as, baseball, volleyball, table-tennis, fencing, boxing, and many others.
Being a Seagoing Cowboy more than just fun and exploring. It opened me up to the world. I can't begin to explain how grateful I am to have been given this oppurtunity. It made me realize that there are people out there in other countries that have needs. So after being a Seagoing Cowboy, I decided to lead my family to host a lot of international students and exchange visitors for many years. If you decide to become a Seagoing Cowboy enjoy the experience, because I know I did. | 23
|
49cfbaf | Imagine this you're in a very populated city. Lets say New York, New York, U.S.A, London, England or any densily populated city for that matter. Now aside from the sounds of car horns blairing and the sounds of the thousands of people around you there is one thing that would most likely stand out the most to people; the smell of car emissions mixed with the food street venders sell. Now they may not be a huge surprise but think about this, a city or suburb without cars. Now some may say that limiting the use of cars is a terrible idea and would hurt the working call citizens, but it may be better then you think. The reasons why these "car-free" places might not be so bad is it helps reduse the growing percent of greenhouse gas emissions that cars give off. You wouldn't have to deal with smog, and there wouldn't be as much noise pollution as there is with cars. Yeah these points may not seem like they are worth not having a car but there are comminties that actully don't allow cars because of those reasons. So maybe after this you may think a little differently about your car and may think about moving to one of these places that have alread choosen to go "car-free".
First off, probably like most people around the world you love your car, bt do you ever think about the car emission you admit into the air just driving to worl and back home. Now that does seem bad but, as shown in paragraph 5 of,
"In German Suburb, Life Goeson Without Cars", an essay by Elisabeth Rosenthal, she writes that experts say the passsenger cars alone are reponsible for about 12 percent in Europe, and up to 50 percent in some car-intensive areas in the U.S for greenhouse gas emissions. Now 12 percent doesnt seem like a lot compared to the 50 percent but that is still a lot of greehouse gases getting put in our atmosphere year after year.
Now think about this idea of a "car-free" suburb or city again. An example of this kin of place would be the city of Vauban, Germany. Now in Vauban drive ways and home garages are forbidden; now car ownership is allowed but there are about two places to park. Now that place to park is a large garagw at the edge of the developement where as well as buying your house you have to buy a parking space for $40,000. Now because of this 70 percent of the families don't have cars and 57 percent of them sold their car to move there. Since there aren't car used here the air is much cleaner and because of not having little to no cars there they don't pollute the air.
Secondly, another reason to think about moving to one of the places is that there isn't any noise pollution from cars. Beause of the lack of car noiseses these suburbs and cites let you hear nature a little better and also allow a kind of peaceful feeling making these p;aces probably a lot more chill and "sleepy" in a since. making them good for people who don't want to live in a noisy city but don't want to live in the middle of no where.
Lastly, another good reason to move to these little areas would be that there is no smog there to make it harder to breath. A real world example of this would be from the informative essay, "
Paris bans driving due to smog"
, by Robert Duffer. Which basically states that due to near-record pollution Paris put a ban on driving to try and clear the air in the city. Now to help inforce the ban the put a 22-euro fine($31) if you where driving on a day your licsens plate was not allowed to drive. Now because some people did follow the ban nearly 4,000 people were fined and 27 people had cars impounded because of the reaction to the fine. Now because of this some companies complained about lost renvenue and the transit of free of charge according to the BBC. And because of these efforts the smog cleared enought that the ban was lifted. Now that probably isn't very convinet but in car-free areas they don't have to deal with making it eariser to get to work on more accessible public transportation options like a bus or a bicycle.
Now think about this idea about car-free places one more time knowing what the benifits are compared to the risks you get. Maybe noe you just might look at these places a little more carefully and acually think about making a switch to live there in this greenhouse gas free, noise free, and smog free zone. | 34
|
fcc285f | The challlenge of exploring Venus begins with the fact that the surface tempature is aout 800 degrees fahrenheit and the atmospheric pressure is
about 90 times greater then on Earth. The spacecrafts typically dont last longer then a few hours under the harsh conditions which caused the missions to be unnammed. Venus has a thick atmopshere of almost 97 percent cardon dioxide and evem more challenging the clouds have highly corrosive sulfuric acid i n the atmosphere. Venus is the most Earth like planet, long ago the planet was probably covered in oceand and could have supported may forms of life, Venus still has some fetures that are simulier to Earth, the planet has surface of rocky sediment and includes familliar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters.Venus is a planet worth studying because of its simularities to Earth and compare the two and try to figure out how Venus got the way it is today. If we could send a spacecraft that can survive the harsh conditions of Venus long enough we could possibly try to find evidence of life that could have lived there a very long time ago. | 01
|
8893b2c | The years seem to by flying by, people seem to be growing smarter, and technology seems to be improving rather well. Smart products are becoming more and more popular in some countries, and students in school are using technology often. Psychologists all over the world are studying why students and young adults need a program to help others understand their emotions. Systems like the Facial Action Coding System is showing people why emotions are important in peoples' everyday lives, especially in schools. Helping the students around the world is important, and the facial coding on computers can detect when a student is bored, confused, or worried.
When a student is falling bored in class, it can be hard to tell what is going on. They may not be paying attention and the teacher may not even know what the problem is. The Facial Action Coding System will come in handy; computers will be able to easily detect when a student is falling out of focus. Helping out students pay attention is important to their education, and the facial coding is high programmed algorithms to detect the facial muscles on a student. This program is accurate and quick to decide what the student is feeling in class. The passage, "Making Mona Lisa Smile," mentions when a student is falling bored, the program that recognizes the students face can update to show information that interests the child.
Aside from students falling bored in school, The Facial Action Coding System can come in handy for recognizing students becoming confused also. There are different facial muscles used for confusion, worry, surprise, and happy, so the coding system can help students who become easily confused. Dr. Huang and his colleague Nicu Sebe are working to help computers and humans to communicate, without the confusion. The computer system can update its information to help the students by constructing a 3-D scan of the face, becuase it can be confusing trying to figure out what the student is confused about. This system can then modify its lesson to help the student become less confused, like said in, "Making Mona Lisa Smile."
When talking about emotions, worry and surprise go hand in hand. Worry is easily detected by the Facial Action Coding System that Dr. Paul Eckman created. A person's frontalis pars laterlis muscle is above the eyes and falls the category of worry and surprise. When a student appears to be worried, or shocked over a subject, the computer program can adjust and help the teacher figure out what the student is struggling with. A program that does not help a student can be detrimental, that is why the Facial Action Coding System will come in handy to easily detect the students' feelings.
The idea behind the Facial Action Coding System is that a computer scan of a person's face will be used to decide the person's emotion. When someone is angry, their orbicularis oris tightens around the mouth. This muscle will be detected on the Facial Action Coding System, as all the 44 major muscles will be modeled on the program. It is helpful to know when someone is angry or feeling down, and this system is extremely helpful for students. | 45
|
de5e023 | In the artical "Making Mona Lisa Smile" by Nick D' Alto, he talks about the use of technology to read the emotional expressions. This technology classifies six basic emotions such as, happiness, surprise, anger, disgust, fear, and sadness. Although I don not believe this will be valuable on the emotional expressions of students in a classroom.
This technology could be helpful for some, but I don't believe it will work or be valuable for others. For exapmle a student can look down due to lack of interest in a subject and the device would predect the student was sad when they may not be sad they are just not interested. And considering the technology only has six emotial expressions, it limits the outcome of how the student is feeling. For example the student could be feeling hungry but that is not one of the emotions the technology has listed.
Although this technology would be valuable figuring out someone's basic emotions, they are too many emotional expressions that this technology does not have. Therefore, I do not believe that the use of this technology would be valuable in a classroom. | 12
|
e818b4e | Since our very first President George Washington our founding fathers have created a system of how a President shall be elected. For many years this system has been proven to be effective. This system or process of electing our Country's President is known as the Electoral College. The Electoral College was used to elect our very first President George Washington and our current day President Obama. This process is full proof and has yet to let our Country down.
The Electoral College is a process created by the founding fathers to make the choice that the people want. After all this is the peoples Country. According to the Source "What is the Electoral College?", written by the office of the Federal Register,The Electoral College process consists of the selection of electors. There are a total of 538 members in the Electoral College. If a candidate has more than 270 votes then they will be our new President. The number of how many members depends on the number of members in its Congressional delegation. There is a total of one each for every member in the House of Representatives and two each for every member in the Senators. When a person votes for his or her Candidate they are actually also voting for thier candidates electors. After the election everything is certified and sent to the National Archives as part of the offical records of the presidential election, also stated in "What Is the Electoral College", by the Office of the federal Register.
More than 60 percent of voters would like to abolish the Electoral College and just have a direct election. This year voters can expect another close election in which the popular vote winner could again lose the presidency, states "The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong", by Bradford Plumer. Not alone have 60% of our voters agree upon giving the Electoral College a boot but so has Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Voters don't feel close enough to the process by which who leads are Country. When voters vote they feel as if they are voting for Electoral members and not the Candidate himself. Voters can not control whom the electors vote for, after all electors can always defy the popular vote and choose a candidate of their liking. More then half of our voters think that the Electoral College is unfair, out of date, and unpredictable. If the people voted for the President directly then states with a larger population would always win. That would be an outrage, states like Texas would get a better chance then states like Florida. The Electoral College is a full proof plan that avoids run on elections by insuring that no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast. Although others want to abolish the Electoral College, there is no better system for choosing our President.
The Electoral College requires a presidentail candidate to have trans-regional appeal, says "In Defense of th Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President, by Richard A. Posner. The Electoral College restores the pull that large states have over smaller states. The Electoral College also Avoids the problem of elections where a candidate receives a mojority of the vote. The Electoral College provides a clear winner. Although many people feel that the Electoral College is uneffective, unfair, and outdated it is a great way of chossing our country's greatest leader. Our founding father have created an effective method that has avoid many problems that may have occured if this process was created. Every four years a President is elected correctly thanks to the Electoral. Many have seen the harm the Electoral college has provided but they do not see the harm that it has helped to avoid. | 34
|
3bcd4b3 | Slip into a world where emotions are easily read. There could be no mind games, no pettiness, and no suffering in silence;this could be the new reality. In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile" by Nick D'Alto, he introduces a new concept created by Thomas Haung:Facial Action Coding System software. This programming system allows computers to register all of the emotions on an individual's face, reguardless if they are mixed. While some argue that this Facial Action Coding System is a step too far into an innovative future, the advanced program could benefit a multitude of areas.
Thomas Haung's new software would not only find useages in a classroom, but also in daily life. Granting teacher's access to their student's feelings could give teacher's insight on how well their concept's are grasping. To further prove the computer's effectiveness, Huang states, "A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored. Then it could modify the lesson, like an effective human instructor," (D'Alto). In addition to assisting a classroom setting, enabling people to read other's emotions would be benefitial also. Reading into surroundings helps people grow. Knowing what feelings an individual possesses could compell someone to be more considerate or act accordingly to how that individual feels. With that in mind, this program could also strengthen relationships.
Although the Facial Coding Acting System invades privacy, lessons human interaction, and may not be completely accurate of human emotions, it ultimately serves to benefit. While privacy concerns are understandable, the possible results after the slight invasion could be more than worth it. An unfortunate day could be quickly turned around if people were aware of the circumstances. Without a situation being addressed, nothing can be fixed;the same goes for a person's emotional state. However, on the technological aspect, how can one know how reliable a computer is on detecting somebody's facial expression? Dr. Huang addresses this by introducing that the computer first constructs a 3-D model of the face, with all the muscles operating as a human's would. Dr. Huang also explains that "the facial expressions for each emotion are universal" reguardless of the desgree of expression, (D'Alto). Finally, the fear of more computer based activities is rapidly squashed by the contradiction that being more aware should envoke more human interaction, not lesson it.
