essay_id
stringlengths 7
7
| full_text
stringlengths 712
20.5k
| score
class label 6
classes |
|---|---|---|
6a33f83 | Have you heard of the Face on Mars? It is said to be two miles from top to bottom. What do you think formed this? Aliens? An acient civilzation? Out of all of the possible answers, I say it is just a natural landform with shadows that causes it to have a nose, eyes, and mouth.
Paragraph ten and eleven of "Unmasking the Face on Mars" states, "Each pixel in the 2001 image spans 1.56 meters, compared to 43 meters per pixel in the best 1976 Viking photo." As rule of thumb, you can discern in a digital image 3 times bigger than the pixel size," he added. "So if there were objects in this picture like airplanes on the ground or Egyptian-style pyramids or even small shacks, you could see what they were!"" This leads me to belive that there is nothing but that natural landform on the Face of Mars. With these images it says you can see the tiniest thing as a shack, so I am positive that we would see any evidence that aliens were there.
The landform actually shows the Martian eqivalent to buttle or mesa----landforms common around the American West. This face on the surface of Mars resembles many of those on the Earth, which we know were not created by aliens. ""It reminds me most of the Middle Buttle in the Snake River Plain in Idaho," says Gravin. "That's a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars."" These lines in paragraph twelve show that there is another landfrom, on Earth, that has formed out of natural causes such as lava. The Face on Mars could just simlpy be lava that has caused the surface to rise.
Many conspiracy therorists say that it could be aliens and NASA is just trying to hide the evidence form the people. Yet in paragrpah five it states, "Meanwhile, defenders of the NASA budget wish there was an ancient civilization on Mars." This shows that if this was caused by aliens, that it would be benifical to NASA. Few scientists believed that the Face was an alien artifact, but there was no actual proof that it was. There were only pictures that clearly showed that there were no signs of aliens.
Although this Face on Mars is a big deal, I believe that it is just a natural landform. Images that have been taken show no sign of aliens or ancient civilizations. There are also many landfroms on Earth just like this Face on Mars. Last but not least, the theory that NASA is keeping information from us is not true because the Face actually being aliens or an acient civilization would only benifit them. All of these reasons is why I belive that the Face on Mars is just a natural landform. | 34
|
f260d4e | The author supports his arguement quite effectively, though not without any flaws. The author effectively lists off the benefits of exploring Venus, and proper proposals for doing so, however the complexity and unrealistic assumptions of the solutions as well as the negative descripton of Venus take away from its point rather than benefiting it.
The effective conveying of benefits helps to support its idea of risking danger for the reward of landing. The author describes how Venus is relatable with earth which creates a connection between the reader and Venus, as well as creating a mood of hospitality and familiarity. It also states that because Venus is the "nearest option for a planetary visit", it is a benefit to inhabit Venus first. This persuasion effectivly uses logos to show the audience logical reasoning for why the scientists should endevour to research Venus.
The author's proposals for ways to accomplish these tasks help to build ethos in the writing, as it shows that the author knows about the information that is displayed. The introduction of NASA also builds up this ethos, as to bring the audience to better trust in the author. The examples of proposals also provide evidence for how such ideas could be accomplished, such as the ideas of "systems that use mechanical parts" and therefore add to the logos of the paragraph, as the author logically explains why the proposals would be beneficial.
However in contrast with the effective support of the main idea, the author also convey's information and techniques that oppose his idea. Firstly, the author makes assumptions about how much technology would have advanced, and because his proposal for a "blimp-like vehicle" is so technologically advanced and seems outlansish, the mood created for the audience is incredulous and skeptical. This does not benefit the writer's ideas because of the audiences mood, and therefore the author loses the audiences trust in proper solutions.
Also negatively impacting the main idea are his descriptions of Venus. This is because the author uses a lot of evidence to support how dangerous Venus is, in direct contrast to what he should be supporting. Because of the logos used to show how dangerous Venus is, like how it has "temperatures average over 800 degrees" the audience is put into a mood of impossibility and doubt. Because of the mood of the audience, the audience is also less likely to understand why Venus could be beneficial if the landscape is so terribly trecherous.
In conclusion, the writer does a fairly effective job at expressing is ideas, in his building of ethos and pathos that help to support why Venus is so amazing, and how to explore it, however fails by accidently creating a mood of unbelievablity, and therefore losing the audience to the uncertain nature of the situation. If the author had attempted to create a mood that was more beneficial to persuading the audience, the passage would have been extremely effective in persuading the audience of his thesis. | 56
|
3fb7516 | I am here to discuss with you the topic of the landform on Mars. Yes, it's the one shaped like a human face. I have been getting many claims of it being a monument built by ancient life on Mars. Believe us, here at NASA we would love for the claims of alien life to be true, but we've been given substantial information that those claims are incorrect. There are many reasons why these claims are invalid. First of all, landforms like the so-called face appear on our home planet it would be easy to find; secondly the appearance of a face was given merely by the casting of shadows over the surface over the red plant; and lastly, the intensely zoomed in picture showed no sign of anything that would hint at any type of civilization.
Here on Earth, we have tons of natural landforms created by erosion, glaciers, and the sea. The landform on Mars appears to be a mesa, a landform that happens to be very common in the western area of America. The climate of Mars can be quite similar to that of the West, and that hints to us that because of the hot climate that usually occurs with the sun shining on Mars, this landmark has formed only because of the climate and conditions of the area. It is a reasonable idea to consider and should be proof enough, but there are still some sceptics so I will continue.
Some may say, even if it was a natural landform, how on Earth does it look exactly like a human face? Well first of all, people see what they wish to see. They think it's a face because it is such a fascinating and fantastic thing to think of. "A human face on Mars?! No way!" The landform isn't actually shaped like a face, it is merely the shadows that are cast on it that cause the appearance of it being a face. However, upon closer inspection by NASA the landform was revealed merely to be a completely normal patch of land, nothing special at all.
If all of what I'm saying isn't enough to convince you, I have got one more important point to make. NASA has gone to extensive lengths to examine this landform that has caused such a big fuss among the people. In the April of 2008, scientists set out to explore the face of Mars once more. It was an apparently cloudless day and it was that day that they took the picture. The picture was zoomed in as far as it could have been, so that anything on the face of the planet could be seen. There weren't any signs of life, no tents where extra-terrestrial life would sleep and no proof of anything building this landform.
To sum all of this up, there is simply just no way that this landform could have been built by alien life. There are too many facts and too much research done on this landform, we know all there is to know and what we can say for sure is, there is simply no way the Face was createed by Aliens. You'll just have to face the facts and wonder how on earth this picture managed to look exactly like a human face. The mystery was fun while it lasted, but now that we have the facts, it is time to lay this case to rest. | 45
|
b44e1e5 | umm yeah just dont drive as much you can save the world an crap , we LOCATION_NAME should take a day to not drive if it was up to me shoot i would have said today so i didint have to type this crap till forth peroid,but no im typeing i was just told a teacher at this school is going to see this but thats cool.
If we didint have school everyday less gas whould be burnt an less pelution is coused all becuse of scvhool if they ended school it would probley end pelution in the atmesphere there are other places in this world that have dayes like this where thay cant drive there cars you will be fined if this law is violated of at lest $25 obama talkin about some greenhouse gas it aint gonna work js everyone needs to ride bikes for like a week that will hellp with the fat kids an maybe miss oboma will let us have good food at school