Initially, the thought of additional advancement of technology is frightening. Predicting ideas is not always a sure way of indicating what will occur. However, after Dr. Huang introduces and explains his new concept of Facial Action Coding System Technology, it is arduous to reject the placement of this software into everyday life. Hopefully, the program will be installed soon so it can start making improvements in various industries across the board. | 45
|
bd3ec7d | While there have been presidents that have run without earning the popular vote, it does not mean that the Electoral College is inefficient, bad, or unnecessary. The Electoral College, chosen by our founding fathers, is a process in which people elect for electors. Then the electors vote for the president. Each state gets a certain number of electors, or electoral votes, depending on their population. This way, no single group of people can sway the voting largely. Instead, only the state would be effected. Without a doubt, the Electoral College has been working well for centuries, and I see no good reason to change it.
For starters, it is much easier than a popular vote to decide. Yes, the chance for a tie is there, but to count each state rather than each and every single vote is much easier nowadays. Counting such a plurality of votes is already a difficulty, even right here in the Sun Shine State. Imagine counting all the votes right down to the last one! Even though a tie is more likely this way, the odds of a tie are so rare, what does it matter?
Another truly great thing is the fact that any president must have appeal to all states, or at least most. Having the favor in the south and concentrating it there will not give you more votes. In fact, it is more likely you will not be president if you yeild strongly to any one region. Doing so may lose you many votes in other areas that may be difficult to recapture. If a president was for say, leaning towards big old California and Florida, but not going very much for the other states, then yes, he may win many, many votes from California and Florida and possibly win the election, if it was a popular vote. But this is not the case. In an electoral votes, winning all votes in a few states is hardly useful. That, of course, plays majorly into elections, which is a reason why some of your favorite presidential candidates didn't win.
Another great thing I am to mention is loss of plurality. What if my buddy and I each got only 40% of the votes. The other guy in Tex. got the other 20%. Who would win? In the Electoral College, the Tex. dude may win a few votes in each state, but rarely will he win any. With the Electoral College, other minor candidates are less likely to screw the whole thing up.
It is true there have been faults. Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFL-CIO have all antagonized the Electoral College. One reason is that electorals do not have to vote for whom ever they chose in the beginning. If my vote gets some Bob McShnuffle into the electoral voting system, but he votes for someone other than my choice, then there is going to be major pandemonium. Is it fair that your vote and so many others gets flipped just because Bob McShnuffle was unhappy with that president? Perhaps, but this does not happen often. Usually, it does not cause too much of a balance tipping. But the true problem is the word of the people. We have so many speakers for us, but they don't always say the right things that we want. Fortunately, these incidents do not happen all the time. To fret over such things only offers you more problems and less solutions. By having an elector, a representative, someone can't say something stupid and pull the whole country down with him. Instead, this is the best way to address the majority of the people without conflict.
On that happy note, I must mention the electoral college is not perfect. Nothing is. But it is easier than popular voting, counts all states and regions, and naturally avoids run-offs. Of course, its still got its flaws. But you have to admit that those founding fathers did pretty good. Arguably, it has been the best way for the presidential election, and it still is... | 56
|
b0cfdcf | There are many reason why Electrol College should not be kept, but it is the right thing if we change it to election by popular vote. This Reason why I pick this is because us people want the right leader to leads us on a good path thats why we are citizens our job is to vote to them.
The electrol college is not the best option because the electrol college doesn't give everyone an oppurtunity to select who they want as there leader, In article three where it says "Everyone's President" the author states that "No region (South,Northeast, etc.) has enough electrol votes to elect a president." This mean that most of the states in the south do not get the chance to vote for a presiden and this increases Romney chances of wining, and what if the candidate that wins with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful president? The citizens of the United States will feel as if they aren't apart of this country, not giving the rights or freedom this country promised them. The citizens will feel like their votes do not count, when they have there opinion on something the new president will have no interest towards it, this means to us that he isn't really a president. In article last paragragh the author states "people who think that a single vote may decide an elcetion."In the past plenty of ties had happened before they handled this by the election would be thrown to the House of Representative.
Election by popular vote is fair in both ways they give the people a chances to pick who they want and who will make a difference to our country. Its not fair if we vote and if we don't have enough electrol college our votes don't count in our region, that takes away what we been living in this country for. In the past they agreed on abloshing the electrol college also the article states that "over 60 percent of voters would perfer a direct election to the kind we have now." As citizens it's important to listen to what we have to say cause we are the people who make up this country. They don't want election by popular vote cause they are afraid that a tie will happen because an election usually stops around 538 but it is highly unlikey to happen, it only happened twice in history for election by popular vote in 1968 by Richard Nixon and 1992 by Bill Clinton.
There are many reason why Electrol College should not be kept, but it is the right thing if we change it to election by popular vote. This Reason why I pick this is because us people want the right leader to leads us on a good path thats why we are citizens our job is to vote for them. | 23
|
2ed047c | Some think that driverless cars are in our future. Others think that driverless cars are, and should stay, merely a product of science fiction. I believe that driverless cars are not a good idea. Driverless cars are not a good idea for several reasons. The first and most obvious reason is safety. A second reason is the large cost of manufacturing these cars. And finally, a third reason we do not need driverless cars in this day and age, is people would forget how to drive a regular car or neglect to even learn if the car drove itself.
The first reason that society does not need driverless cars is safety. Of course, people can argue that if a car were to drive itself, there would be less accidents. It is true that driverless cars could reduce accidents from drunk driving and other impaired states, or just simple driving errors. However, some of these problems are easy to prevent now. It is illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The simple solution is not to do it. Most crashes caused from simple driving mistakes could be prevented as well. The problem is the driver, not the car. In addition, driverless cars would be at an increased risk for technolgical malfunctions causing potentially fatal crashes. As of right now, the technology in driverless cars is only experimental and theoretical. It would take many years to iron out all the bugs, so to speak, to make these cars function properly all the time. As mentioned paragrpah nine of the article, in most of the Unites States, it is illegal to test drive driverless cars. It is illegal for these very reasons. It is illegal because experimenting with that kind of technology is dangerous.
A second reason that driverless cars are not necessary is the unimaginable cost it would be to manufacture these cars. In addition, millions of dollars would be spent first to research and perfect the workings of the driverless cars. Not to mention, driverless cars would probably cost a larger sum of money than regular cars because of the time and cost of manufacturing them. In the past few years, in the United States has been going through a financial crisis. While our economy is now doing better, where would the money to fund these cars come from? In the article, the author mentions building smarter roads for cars. If that was the case, it would cost even more to fund this grand scheme. So much money is spent on paving and repairing roads every year, it would cost so much more to have to change or rebuild all of the roads in the country. In addition, if cars were to drive themselves, many laws would have to be changed for the new cars. Right now in the United States, one in five children will go hungry, there are clearly more important things to spend money on right now than to fund driverless cars.
A third and final reason that we do not need driverless cars is if we did, people would forget how to drive a regular car, or neglect to even learn. The article mentions that cameras might be needed to ensure people pay attention to the road. There are already enough distractions for drivers to worry about. Texting and driving has become a major issue in recent years. Imagine how easy it would be to be distracted by a phone or other device if the car you were in were driving itself? This is a slippery slope. It starts out with relatively small things, such as not paying full attantion to the road if the car drove itself. But soon, if people did not have to worry about traffic laws and safety, then they would soon forget them. Hypothetically speaking, what if someone who had been driving a driverless for a period of time one day had to go back to driving a regular one. This person may still have their liscense, but would they be able to pass a test for it now? Problems like this would make the road more dangerous than it already is. In addition, that same person who is now driving a regular car, may forget that he or she is controlling the car, being that they were so used to the car driving itself. There is enough reckless driving, that we do not nead people operating vehicles with no memory of how to do it! Or people might even neglect to learn how to drive a regular car at all if they depended on a driverless car all the time. If society allowed this to happen, the results could be catastrophic.
In conclusion, driverless cars are not a good idea. Maybe in the distant future if more problems that we are currently dealing with are resolved, but not at this time. Driverless cars are not currently safe, and will not be for many years to come. They would cost a significant amount of money, money that can be spent elsewhere for better causes, especially when we already have cars that work perfectly fine. Finally, driverless cars are not a good idea because they could cause people to forget how to drive a regular car, which could lead to a very dangerous and potentially deadly situation. There are benefits of driverless cars, however there are even more downfalls to the idea that certainly outweigh the benefits. | 45
|
58206bb | Are some of you parents out there wondering how you can get your son out of the house because he has hit those teenage years. Well guess what i have the perfect suggestion for you. Well we have a special guest to explain to you how his trip was and to get you to sign up now herer he is. Hello! My name is luke, i am a high school grudating student fro mthis experinceice. Now you know what lets get right into it. The first thing i want to talk about is the first things i did or was doing before i got this oppurtinty aslo who gave me this oppurtinty. Well first thing first i was working just like any normal high school teenager was i worked at a bank and at a groccery store. Next this oppurtinty was gavinen to be by my great friend Don Reist. Now this oppuritnty was once in a lifetime how could i say now. Well now lewts talk about what you do before you get on the boat. Well real simplie you go to Eruope and get on a cattle boat. Some of you may ask what is a cttle boat? Well a cattle boat where you watch peoples cow,Horeses and more. So me and my buddy Ron we didnt pick the very best time to go we went in the year of 1945. Yea you can say it that's the year of Wold War 2, I know I know it is well also you may say this man is trying to get me to take my child to Eroupe and put him on a boat and have him go when a war is going on im not doing that i don't want my kid to die. Well you know what i'm still living standing strong to. Well how about we quiet agrueing and just get on to what i did when i was on the boat. Alright well i boarded the boat and i got on searched around and everything. Also i forgot to tell you this job you do how a couple months or years is called "Seagoing Cowboys".
Alright so its August and we were headed to new orleans. We arrived on August 14 the day the pacific war ended. See i told you people that your childern wont die i was on the boat for a cople days or months. We had 335 horses on are boat. You might ask how did the boat not sink? Well the boat is perfectly safe no damages to it no broken parts if your childern sign up they will be perfectlyu safe. I had to feed the horses 2 or 3 times a dy wicgh it was very exouhusting but also fun At the same time. Well you know how i said your children will be saf well thats gets me into the part where i almost fell into the atlantic ocean. Well i was going to repoert to the captin because when i turned 18 i got a promation to night watch and had to report to the captin ever 1 hour. Well it was dark and rainiy that night and i tripped over some and i sliped all the way down to the back and the edge of the until a pice of metal stoped me. Well i was still happy to be alive.
See i told you that your son and dauhter will have agreat experince on this magnifcent trip. See im still alive. So come oont this trip will teach them how to work hard for things. And it gets you a week of no teenagers. So come on just sign your kid up and you will have a diffrent child when your back. Thanks for leisting to my story im luke Bye!!! | 01
|
1162314 | A world without cars is a world we should all want to live in. Participating in this worldwide fad has been known to benefit the lives of those among us. Thus, causing a decrease in the amount of stress one inhabits, as well as a decrease in pollution, and beneficial effects on carbon emissions. The advantages of limiting car usage are increasing daily, and cutting your time spent driving may have a positive effect on not only your life but your families, and those surrounded by you.
Traveling across the world to Germany, you will find Vauban. A well-known, upscale community where more and more soccer moms and commuting executives are giving up their cars. This experimental, new district has generally forebidden street parking, driveways, and home garages. Therefore seventy percent of the residents in this community do not have cars, and fifty-seven percent sold a car to move to this ecofriendly habitat. One resident, Heidrun Walter says, "When I had a car, I was always tense, I'm much happier now." The atomosphere of this residence has a positive effect on stress, meaning it decreases it! The vibe of walking down a street filled with the swish of bicycles passing by, and the chatter of wandering children has lowered the stress of nearly all residents. This ecofriendly, and stress-free enviroment is a trend that is growing and being adopted by many countries, including the U.S. From Chicago to Shanghai, this residential area may be the place for you.
Paris, France, home to the famous Eiffel Tower even has its pollution problems. After days of uncontrollable smog, the ruling French party enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of thiis well-known city. They ruled that on Monday's even-numbered license plates were ordered to leave their vehicles at home, and on Tuesdays, odd-numbered license plates were to do so as well. After this first trial, the congestion was down sixty percent in the capital of France. This was a huge success since Paris typically has more pollution that other European capitals. Temporary laws like this have a huge effect on reducing the amount of pollution in crowded cities. Even the city of love has unclean air, how romantic is that? Limiting the usage of cars benefited this society immensely, and it could benefit our world as a whole if all of us chose to cut back our car usage at least twice a week.
Automobiles are the Beyonce of suburbs, where families from California all the way to Sydney tend to make their homes. Experts have concluded that this is a huge impediment to current efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes all around the world. Passenger cars in Europe are only responsible for twelve percent of these emissions, while America is responsible for up to fifty percent. President Obama's goals to drastically curb these greenhouse gas emissions will be assisted by a shift in American behavior: Fewer Americans getting their license. Studies have shown less and less of Americas youth are prioritizing getting their license. If this pattern persists, it will have a beneficial effect on the reduction of carbon emissions being released into the environment. This calls for less pollution, and a more ecofriendly, healthy society for us all.
In conclusion, limiting car usage in your daily life can cause a drastic change. These changes include a decrease in the amount of stress one inhabits, to less pollution, and a beneficial effect on carbon emissions. Our society as a whole has the opportunity to reduce car usage, so why not grab it while we have the chance. A healthier environment calls for a healthier you. | 34
|
001ab80 | People always wish they had the same technology that they have seen in movies, or the best new piece of technology that is all over social media. However, nobody seems to think of the risks that these kinds of new technologies may have. Cars have been around for many decades, and now manufacturers are starting to get on the bandwagon and come up with the new and improved technology that they hope will appeal to everyone. As of right now, it seems as though the negative characteristics of these cars consume the positive idea that these manufacturers have tried to convey.
Currently, this new technology in cars has a very long way to go before being completely "driverless". Drivers still need to be on alert when they are driving, as well as control the car near any accidents or complicated traffic situations. This seems to totally defeat the purpose of the "driverless" car. Eventually the technology may improve, but nobody can be certain that the driverless car will eventually become completely "driverless". This idea just seems like a lot of hard work and money for something that is not very neccessary. If someone does not want to drive their car they can just take a city bus or a subway. There are so many options of transportation that can already solve this problem. Even if masnufacturers are trying to make driving more "fun", driving is not meant to be "fun" it is meant to get people where they need to go. Playing around in a car just to have "fun" is just a recipe for disaster.
The idea of the driverless car also raises many questions about who will be liable when someone gets into an accident in one of these new cars. Many states do not even let people drive semi-automatic cars because there are not even laws that pertain to the liability of anyone who get into an accident while driving these type of cars. If these cars become more popular, states may pass new laws. However, this topic also raises questions about who is able to dictate whether or not it was the car or the human's fault for an accident. Since this technology is so new, there could be many problems with the car's system that nobody has even discovered since they have not drove the car themselves. If someone test drives this kind of car or even purchases one and they get into a crash not knowing what could possibly happen to them, they will want to sue the car manufacturer since they were not aware of any bugs in the car's system. These lawsuits can add up and eventually the manufactuers will be in a bunch of debt, which could cost them their whole idea of the driverless car.
The technology car manufacturers are trying to develope may just be a diasaster in the making. There are many alternative options of transportations if you do not feel like driving yourself, and these options are way less expensive than buying a brand new car. Although this technology is relatively new, we can not be certain that this new idea will even pay off in the end, it may just be a waste of money and time. Sometimes the newest technology is not the most benefical. | 34
|
3ebc31e | Cars are the main cause of pollution in major cities. Cities are covered in smog from gas emmisions from a car's exhaust. This is not good for the environment. Something must be done about this. If the usage of cars is cut down, then the amout of pollution in the air will be less. A less usage of cars allows people to have a clean community and helps the environment.
In Germany, there is a small community that is completely car-free. This community, Vauban, has about 5,500 residents, and not a single one of them use a car. This community is very clean and all of the people that live there are happy. Just think, what if every family in Vauban had a car? It would completely change this happy, clean community. There would be a lot more pollution and more stressful citizens. More and more small towns are beginning to ditch the cars for walking and taking a bicycle.
More cities are starting to have car-free days to help with the pollution problems that are caused by automobile engines. Examples of these cities include Paris, France and Bogota, Colombia. Pollution is starting to be a big problem in big cities like these, so they have decided to take action. Pollution is destroying our atmosphere. The gases that are released from the exhaust of car engines slowly deteriorates the layer of atmosphere of our world. If cars begin to be frequently used like they are now, the atmosphere may become damaged beyond the condition for being fixed. Earth only has one atmosphere, so once it's gone, we can't get it back.
People in the United States are beginning to cut back on the number of people who drive cars. The U.S. has been one of the leading country with the number of people who drive cars and the amount of pollution, but people have been taking action and going for a greener alternative. In the fourth passage it says, "A study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009." A lot of people between 16 and 39 do not even have a driver's license. People are starting to take public transportation and carpool instead of driving their vehicles from point A to point B. With more and more people doing this, it just lessens the amount of emmisions in the atmsophere more. America has passed it prime for driving because of the more and more who are taking action in making a change in the health of our world.
In conclusion, there are many reasons that we should start to lessen the amount of people driving on the road. It just causes pollution and makes the health and well- being of others and the earth worse. People are already beginning to make a change, but we need more than there is to make a difference. | 34
|
5a7f694 | Not everyone has the luxury of owning a car. But cars are not the only means that can get us from point A to point B. In fact, having limited usage of cars is an advantage to society, our own good, and also the environment. In the twenty-first centruy, it may seem that possessing a car is a vital aspect of living, however, that is not always the case.
To began with, having a limited amount of cars on the roads means a less amount of car emission that stays in the air. Carbon emissions from cars are responsible from around 50% of the greenhouse gases in the United States alone (Source 1). If we were to limit our car usage, it is very likely for that percentage to go down. Taking the account that cars are the second most item that pollutes the air, it would be a dramatic change for the environment to be a cleaner and heathier place to live (Source 4).
Additionally, if we were to use our cars less and relie on public transportation, we would be able to help the economy. Using individual cars does not help anyone economically. In the other had, riding subways, buses, taxis, and other public transportation will allow the public economy to rise, which in turn allows the government to recieve extra money that could benefit the local city. Taking the desicion to not use cars promotes alternative ways to get to the final destination in mind (Source 3). It also lets parks to be used more often than before and sidewalks become wider and safer. Moreover, the less cars that are on the street, the less traffic jams, car crashes, and time that is wasted sitting in a car wishing to be somewhere else (Source 3).
Futhermore, if more people were to walk or bike on the side walks, they would be able to enjoy the natural nature that they cannot fully appreciate when they are zooming pass it in their cars at fifty miles per hour. Also, getting the chance to actaully look at what the local city has to offer helps little businesses to become successful. Not using cars can also be included in our daily excersise that we are all supposed to be doing. Instead of being lazy and using cars to take us to places, we can all use that extra mile or so to help improve our health. Getting out in the open and getting some fresh air will also be beneficial to one's health by allieviating them from bad thoughts and "it is a good opportunity to take away stress" (Source 3). Getting away from the busy life that includes cars is extremely advantageous to humans' health and the city they live in.
Much has changed throughout history. Nothing ever stays the same, so maybe it's the time to change the amount of car usage. This era is a time period where there are many technological inovations that allow humans from all across the world to stay in touch without leaving their couch. There has been a noticeable decrease in the amount of miles that have been driven since 2005 (Source 4). This is a positive step foward to a better future for the generations to come for less cars on the road means there wil be less pollutions entering the atomsphere, more opportunities for businesses, and incouraging individuals to make healthier choices. | 34
|
cdff3b2 | Dear Mr. Senator,
My names is PROPER_NAME. I am 14 years old, born and raised in the beautiful city of LOCATION_NAME and I am writing to talk to you about the Electoral College. I've done my research, and according to the article
What Is the Electoral College?
by the Office of the Federal Register, it was first established "in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens." What I understood from that text is that it was made to keep equality and fairness between the government and the people. If that is so, why is it that the people have no say in it? I believe that the election should be based on the popular vote because the people should get what the people want.
The Constitution says "We the people, by the people, for the people," yet the people have limited power. I understand that in order to form a more perfect union of our nations, their must be laws and rules and people who govern, as well as enforce, these laws and rules. All I'm asking for is a bit more freedom and power as a citizen of these United States of America.
I'm not the only one who thinks this way. "...according to a Gallup poll in 2000...over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now." Their has been several cases in which the candidate has "won the popular vote but lost the presidency" (Plumer). For instance, the election in 2000 with Al Gore, where his opponent, George W. Bush, received 271 electoral votes and he received 266, eventhough Gore won the popular vote. Instead of voting for a group of people who vote for us, what's the harm in letting the people choose our nation's leader?
The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong by Bradfor Plumer, has a section titled
What's wrong with the electoral college in which he questions "Can voters control whom their electors vote for?", to which he replies, "Not always." If "we the people" are supposed to be the one's with the freedom, then we should have the freedom to at least choose who we're going to have as our President.
"At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winner-take-all system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the "swing" states." (Plumer). Take Mitt Romney, for example. He ran for president in 2012, and, knowing that campaigning down South, where he would already be receiving the votes, would not gain him any electoral votes, he didn't campain there at all. This is why they focus on the "swing" or "toss-up" states, and make the other states feel left out, like "the new president will have no regard for their interests, that he really isn't their president." (Posner)
To prevent the states to feel left out and to prevent an injustice such as this one, we should end the anachronism that is the Electoral College. "...The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The best arguments in favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality. And the arguments against direct elections are spurious at best." Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFL-CIO have all agreed on it at one point in time: "Abolish the Electoral College!" (Plumer).
Sincerely,
PROPER_NAME SCHOOL_NAME
CITY_STATE | 34
|
45a5be8 | The Seagoing Cowboys program is great job because of the great experienice. Not very many people in greece could affored all the traveling he did espesally at such the young age. This would truly be the change of a life time. I got to see some things that some people
new never got see .
This Job was perfect for me because it taught me
responsibiliy and to be on your own at a young age. This was a stable and steady job that paid farily well. At the time he had to go in to the army but because I was over sea as a (Seagoing Cowboy) that was counted as servic.I also had fun on this job whitch makes it even better. I loved what I did and so will you. That's
why you should become a Seagoing Cowboy.
If you are a persn who likes water and mother nature than this is the job for you. I liked animalsand
all day I got to be around sea creatures and horses and take care off them. He also got to travle every were and relaxs like a really long vacation. My job was a gaint atventure and site seeing is the best part. If you are a person who likes to exsplore and see the world and exspeinsce new things than this is the job for you.
I was an onest hard worker and was it all paid off when he got the job off a life time.
If you like to work to get reward or adventur and like to travel then this is the JOB FOR YOU. | 12
|
f0fbb9f | Is the Electoral College fair or not, thats is was many people are trying to figure out. The Electoral College is a process of votes that allows people to choose a president, but some contries get to vote and some dont even see a campaign ad. I believe the Electoral College is not a fair process because under the Electoral College system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president, also the winner-takes-all system doesn't rely on the states that have no chance of winning but relies on the tight races in the "swing" states.
There are many things wrong with the Electoral College that can ruin the vote system for a long time. According to Source 2, under the Electoral College the voters dont even get to vote for the candidate they want, but have to vote to a slate of electors which is unfair. Voters sometimes cannot contol who they vote for so voters sometimes get confused and vote for the wrong candidate. It depends on the state to pick the slate of electors on state conventions, or even by presidential candidates themselves.
The winner-takes-all syestem can be very unfair to some states who want to vote for a candidate. The winner-takes-all system is unfair because the candidates dont spend time on those states that have no chance of winning, but relies on the states that can win. 17 states including Rhode Island and North Carolina dont even get to see the candidate because they are states that have no chance of winning. Also 25 large media markets dont even get to see a campaign ad because the candidates dont bother to but one up. The fate of the presidency is in the hands of a few voters in ohio which is just unfair to other states.
I believe that the Electoral College is unfair because they have done many wrong things that can effect other states and the vote system for a very long time. | 23
|
c1c5139 | Dear Senator,
Presidential elections are closer than they seem, and your people have a complaint you need to hear. It involves the right to vote directly for a leader, and the ignoring of the vast majority. People have spoken in favor of omitting the Electoral College and sticking to what the people themselves deem acceptable for a president; not what one person decides for millions.
It does not make sense for the voters of America not to vote directly for who they want to lead, represent, and protect their counrty. Especially if the people cannot even choose who the electors are! That is ignoring the 23rd Amendment all together.
But do not get me wrong, I understand that some people are more comfortable with the Electoral College and they prefer to leave it in the hands of somebody politically intelligent and aware, but that usually means that those people need education and knowlege about the state of their country, and nned to be aware of how important their right to vote directly is. The Electoral College can go so wrong so fast and we need to go by what the majority millions say rather than the minorities with little to no knowlege. Us as Americans need to be educated when it comes to who is running in order for us to be able to say yes or no for ourselves- not depend on an unknown entity who might not even listen to what the people are saying.
So many great people who were voted most popular and accepted amongst the people have actually lost presidency over the fact that the College had the upper hand. This is unfair to those in America who took the time to directly vote and who took the time to learn and watch debates that the opponent won due to the fact that thousands upon thousands did not speak for themselves and left it to somebody else blindly.
In conclusion, Senator, I am asking you to think: is there ever really a happy turn out from ignoring the vast majority or doesn't that lead to an eventual uprising? Letting one speak for all is an unitelligent thought, we are a country where the people have power, have a voice, and are aware. Losing that is losing what makes us free. We all need the vote, we all need the voice, and we all have the right to choose exactly what we want for the future of this country.
Thank you for your time, and thank you for listening.
With Upmost Respect,
PROPER_NAME | 34
|
dc22ef5 | It is not a face. As you can tell in the picture, it clearly resembles a face, but there are a lot of facts to show that it is not. First, they have updated images showing it is a rock formation, just like here on Earth. Second, if it could prove aliens once lived, or currently live on Mars, then NASA would not hesitate to publish it. The Mars face is only a natural rock formation.
There are newer images proving it is a rock. With our growing technology we sent spacecrafts close to Cydonia, and they show rock formations. This rock formation is much like what we have on Earth. The shadows cast upon the rock, giving it facial features. On a different day, those shadows are not there.
Why would NASA keep this a secret? NASA would thrive from finding alien lifeforms. Why would they keep that private. As the story states, " Defenders of the NASA budget wish there was an ancient civilization on Mars." They want that, because their budget would increase and they could do better projects if they had published it.
Nerws articles claimed it was a rock formation long before any conspiracy theories were out. Soon, after the second shot of it, scientists proved it was just another rock formation that resembles many we have here on Earth today.
Even though the photos look like they have facial features, and could be the remains of an ancient alien civilization, it is not. Some facts to back it up are that NASA would not hide something this benefitual to them from the public, scientists have proven it was made naturally by rock, and better resolution photos prove that it is just a rock formation with shadows showing facial features. In Mars' revolution the sun does not always cast a shadow on it, and that is why the features do not always show up, proving that the Mars face is just another face in conspiracy history. | 34
|
d759791 | Have you ever thought about what the world would do without cars? and we just used bikes or trains or skate boards or even buses? well in Bogota they have a day where you dont use your car and millions just biked or skated and took buses to work or school on the car free day. Its the third year cars have been banded in Bogota and the goal is to reduce smog. The people who didnt perticipate in this were charged with twenty five dollar fines.
Bogota isnt the only place that banded cars. paris actually banded driving due to smog. In paris the people were to leave their cars at home or they would have to pay a 22-euro fine which means thirty one dollars. You would think people would listen to them, but four thousand people decided to drive so they were all charged. All though this seems good becuase there would be no air pollution it wasnt so good for delivery componies because they complained about lost revenue.
Also in Germany they permitly banned cars. seventy percent of the familys do not own cars. But fifty seven percent sold a car just to move there. People say they are much happier this way like a Heidrun, a mother of two " when i had a car i was tense. im much happier this way" as she walked the streets. David Goldburg said " All of our developements since World War II has been centered on the car, and that will have to change" he is an offical of the transportation for america, its a fast growing coalisition with hundrends of groups in the US. They are promoting new commuties that are less dependent on cars.
I feel that if the United States start doing this then the whole world might start. It would make the world a better place. There would be less air pollution or "smog" and you wouldnt have to pay fro gas anymore. Its also a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution. If you need to go somewhere just ride you bike or if its far take a bus, its as simple as that. There would be less taxes and you wouldnt have to pay anymore car payments. " recent studies suggest that americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses asa each year goes by" most people dont drive becuase they either cant afford a car or they dont have a job.
In the end this may actually start happening. Bill Ford which is th eexecutive chairman of the Ford Motor Company was talking about a business plan in which vehicle ownership is impractical. he said that cities that "pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network top save time, and improve safety." and he is completley right there will be no more car crashes or drunk drivers anymore, the world may become a better place. | 23
|
4e6d530 | Venus, sometimes called the "Evening Star," this nickname is mis leading since Venus is actually a planet in out solar system, Venus is the second planet from our sun.
Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size. Earth, Venus, and Mars, the other planetary neighbor orbit the sun at different speed that means that sometimes we are closer to Mars and sometimes to Venus.Venus is a dangerest place to go because the landing is not very good, humans have send spacecraft but they can't survived the landing for more than a few hours, in Venus is also too hot is the hottest surface temperature in our solar system, with a temperature over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and 90 times greater of atmospheric pressuere. Astronomers have curiosity for Venus because it's more like Earth in out solar system.
In conclusion I think that the author supports his idea by saying the good and bad things about Venus and it's worthy to study Venus. | 01
|
355c999 | Have you ever seen a movie about aliens? Those green, bug looking creatures with big eyes and laser guns. Now, have you ever heard of the "Face on Mars?" If you have, then this is going to explain to you why the Face is a natural landform and not some monument created by aliens.
When NASA first saw the "Face on Mars" they claimed they spotted what the text states, "the shadowy likeness of a human face." The image was found when they were snapping photos of possible landing sights for Viking 2, one of NASA's spacecrafts circling the region of the Red Planet called Cydonia. The passage later states, "But the sensation was short lived. Scientists figured it was just another Martian mesa, common enough around Cydonia." The scientits even said it was just a landform. They stated that it has,"unusual shadows that made it look like an Egyptian Pharaoh." The scientists are not saying it's a alien monument either. They are just saying people could petray it that way.
A few days after this discoery NASA unveiled the image. When they unveiled it there was a capiton under it reading, "huge rock formation." NASA said the formation resembles a head and was formed by shadows giving the illusion of the facial features. This just made the Face a publicity stunt for most people. This might be when most would believe that it is some sort of a alien monument. But then NASA passed over the Face again and this time took a phots much greater then the last.
On April 5, 1988, the Mars Global Surveyor flew over the "Face on Mars." They snapped picutres ten times sharper then before. The text states, "Thousands of anxious web surfers were waiting when the image first appeared on a JPL web site." Thouands waited for the photo and what the photos unveiled were the truth. The photos revelead a natural landform, not any alien monument. Some people still believed that the structure was still an alien monument. But NASA learned that not all will believe.
All this evidence is just showing you that it is a natural landform. They have coordinates of this landform. They have amazing pictures just showing you that this is real. Even scientists examining the photos and showing exactly how what it is. What is it you must ask? It's a landform. NASA knew not all would believe but it made no sense to them. They supply so much evidence but still some just don't believe. The "Face on Mars" resembles a human head but shadows give it the illusion of a face.
In conclusion, the 'Face on Mars' is nothing more then a natural landform. We have photo proof of the Face along with scientists examining it and telling all who do not believe what it is. The Face is a natural landform. I have given you all the evidence. I have showed you that it's a natural landform. The only question is, do you believe it is? | 23
|
e15385d | In my opinion I think driverless cars are a bad idea. I think they are inconvinent. I believe that bad things could happen if there were driverless cars, such as accidents and or death itself. Lastly, I believe that malfunctions can and will happen in driverlss cars. In this essay I will explain why I think driverless cars are a bad idea for more then one reason.
To start off with, driverless cars are not completely driverless as of right now. Therefore they are very in convinent because they cannot go through work sites or traffic areas, where most people wouldn't want to drive through. Details taken from the passage are "...Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alret the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents."
In my experience I find driving through work cites to be a little scary because you have to maintain a slow speed and make sure you do not hit anything or injure anyone. With workers on the road it makes it scary as well because accidents can happen, but you never want them to occur. In my opinion this is a huge inconvience for people who get nervous driving through these areas.
Secondly, I believe that bad things could occur from driverless cars, such as malfunctions causing a car to maybe stop working with you inside it would possibly the car losing control of itself and you being injure because of this. They have driverless cars right now that are not completely driverless and you have to drive for certain parts of the road, but what if this dosn't work and the car continues to drive through a work cite with a speed limit of 20 mph going a speed of 50 mph? Someone would end up getting hurt and you would end up with a big fine or jail time. Taken from the text itself, "...new laws willbe needed in order to cover liability in the case of an ccident. I fhte technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault- the driver or the manufacturer?" This means that if something bad happens no one knows who wil be blamed.
Next, cars can malfunction adn there have been recalls in the past because of things that have gone wrong. For example brakes not working causing a death toll. What car brand wants someone to look at their cars and then see a death toll due to the fact that the car companies brakes didn't do their job and a person couldn't stop? Driverless cars have many sensors. AS started from the text, "For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors." Sensors and almost anything else can malfunction for no reason at all. Because of how many sensors would be in a completely driverless car there is no way to insure that every sensor will work properly and make sure no mistakes will be made.
Some people may say that times are changing and technology is at an all time high and they would be correct, however I do not believe that driverless cars are the future. I believe that they are dangerous and could do more harm then good. That is why in my opinion driverless cars are a bad idea for more then one reason. | 34
|
c6f8f44 | The scientist of NASA think it is worthy to explore venus because there are things on venus that you can't find on earth like you can on venus. The scientist think it is a good plant to search and see what matreials there are on venus and how it is just too dangrous to go there by human it is possibale to have robots to do all the exploring despite the really bad heat and radiation coming of from the planet.
In other
details no only is it wrothy it is also dangrous because you can die from the over powering heat and gasses that my come off of venus. the Atmosphere is just to thick because it is almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blanks of sulfuric acid in the plants atmosphere. The tempature is a wopping 800 Degrees fahernheit and the atompheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experiance in earth .
NASA wants to send a man made vehicle to hover over venus so that way no humans risking there lifes just to see what lies beneath all of the thick clouds on the plant venus. one of the proplems are not geting close to the surface of venus | 12
|
a95ab46 | IN the Article "Making Mona LIsa Smile", the auther describes how a new technology called the Facial Action Coding System enables ccomputers to identify human emotions like the Mona Lisa Smile.
In the article it says that she is 83 percent happy, 9 percent disgust, 6 percent fearful, and 2 percent angry somethings or technology cant do that or some people cant do that at all and that is suprsing but what they call it is the "Da Vnci Code" an the name sounds cool and makes seans.
Well the whole process begins when the computer constructs a 3-D computer model of all faces; all 44 major musals in the model must move like human muscels. Movement of one or more muscels is called an "action unit." Then Dr. Huang relies on the work of psychologist, such as Dr. Paul Eckman, Creator of FACS. Eckman has classifed six basic emotions-happiness, surprise, anger,disgust, fear, and sadness and then associated each with characteristic movements of the facial muscles .Here is a example in the article 1. Raise your lips at the corner of your mouth.
2. Than Squint your eyes slightly, to produce wrinking at the corner of your eyes.
3 Holding that, raise the outer parts of your cheeks up, toward your eyes.
According to the Facial Feedback Theory of Emoton, moving your facial muscels not only expresses emotions, but also may even help produce them.
A renowned drama couch, Constantin Stanislavsky, had his actors carefully reproduce smiling and frowning as a way of creating these emotons on stage. | 01
|
eda6cd8 | The "Face on Mars" is believed by you and other people to be created by aliens, Extra-Trerstrial beings from another planet. Given that Mars is a planet that has liquid water and has climate and weather just like Earth, I do not support this contriversy. here are a couple reasons why I think this and why I think you should believe me too.
First, on May in 2001, NASA unveiled the image of the Face for all to see. The caption say it was a "huge rock formation which resembles a human head formed by shadows making it look like eyes, a nose, and a mouth. Given I already stated that Mars is somewhat like Earth, Earth too has rock formations made by nature. some examples are the Grand Canyon, the Appalachian Mountains, and Mount Fuji. These rock formations on Earth were maybe caused by a volcanic eruption, an earthquake, or some type of natural disaster. maybe on Mars, those could hapen. Mars has sand storms powerful than any blizzard. It may cause some sand to build up and possibly get near water and clump up and eventually harden into rocks. This could eventually build up bigger and bigger, making shapes and it's own holes. In other words, nature on Mars could have made this formation.
Next, It has become a pop icon. Starring in Hollywood fims, in books, magazines, radio talk shows, etc., You and other people might beleive anyhting you see in pop culture/ on TV. I don't blame you though, most things on TV or in some type of reading or a popular information source happen to be true, but a magority of it is mostly houxes and lies. People think that because it was on TV, it's true evidence of life on Mars, most conspiracy theorists say that NASA would rather hide the truth of life on Mars because they don't know IF there's life on Mars! Most theorists say that their used to be an ancient civilization on Mars, but who knows?
Finally, some scientists believe the FAce as an ancient alien artifact, photographing Cydonia, a reijon on Mars, became a priority, a vital/crucial thing to do for NASA when MGS arrived at Mars in September, 1997, eighteen years after the Viking missions concluded. Jim Garvin, cheif scientist for NASA's MArs Exploration Program explains, "We felt this was important to taxpayers, we photographed the Face as soon as we could get a good look at it." Later on April 5, 1998, MGS flew over Cydonia for the first time. A team took a shot (ten times sharper than the original Viking photos). People were anxious to see what it finally was......a natural landform. Aliens didn't make the Face after all!
To conclude my claim, the "Face on Mars" was just a natural landform on Mars. It has many landforms like this just like Earth does. Even though it has been in pop culture and seen on TV, it doesn't mean it's real and truly built by aliens! And finally, most people believe it was an ancient alien artifact. but in reality, it wasn't. These are the reasons, claims, and evidence that the "Face on Mars" is truly a natural landform. | 34
|
6ccda33 | "Hmmmm, i think it would be great to have others in the Seagoing Cowboys program." Luke Bomberger is apart of the Seagoing Cowboys program and thinks it would be great if new faces would join the program as well. So Luke is thinking about how he'd get the message out to people so they could probably be in the program. ''I should talk to the others and see what they think." Luke said, so he spreads the word to the other guys and they all think it's a great idea. Luke was amazed everyone was wanting others to join the program also. All of a sudden luke thought to himself ''We'll be getting back on board in three more days. So he told the guys that they need to get the word out to as many people as they could instantainiously. So they thought of a plan then one of the guys blurted out and said, 'since were on land right now we could probably find a radio station around here." So the other guys gave him a high five and telling him that's an brilliant idea. So the guys took a map and started roaming around seeing if they could find a radio station. And about two hours later of searching they finally found a little radio station in the middle of no where. So Luke lead the the group of gentlemen in the little radio station and spoted an old man drinking coffe just sitting there. So as soon as Luke said 'Excuse me sir?.'' The old man jumped up instantainioulsy and said, 'AHHH! who are you and what do you want?". So all the gentlemen introduced theirselfs and told the old man how trhey needed to let others know about their program and how they needed his help. So the old man responded with, "What's in it for me?" the gentlemen thought for a moment and one said, 'Oh i know, if you let us use your thingy majigger here you can leave this boring job and come with us." So the old man thought for a moment and then said "Deal". So the old man turned on his machine to have all the guys on the radio then he counted down "3...2...1...and action." So Luke spoke first and said ''Gentlemen and gentlemen come one come all to be apart of the Seagoing Cowboys program." then he gave out all the infomation then in less in two minutes the radio station started to get dozens of phone calls and all the men that called were excepted and flew out to where all the other men were. Three day later it was time to take off and get ready to start sailing so Lucas did a head count. The program started out with 24 members but when Lucas was done counting the program had 148 members in all. Lucas was happy with the success and progress that was made, so everyone got settled in and started to sail. | 12
|
7fc7f0a | Mona Lisa had paining by Leonardo da Vinci ,who became one of the best art in the world. Mona Lisa have 3 copy on the world, all by Leonardo da Vinci. Mona Lisa had been many people see is but juat all can't tell emotions of her.
At University of Lllinois in America Dr. Huang try to fin d out emotions of her. Dr. Hhuang trmany thing to find out what Mona Lisa emotions, he try to repainted is but but is not really workinng out .Dr. Huang say" like she not smiling as broadly, is just can't showing no emotion."
Mona Lisa smile is too hard to tell she happy or sad, Dr. Huang say" a classroom camputer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored" is just can't tell. and he say "So computers need to understand that too." Painting a human you need to know what you doing and what you need t do. Many artst try to repainted Mona Lisa by just can't do it right when they painting her lips and eyes is not show anything.
That is all everything you need to know about Mona Lisa and her smile. Dr Huang say" whoever thought that making face could reveal somuch about the scince og emotions." And is one of the painting everybody love to see. | 01
|
3af343a | Cars have been a part of our culture for some time now. Since Henry Ford created the Model T, we have been crazy about these machines. Molding, crafting, and improving since, we have come to know these as daily objects. However, with all the new and progressing theroies now, is there really a need for cars? Limiting car use cold be beneficial not only for the Earth, but also for people. Limiting car use can improve people's moods, can reduce pollution, and improve community interaction.
Firstly, limitng car use could in turn improve people's moods. In Vauban, Germany, there has been an experiment of great proportion. They are living a suburban life without cars. Not only is this community close and in touch, the people are happier. As mother of two Heidrun Walter stated, "When i had a car in was always tense. Im much happier this way," it is showing that not having a car can really relax a person. Just think about it, no insurance, no car payment, no thinking if wil my car last until the end of today, just saving thousands a year and having a lot of stress put off.
Secondly, limiting car use can reduce pollution. Im almost certain we've all heard about Global Warming and Greenhouse Gases, and the devastation they do to our planet. Withou cars these problems are still present, but lack the massive numbers in which it was rising. Smog is a horrible kind of pollution that affects the biggest cities throught the world. Paris banned cars for an entire day to remove the amont of smog in the area. This shows that pollution can be stopped. Even though they only banned even numbered licenese plates one day and odd another pollution still went down. If all cars were banned then pollution would have gone down even further.
Lastly, limiting car use can improve community interaction. People now dont need cars for everything. They can walk, and take trains, and carpool. All these interactions strenghten the community. Walking makes people maybe wanna buy things from stores along the way and help local stores. Taking trains can create friendships and long lasting personal buisnesses. Carpooling cits down on emissions and reduces pollution. The community can do nothing but benefit from these.
In conclusion, limiting car use could be extremly helpful. It could improve people's moods, reduce pollution, and improve community interaction. Maybe someday we could actually get rid of cars and listen to the grinding of the pedals down the biking highways. | 34
|
5d14dde | Have you ever wondered what other planets are like? Have you ever gotten the questioned yourself about these other planets like... Have scientists found other lifeforms? Have scientists found resorces on other planets like they have on Earth? well then if thats the case let me explain you why "Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents." There could possibily be other life forms on other planets and even Venus, how there's life forms on Earth, typicaily Humans, Animals and even Bacteria like Algy and Fungi, In the article "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" In paragraph 4 it says "Venus could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth." Another reason why Venus is worth studying is, like the Sun its the hottest thing in our solar system, what if Venus is not as hot as the Sun but what if Venus is hot for anything to be on there, in the article " The Challenge of Exploring Venus" In paragraph 3 it says "Venus tempreture average is over 800 degrees Fahrenheit.", or what if it relates to Earth in many ways? In the article in paragraph 4 it says "Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans" This is all the evidence on why Venus is worth discovering dispite the dangers while, Scientists may have discovered a bit of Venus and a bit of Mars unfortionatly for now some of those planets remain a mystery while some are on the very peak of changing from the unknown to the discoverable. | 23
|
c3a8a5f | from "the challenge of exploring venus" the author belives thier are great benifits of venus. In paragraph 2 it says "often referred to as earths twin, venus os the closest plant to earth in terms of denstiy and size, and occasionally the closest in distances too.". venus its almost alike to earth. The aurthor belives it to be. Yes venus is are "sister planet" but what about the dangers of going to venus?
Venus has a thick atmosphere of alomst 97% carbon dioxide, even in paragraph 3 it says "Even more challening are the clouds of highly corrocsive sulfuric acid in venus atmosphere". How are we to visit venus when we cant even breath on the surface. the conditions are far more alarming then any human incounter.
Yet again still think we should go to venus but why? In paragraph 4 is says "astronomers are fascinated by venus because it may well once have been the most earth_-like plant in our solar system."
Even withe the dangers of venus one day we will find a way to land on venus. Venus maybe are new home. | 12
|
23ee95d | DEAR, Senator
Changing the electoral college would not be an great idea due to the fact that it has been around for centuries and would negatively impact the voting system. Some believe the voting system is a very unfair and outdated system because of the electoral college. When changing the system to popular vote it will affect many people, it may also come out worse than the electoral college. 3 big points why the electoral college should stay the same is one because the electoral college has been around keeping voting in place for centuries. The second great point is that a disaster only happend once. Then the third main point is the winner take all idea is a great idea for the electoral college.
The electoral college has been around forever so why change it now. Some belive that the electoral college is a good idea Because of the voting way in the electoral college system voters vote not for the president but for a slate of electors. which is good because people need to have a leader of there state and that leader shows them which president is really good for whta they do. Presidents talk about what they are gonna do to help the country and the slate elelctors define what the presidents are gonna do to help out that certain state. Then the people of the state vote there slate electors for good reasons. The electoral system should stay around alot longer the system is just rigt for voting.
The electoral college is in good shape for staying and not changing a disater only happend once 14 years ago back in 2000. That means at least 3 elections happend since then and nothing went wrong. Even though if the electoral college system is such a good system then why was there such confusion in th200 fiasco. That makes the electoral college system look very bad becuase it can keep it's voting in balance at all. This was only once, If the system changes then this could happen more than many more times. Then soon we won't even know which president wins the election.
The electoral college looks really good due to the "winner-take-all"
system which awards all electors to the winning presidential canidate. some say this is far but others believe the "proportional representatin" system, the system that the state governor prepares a "Certificate of Ascertainment", which list all the canidates who ran for president in the state along with the names of there respective electors.
In overall the eletoral college should stay due to the fact that the electoral college has been around keeping voting in place for centuries, a disaster only happend once and finally is the winner take all idea is a great idea for the electoral college. so let's not try new stuff keep the electoral college. | 23
|
6beaab6 | I think having a "driverless cars" will be a good idea. Thats because I see more good in the things it can do than bad. Here i will list out a couple of why there should driverless cars.
The first reason I see why its good because the manufacturers has test the driverless cars. The result of it was that the car drove more than half a million miles with out crashing. Which is said in pharagraph two. This clearly means it is capable of being a driverless car becasue it could travel so far with out an accident.
Next the driverless cars also has a bunch of features that will help it to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel. The car features that the car will or more likely have is sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS reciever, and lastly a inertial motion sensor. Becasue of all of those the statement that says it can mimic a human at the wheel could be or is true. This information was found in pharagraph four.
Lastly the senors can cause the car to apply the brakes and reduce power from the engine which allows a better responce and control compared to a human driver. Thats not the only thing the car can control. The car can also steer and accelerate by themselves. The catch the car will notify the driver when the road needs human skills. Meaning it will need a driver to actually take control when it is going through work zones and
around accidents.Due to that program the driver still needs to stay alert, aware the surroundings, focus on the road and is ready to take over at any moment when a situation appears. To notify the driver the seats of the car will vibrate when it about to back up into an object. To announce the driver when to take over the driverless car will have flashing lights on the windshield or have a heads up display.
Those are the reasons why i believe driverless cars is a good thing. Due to all the alarm systems telling the driver when to take over this might prevent texting a driving. Also that is a step forward to becoming more advanced. So as time goes on automakers or known as the manufacturers will continue to fix problems that the car might have making it better and safer. Sooner or later it will be a perfect highly advance car in the future. The first step is always the hardest because no one knows what it will do. | 34
|
2d3ac02 | The future is a huge thing that manny people plan on having to be big. New technology, devices, transportation, homes, and many other things that make life easy will eventuually be turned into something more advanced. In the article "Driverless Cars Are Coming", the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. As for my opinion, I believe these driverless cars should be made even with a few difficulties, these cars are possible to be driven as the future developes.
As the article begins, it asks, "Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore?" and when I think about that question, my response is, yes. I could imagine a time, the time of the future, where everything is advanced and especially the use of transportation. The article explains how others have been fascinated of driverless cars as well and quotes, "Television and movies have long been fascinated with cars that could drive themselves."
Car companies started to wondering on how to create driverless cars and many start off with computer driven cars or something simple. "In the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. Engineers at Berkeley tried something similar, but they used magnets with alternating polarity. These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical." Not many were successful but that didn't stop other companies from trying.
For any type of car, safety was the most important thing and driverless cars will obviously have that as well. As cars began to advanced, so did their safety. Sensors were created, video cameras on the rearview mirror and many other kind of sensors. "Sensors are nothing new, of course. In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheel in the creation of antilock brakes. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-contril skids or rollovers." The creation of new cars were in the minds of many engineers and even until now many more ideas are being brought, tested and invented. "Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own.
Driverless cars are possible and clearly can be safe to use. Many are just waiting on the law for the approval. As soon as these cars are able to be used, the future is creeping its way up on huamanity. Many are being tested and it's only a matter of time for the future to happen and I could imagine how the world will be with driverless cars. | 34
|
743acd8 | I feel that keeping the Electoral College is the wrong way to go. That changing it to election by popular vote is a better decision. Because the people of our nation should be able to choose who they want to be the president not the 538 electors. Why not have the whole nation vote for who they want and who ever has the majority of the votes win? That sounds like a fair election to me! The electoral college has so many faults, that just one little tiny mishap can cause a huge disater within the election.
The electoral college does have some advantages. Like swing states, or avoiding run-off elections . But it also has disadvantages for example it takes so many risks, its unfair to voters, its outdated, and irrational.
The electoral college cheats the people who are voting. I mean they didn't sign up or vote for the electors
NO, they did it for the president. So why not give them that chance? It makes it easier on other people and the election is a fair one.
The picking and choosing of the electors is unorganized. Each year its a different person.
Sometimes state conventions, sometimes the states party's central committee, and sometimes the presidential candidates themselves.
Voters that go and vote for which ever president they want, really aren't even voting for the president their voting for that president's elector. Which is someone who goes and votes for that president that picked them as their elector. And sometimes the voter that is actually voting for the elector to vote for their assigned president will end up voting for a different president. Also voters will sometimes get confused about all these electors and vote for the wrong candidate.
So in conclusion, changing from Electoral College would be the best choice to make. Because election by popular vote for the president isn't so complicated, is more reliable, isn't so risky, and most importantly the voters get a fair election. | 23
|
6ba3d12 | There are many ways of limiting car usage. Some advantages of limiting usage are people are much happier and safier, you dont have to hear the aggravating sounds of motors and tires screeching by, and air pollution is decreased majorly.
In the first passage, Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two children stated, "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way". By this she means she doesn't have to worry about her or her families safety as much, being on the road is a lot more dangerous than walking. Driving you can never tell when there's going to be an accident, everything just happens so fast. There is nothing you can do to prevent car wrecks from happening. You may do everyting in your power to be a safe driver but there will always be other people on the road not paying attention and cause a crash that you can't prevent. Walking where you need to go is the safest way to get around. You don't have to worry about car crashes or worrying over your families safety.
Another example of the advantages of limting car usage in passage one is, not hearing the screeching sound of car motors or tires flying by. Instead of hearing the familiar sounds of cars passing by you hear the joyful sound of children wandering around or riding their bicycles. People find it more calming to hear the sound of a child enjoying themselves instead of hearing the roaring and deafing sound of vehicles going by. When people are at home trying to relax they do not want to hear loud noises through their neighborhood. That's suppose to be their winding down time to escape from everything. Without vehicles people would be a lot more calmer, and relaxed.
The last example came from the second passage. It states that there is a major decrease in air pollution in Paris as they enoforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. One day they ordered people with even-number license plates to leave their cars parked or suffer having to pay a fine. In the text it states that, "Almost 4,000 drivers were fined and Twenty-seven people had their cars impounded for their reaction to the fine." With this being done congestion was down sixty percent in the capitol of France. By them taking control they reduced the amount of air pollution in Paris.
By limiting the usage of vehicles we make people a lot happier and safeir, you don't hear the annoying sounds of cars screeching by, and last but not least air pollution is decreased in a huge amount. | 34
|
b29e15a | Limiting car usage can be a major impact on our everyday life. Just think about what would happen if people stopped using their cars and started walking or riding bikes for transportation. If we did that it would reduce greenhouse gas in Europe, it would also limit the amount of money spent on fuel used by the everyday economy, further more it would lower air polution.
First off, b limiting the epidemic of car usage it would reduce greenhouse gas in Europe .
Now in Europe 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions is made up of passenger cars. And 5o percent in some car-intensive areas in the United States. Just by taking a bus or riding a bike for transportation you could help limit this cause. Its been plenty efforts in the past but now its starting to take affect exspecially in the suburbs.
Further more, we could be reducing the amount of fuel we need all over the world just by limiting the amount of time you use your car. We spend more money on fuel than we do anything else. Why, well because eveything needs fuel now a days. Diesels makes up 67 percent of vechicles in France,compared to a 53.3 percent average of diesel engines in the rest of Western Europe, according to Reuters. We could really be putting our money towards other thing such as parks and rebuilding our communities. A study last year showed that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009..
Also, one of our major problems is air polution. We have a very high concentration of it. Well because majority of the people drivr their cars and cars take up fuel then that fuel is released through the motor and it gets into the air. Now just by limiting your car usage you good take aways stress and lower the amount of air polution said businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza. He and his wife made a difference just by riding a two-seat bicycle. As a result of the recession many may find less reason to resume the habit.
In conclusion, you can make a difference just by doing one little thing. Just sit back and think about what huge of an impact it will be if you lower your car usage. You can be that helping hand that reduces greenhouse gas not jujst for you but for evryone around you. Help limit the amount of money spent on fuel, we could be using that money for something usefull. Last but not least help lower the air polution it would really make a difference. Help make that change! | 23
|
cce77c3 | The technology to read the emotional exspressions of student is a classroom is valuable because the computer can express how we feel, it can tell if your bored or not, some think the computers need to learn nonverbal communication.
The computer can tell your emotion. Dr. Paul Eckman the creator of FACS ( Facial Action Coding System) has classified six basic emotions they are happiness,surprise,anger,disgust,fear,and sadness. They each associate with the characteristic movement of the facial muscles.
The computer can tell if your bored or not. they have indicated the difference between a genuine smile and a forced smile. A real smile or in other words the Ztgomatic major ( muscles that begain at your cheek bones) lift the corners of your mouth. In a false smile the mouth is stretched sideways using the Zygomatic major and a different muscle called the risorius.
Some think the computers need to learn non verbal communication. In the article it says imagine a computer that knows your happy or sad. for example, if you smile when the web ad appears on your screen, a similar ad might fallow. But if you frown, the next ad will be different. A classroom computer can tell if the students are becoming confused or bored. Dr. Huang thinks he can modify the lesson, like an effective human instructer. " Most humans Communication is nonverbal, including emotional communication."
Notes Dr. Huang " So Computers Need to Understand that, too."
Yes this is valuable in a classroom. this is because computers express how we feel, they can tell if your bored or not, and some people think they need to learn nonverbale communication. | 23
|
8fa257f | The Challengen of Exploring Venus," The author suggests that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presemts.
The author supports this idea. That Venus is actually a planet. in our solar system, Venus is the second planet from our sun. While Venus is simple to see from the challenging place to examine more closely. Often referred to as Earth's twin," Venus is the closest planet to Earth in term of density and size, and occasionally the closest in distance too. Earth, Venus, and Mars, our other planetary neighbor, orbit the sun at different speeds. These differences in speed mean that sometimes we are closer to Mars and other times to Venus. Numerous factors contribute to Venus's perputation as a challenging planet for humans to study, despite its proximity to us.
A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere. On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet. These conditions are far more extreme than anything human encounter on Earth; such an eveironment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans and would liquefy many metals.
If our sister planet is so inhospitable, why are scientists even discussing further visits to its surface? Astronomers are fascinated by Venus because it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar sytem. Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth. Today, Venus still has some feartures that are analogous to those on Earth The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features sych as valleys mountains, and creaters. Furthermore, recall that Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit,a crucial consideration given the long time farmes of space travel. The value of returning to Venus seems indisputable, but what are the optionsfor making such a mission both safe and scientifically productive?
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has one particulry compelling ideafor sending humans to study Venus. NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fary. 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. at thirty-plus miles above the surface, temperature would still be toasty at around 170 degrees Fahrenheit, but the air pressure would be close to that of sea level on Earth.
Striving to meet the Challenge presented by Venushas 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. our tarvels 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. | 01
|
19d2d0a | Cars have always been a big part society; it takes us from home to work to home agian. However, people fail to realize that driving cars is damaging our earth. We don't have anywhere else to go if we keep killing earth. The government should take action and try to get the people out of cars and on bycicles.
In Paris, the government banned certain cars to drive on certian days. In Robert Duffer's article it explains which cars are banned, "On Monday motorists with even-numbered license plates were ordered tro leave their cars at home or suffer a 22-euro fine ($31). The same would apply to odd-numbered plates the following day." Paris takes action in hopes to help their air pollution. The smog was so bad it "rivaled Beijing, China".
Vaugban, Germany tries an experiment. They make a suburb with real people, going to real life jobs without cars. This is one of the first car-free cities and it was great. Life continued, people still breathed, society was advancing without any help from a combersome vehicle. Not only did this city help with air pollution but it got people up and outside! People walked or used bycicles to get to where their were headed. Exercise is the one thing almost everyone pushes off but now with no cars you have to get that exercise in order to get to work! Mother and media trainer, Heidrun Walter said '"When I had a car i was always tense. I'm much happier this way"'.
Even in Bogota, Colombia people believe '"It's a good oppertunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."' Eventhough Germany didn't allow a single car, Colombia did allow there to be public transportation only( busses and taxis). The people are happy and content with this simplistic lifestyle, so much so that other cities have joined the event! This goes to show that society doesn't need cars. We can take control of our life but lately we have been letting technology control the way we live.
Elisabeth Rosenthal believes it to be "The End of Car Culture". What do you believe? Are you happy with the life you are living now? "Has America passed peak driving?". | 34
|
b996081 | Even though some may disagree with the creaction of these types of cars because they may be dangerous, but disagree i prepose that the making of these driverless cars be made.
In the story it begens to tell you in detial that for some cars, they may already have similarities to the driverless cars such as, in 2013 BMW's annouced the development of the '' Traiffic Jam Assistant ''. The car can handle driving functions at the speeds up to 25 mph. Also they can steer, accelerate, and brake by themselves, but they dont require the system knowledge to notify the human driver when the road ahead requires hands-on contact for directions.
For manufacturers they consider using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver. In consideration for some driver this may come in use, because some car accidents are cause by sleeping at the wheel, texting, or on the cellphone talking. This system may be of some use to businessmen who are constantly on the phone. In this way, the in-car system is actually a safety precaustion. | 01
|
d3c55a0 | For many years, people have been debating whether or not Mars has life forms living on it. In 1976, NASA came across a strange image. On the side of Mars, there seemed to be a landform that looked like an Egyptian Pharaoh. Many people believed this to be a sign of life on Mars, but it really is not.
If the image from Mars did infact prove that there is life on Mars, NASA would benefit greatly. "Some people think that the Face is bona fide evidence of life on Mars---evidence that NASA would rather hide, say conspiracy theorists. Meanwhile, defenders of the NASA budget wish there was an ancient civilization on Mars." Why would NASA lie about this if telling the truth meant more funding?
NASA has tried over and over again to prove that the Face is just a landform; we just won't listen. "We felt this was important to taxpayers,' explained Jim Garvin, chief scientist for NASA's Mars Exploration Program. 'We photographed the Face as soon as we could get a good shot at it."
The image is showing us that there is a butte on Mars, of which scientists have made many comparisons to the Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho.
Of course there might be life on Mars, but there's no way to know for sure. Blaming NASA for lying about the discovery of "aliens" is just simply illogical. NASA is an organization that explores space and everything in it, hoping to find something they can share with the world. The Face may be a neat discovery to show your kids one day, but it is definately not a sure sign of life on Mars.
People need to stop thinking that they know more than the professionals. NASA is an organized group of scientists who know more about space and science than the common person. They have classified the Face as nothing more than a butte, and it's time that we except that. In the future alien lifeforms may be discovered on Mars; that day is just not in 1976. | 23
|
b5aa1d8 | You may think that the Face on Mars was created by aliens. That is not true. The Face is just a natural ladform. There is a lot of evidence to support my argument. Like it is simply just a mesa, the photo Malin took, and there are many similar landforms around the American West. Certainly it wasn't created by aliens!
It is just a mesa. First, Martian mesas were common. They were very common around Cydonia as said in the article. Second, it did look like a face. That is because of the unusual shadows that formed to look kind of like an Egyptian Pharaoh. Third, it gives an illusion. The illusion is of eyes, a nose, and a mouth. These are the reasons that shows that the Face is a Martian mesa.
Michael Malin's photo shows that it is a landform. First, Malin's photo was taken ten times sharper. It lets it have a more clear image. Second, people think that the alien markings were hidden by haze. Though on the second picture it still doesn't show any sign of alien markings. Third, on April 8, 2001 another photo was taken. That day it was a cloudless summer day. Malin's tame captured a fantastic photo. It still didn't show that the Face was created by aliens. The photos that Malin and his team took were very useful.
It is similar to the world in a way. Using photos of the Face they would be able to see if there was any sign of life. Like small homes, or shacks. Second, it is defenitly equivalent to a butte or mesa. There is so much information to prove that. Third, it has landforms in common around the American West. Gavin stated 'It remids me most of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho. It is similar in a way to America.
Now you know the reasons why the Face on Mars was not created by aliens. There is so mush evidence to prove it. Like my examples which are it is actually a mesa, Michael's photo shows no signs of aliens markings or their homes, and the Face is similar to some landforms in the American West. There is a lot more evidence to prove that the Face on Mars is not a creation by aliens, but a normal Martian landform. | 34
|
5104a0f | I think that we should have driverless cars. Driverless cars may beneifit a lot for humans. We have tons of human errors and accidents. Having driverless cars can help reduce those problems. People may hate the idea of driverless cars, but I think it would be a good idea for us.
Driverless cars can help with a lot of things such as accidents and human errors. We may be in a huge rush and start multitasking. Women will start doing their make-up while driving, men and women may eat while driving, or we all may start texting. The worst thing that could also happen or has happened is being on drugs or drinking and driving. We all know that drinking, texting and driving has caused many accidents for years now.Having driverless cars can help with this because we wouldn't be driving unless we had to.
Gas may be expensive in some places around the world. People drive far to work, school, and etc. We use a ton of a gas going somewhere we normally may have to go almost everyday. We travel around with our family using a lot of gas as well. According to this article "Driverless Cars Are Coming," in the first paragraph it says that cars would use half the gas of today's taxis. By having the driverless car we would save way more money and use it for something else such as bills.
I think having driverless cars may be a big beneifit. We'll have less problems around. Having less human errors would be a big beneifit. I talked about what it would benefit and how it would. I believe that we should have driverless cars for many reasons. | 23
|
c9dfa00 | Mysterious Face on Mars
In argumentive situation everyone has there own opinions. But with somethings it makes no sense what they're trying to prove. if i was in an argument with someone who thought there was life on the planet Mars i would try to prove how. In space its hard to say theres life in space because scientist have no proof ,no data, or evidence there could be. For there to be a face on mars is hard to believe and for an alien to make it no evidence adds up.
No one really had an exact reaction to the face because all they were assuming there is life on mars. The public started saying theres aliens up there. But the size of the head was two miles and contiued to stare back at everyone. But some people were realistic saying that their was another Martian mesa they were common around cydonia but this image made it look like an Egyptian Pharaoh. So none of the scientist put alot of thought into it but its the people who escalted the theory and image.
The people who thought there was life the rock formation of how it looked gave an illusion of a head, nose, eyes,and a mouth. The public was so dedicated to proving there was and they could prove it. But some other people and scientist were explaining that there is no life. The more people started talking and hearing about it became a bit more fake and hard to believe. This theory of the face started becoming in Hollywood flms, books, magazines and just made up stories.
Nasa begun to get frusterated and there budget started decreasing. Nasa actually wished it was acient civilizationon mars instead. Scientist started blieving that the face was alien artifact. So they started photographing Cydonia as i priority. When they started photographing more and more they were sorta getting somewhere. But they finally sent out Mars Global Surveyors and flew obver to Cydonia and they took a picture. The picture was ten times better and sharper than the original photos they had with the viking.
Nasa tried to get alot more photos and were gettiing no where becuase of the main reason the weather. But on April 8, 2001 it was a cloudless summer day in Cydonia go a perfect view of the face. Soon Nasa made a conclusion the picture actually looked like the Martian Equivalent. A butte or messa they were landforms common around the American West. Scientist they can finally put an end to the rumor saying theres life over there. Now everyone can know the actual truth with with this whole conspericy.
Getting to an argument with someone about is ther life on mars. Or is there really a face on mars. But i think the argument is clear who would be right. There's just to much evidence proving theres no and what they saw is an illusion of a face. Sometimes you just need proof to an easy fact of what is hard to figure out. | 23
|
f5050a5 | People believe that the Electoral College should go, and the writer agrees with them. Watever happened to
"we, the people..."
!? The people are to decide who gets voted in as president, or e. t. c. With the Electoral College in play, "
The Peoples'
" votes mean nothing! ...and that's just no good!
Take the
Gallop pole of 2000 for example! Al Gore, who won the popular vote, but lost the presidency, because of the Electoral vote. What the Electoral vote/College is, is a system where voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who then elect the president.
"We the people"
dont even get a say in the matter. Which is still no good!
There have been many disasters in the voting system in the past, like the one back in 1960, with Hawaii sending in two state electors
! Allthough arguably the biggest fiasco, back in 2000, was with the formentioned Al Gore vs. Bush campaign.
Now, there are some contradictions in this, thoughts on keeping the Electoral system.
one example of this, is that this rarely ever happens, the most recent being the Al Gore vs. Bush campaign. Another example of a contradiction is locations, from where the candidate is from, like Romney (never thought he'd be mentioned here) having nothing to do with the areas outside of the south, so he would be a bad candidate for the Electoral College.
Now that both sides of the coin have been adressed, it's time to look at some of the key facts (and some opinions) of the "
Electoral College debate
"; The Electoral College, to some and others, votes for us; With or without the Electoral College, people would still get to vote on presidency, as well as other things; Everyone has their own opinion on the matter, and to get the best result,
"We, The People..."
have to agree on one opinion for the matter at hand. | 23
|
0fc7b60 | "Making Mona Lisa Smile," with the facial action coding system, is a way of a computer being able to read a humans emotions, isnt it kind of weird? technology is progressing more and more everyday, but this isnt something we need, why do we need to read peoples emotions? is it important?
This program allows other people to invade the privacy of others, i would want someone or something reading my emotions just because, even if who ever is trying to "read" your emotions asked for permission its still called personal space, this program to me is kind of useless, maybe there are some ways it could be useful?
In some cases it can be used for people in the hospital, you know when you go get checked up the doctor normally asks you how you feel, and sometimes you dont know how you feel but the doctor needs to know in order to treat you.
But in some other cases, it should not be used in schools or in working areas, dont you think that the students will kind of be scared of that? theres no use for it, maybe some people will make use out of it but some people dont want you "reading" their emotions at all, and you have to respect that. | 12
|
6951784 | Im agree with the Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President. This is my claim, A dipute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote is possible it happened in 2000, but it's likely than a dispute over the popular vote. The reason is that the winning candidate's share of the Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote. For example, President Obama recive 61.7 percent of the electoral votes copared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes for him and for Romney. Because the total number of votes 538 is an even number, but it is highly unlikely.
The winner take all method of awarding electoral votes induces the candidates, to focus on their campaign; the voters in toss-up states are more likely to pay close attention to the competing candidates. The electoral college restores some of the weigth on the political balance that large states lose by virtue of the mal-apportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution. The most popular vote was in Florida in 2012. Who won the vote, got 29 electoral votes. So other things being equal, a large state gets more attention from presidential candidates ina campaign tahn a small state. Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had only a 43 percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the Electoral College the 301 and 370 electoral votes, repectively.
There is pressure for run-off elections when no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast; that pressure, which of would greatly complicate the presidential election process, is reduced by the Electoral College, which invariably produces a clear winner. Democrats in Texas, and Reublicans in California. Thir vote no effect, they have less incentive to pay attention to the compaign than they would have if the president were picked by popular vote. But of course no voter's vote swings a national election, about one-half the elegible American population did vote in 2012's election. | 12
|
929dbaa | Hi my name is Luke and I think you should participate in the seagoing cowboys program because you get to see trueley beautifull places and you get to be on the ocean wich is another bonus and you get to love and care for the cute and adorible horses on board plus you dont have to worry about them running out of food because we always carry enuff to venture the far and cool places we go to.
One reason you should come with us in the seagoing cowboys program is that we venture to cool and foriegn places like china and i got to see the Panama Canal,all and all it's just a realy good experience and you would like it if you are an outgoing person.
Another reason you should come with us is because the animals they are realy cute and fun to be around all tho they do take some care its nothing compared to having an adorible animal to keep you company when you are alone.
The last reason in my opinion is you get to be out in the ocean and who doesn't love that and it just gives you time to explore and have fun with everything the animals the ocean the adventure and the quitness of just hereing the waves and having a great time.
And that is why i think you should come aboard with us because all and all you would just have a great time. | 12
|
4cea9bb | The Face on Mars has many conspiracies, but believing it was created by aliens is ridiculous. There is no proven fact or discovery that aliens exist. I would have to disagree with that, and just believe it is a natural landform. There has many research done and work to figure out what the Face on Mars is, and saying it was created by aliens puts that hard work to shame.
The Face on Mars is a qustionable conspiracy. However, I believe The Face on Mars is a natural landform because we have no evidence of alien lifeform. In the article it states, "MichaelMalin and his Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) team snapped a picture ten times sharper that the original Viking photos. Thosands of anxious web surfers waiting when the image first appeared on a JPL web site, revealing . . . a natural landform". Based on this evidence I can state their was no sight of any aliens. I believe there are other natural reasons as to why their is an object that looks like a face on Mars. Pictures were taken as well to show proof that their isn't any alien lifeform on Mars. It also states in the article that the Face on Mars is more equivalent to a butte or a mesa which are natural landforms. Although people may have wondered if there was lifeform on Mars, technology wasn't as advanced back then. As years went on, technology became greater, and we were able to use that technolgy to see if there was signs of life.
In conclusion, I believe aliens did not create the Face on Mars. I believe this because there is not any proof or reseach to show that aliens do exist. The face on Mars is just a natural landform, and there has work done for many years to show it. | 23
|
b970805 | Have you ever wanted to be a seagoing cowboy? In this essay I will give you the pro's ,and con's of being a seagoing cowboy. I will also have evidence from the text to prove my statements.
Now there are good thing's about being a seagoing cowboy. Like you get to see different places as stated in the text, "Beside helping people, I had the side beneifit of seeing Europe and China. But seeing the Acropolis in Greece was special,"Another piece of evidence from the text states, "So was taking a gondala ride in Venice, Italy, a city with streets of water.
There are also some bad thing about being a seagoing cowboy, Like getting ingured on the job. This evidence from the text explains why you would get hurt on the job "One rainy night,after making his hourly report to the captain he slid down a slippery ladder on his backside. Luke's heart raced as he shot feet first toward an opening on the side of the ship. A small strip of metal along thge edge stopped his side, keeping him from flying overboard into the dark
Atlantic."
Another piece of evidences from the text states "He was happy to be alive. But he couldnt work for a couple of days because of cracked ribs"
In conclusion, I think both of these paragraphs show some pro's and con's of becoming a seagoing cowboy. Now let me ask you again, Have you ever wanted to be a seagoing cowboy? | 12
|
077acd9 | Do you think that there are advantages to limiting car usage? Yes, I do think that there are advantages to limiting car usage because of pollution. There are many advantages of having limited car usage. This includes many different transportations and because of car culture.
To begin with, there are advantages to limited car usage because of pollution. Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after five-days of intensifying smog, the smog rivale Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world. Diesel fuel was blamed, since France has a tax policy that favors diesel over gas. Diesel make up 67 percent of vehicles in France, compared to 53.3 percent average of diesel engines. Paris has more smog than other European capitals.
To continue, there are advantages to limited car usage because of many different acts of transportation. In Bogota, Colombia a program is set to spread to other countries. It was called a "Car Free" day which meant that you could not use your car for a whole day. Millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a car-free day leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams. It was the third straight year cars have been banned with only buses and taxis permitted for the Day Without Cars in this capital city of 7 million. The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog. "It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution," said businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza.
Furthermore, there are advantages to limited car usage because of Car Culture. President Obama's ambitious goals to curb the United States greenhouse gas emissions is to shift in American behavior. Research studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by. The United States has long been one of the world's prime car cultures. The number of miles driven in the United States peaked in 2005. "What most intrigues me is that rates of car ownership per household and per person started to come down two to three years before the downturn," says Michael Sivak, a research professor at the University of Michigan's Transportation
Research Institute. The internet makes telecommuting possible and allows people to feel more connected without driving to meet friends. With all these changes, people who stopped car commuting as a result of the recession may find less reason to resume the habit.
In conclusion, there are many different advantages to limiting car usage because of pollution, many different acts of transportation, and because of Car Culture. | 23
|
01c3e09 | Venus or also called the evening star is one of the brightest of light in the night, Venus is the second planet from our sun, is simple to see safety in a point of the earth, but has proved a bigger challenge to examine more closely but also can be worthy. Venus is one of the closet planet to the Earth in terms of density and size but the orbits with the sun of the both planets are completly different, the missions that the spacecraft do not survive, is more challeging with the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus atmosphere, on the surface of the planet can arrive temperatures of eight houndred degrees Fahrenheit, but also they have many metals and gases that can be good for our in different ways and also the curiosity of the of how can take that resources, the NASA is working in try to study that planet with electronic made of silicon that are tested with chaos of Venu's surface. In conclusion Venus is one of the bigger misterys of innovation, if we can following study them maybe some day we can arrive in that planet and also have the materials that we can use to new technology. | 01
|
df2725e | Computer Calculated Emotion
Do you really feel the way you think? On an average school day are your emotions connected with your face? How would you feel if a computer could see how you feel? If a computer knew what I was thinking and how I feeel, I would be amazed.
Does learning on the computer at school fruastrate you due to not having one on one help. If all school computers had Facial Action Coding System that problem wouldn't exist. The Facial Action Coding System is the new emotion-recongnition software. This software uses video imagery to track facial movements in a real face or even in the painted face of the Mona Lisa. Having a computer sence how you feel will help better educate students. A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored. Most human communication is nonverbal, including emotional communication, so computers need to understand that too.
Having the Facial Action Coding System in computers would not only help out
students but also kids out of school. The same technology can make computer-animated faces more expressive-for video games or video surgery. This will allow kids to enjoy the fun activities on computers.
I am totally for the value of using this technology to read students' emotional expressions. This will help students in many aspects. Students will learn better based on how they learn, computers will be able to communicate with students better and kids will enhoy the fun activities on the computers. The Facial Action Coding System will improve the schooling for children. This program should be in a students classroom or even on their personal school computers. | 23
|
94bbf8d | I am a scientist at NASA, and I am going to prove to you that NASA was not created by aliens, it is just a natural landform. Other scientists, including me was around Mars taking photos. We took a lot of photos and when we came back to check the photos it looked like a human face. I used a new method step by step to see if it actually was a human face, but it was not. It turned out to be a rock shaped as a head, and the rock made you have an illusion of the eyes, mouth, and nose.
To many people are concerned about aliens going to attack, but it is not true. Some scientists just want you to think there are aliens that based off what they have saw. If you look on a JPL web site you can see that it is just a natural landform. After all there was no alien monument. The picture actually shows the Martian equivalent of a butte or messa-landforms.
According to what the theory is, another reason for it being a natural landform is because NASA would rather hide and the defenders of the NASA budget wish there was an ancient civilization on Mars. Half of the time on photos things start to look like ghost or even aliens for this matter if you are scared and are thinking about aliens being alive or by you. The Face is a natural landform according to the mission controllers, where the lab is. Monitors will lok like a face when you first take it but you have to clear the picture up a little bit.
For the Face to seem natural to you, you have to believe that there is no aliens out on what people call bona fide, of life on Mars. You always want to make sure that you are not just having an illusion. To make sure you are not having an illusion you are checking what ever is happening twice. For an example of a natural landform, there would have to be pictures taken and on the natural landform there would have to be a mapping spacecraft and that normally looks straight down. For an example of a alien landform, there would be UFO's with bright lights shining and would have to have a hide out for them to live and to not be seen.
This is my evidence that I gathered from the method that I used to prove to you that the Face is just a natural landform. Yes, NASA does have a Mars but, that does not mean that there would be aliens, just because it says Mars. If you ever have need some help on getting a person to believe you about something like scientists wise, come to my website JPL and message me. Their are creatures but they are not on the Face of NASA. Do not ever forget if you take a picture and you think something is there try to clear it up or get someone else to clear it up. | 34
|
8055ec2 | I think driveless cars is a bad idea. I think here are many reasons to not have driveless cars. The can be a very dangerous thing. I know it can help with some things, but for the most part we should not have them.
In my opinion we should not have driveless cars. I think this because they can be very dangerous. They can be dangerous by having the car drive by itself for a long period of time then need the human to take over and they could have fallen asleep. If the human would not take over then the car could crash and hurt the people inside of it. That is one reason cars should not be able to drive itself.
Another reason is some people enjoy driving. I like to drive and if driveless cars take over then people like me won't be able to drive their cars. Also the driveless car could not notice that there is a wreck or construction work ahead and wreck into it. This would just make matters worse. That is my other reason to not have driveless cars.
I mean there are a few things that could be good about a driveless car, but for the most part there is more negative things than positive things on them. Also they could be very expensive. People could not afford them. This is why they should not exist. | 23
|
69325b9 | There are positive consequences as well as negative consequences for the development of these Driveless Cars. It's good that thechnology is advancing and the world is in a better place because of these things. It's not bad that things are starting to change including our daily use cars. It's good to be able to create new things that are interesting and enjoy the things that are being produced. I oppose to this new invension of cars however.
People might be excited hearing these advance technology such as the Driveless Cars that are being introduced. However, I'm against these Driveless Cars that are about to be sold. You might think that cars being controled by itself without the drivers would be facinating and cool for you, but there is also danger ahead of us. Of course, it's the job for the companies to sell out to you and try to earn whatever amount of money they could, it's not their responsibility of driving for us after buying it. The cars are not even fully recommanded by the producers yet; they are finding ways to improve it. However, it's not fully guarantee that we will be safe as long as we are in the car.
It's our choice whether we want to get this new car or not, but know that in your mind there will at least a consequences. These cars are cool and looks awesome in our eyes, nor is a bless to own one. Even so, we should know that these cars are not a hundred percent safe. The text state, " This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. " This shows that we also have to ready to take over when something doesn't seem right. It's not like the Driverless Cars will take care of us.
Imagine you are texting while in these Driverless Cars going to your work. You just let the car control when suddenly a road ahead of you is being constrcted, at that moment, you probably might not be alert or anything. The car then had an accident and the one to blame is you, the driver. What I meant to say is that these cars aren't that safe as we think it is. We also have to take the responsible of beingon alert or else something might happen. The text said that if the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault- the driver or the manufacturer? This tells us that it's not guarantee that the manufacturer will take full responsibility of us when somehting bad happens. We have to take care of ourselves.
These Driveless Cars might be convenient in some ways, but always know that it's not always safe. What's the use of always staying on alert when you bought the car thinking it can drive itself without the need of the driver. Even thought it's a fancy thing that the car could drive by itself, it still needs the help of the driver. If something is about to happen in the middle of the highway, what are you going to do? It's really dangerous just thinking about it. Our life really determine on our own actions when driving this Drivelss Cars. Some people might find the cars a good thing, but for me, I really am against it. | 34
|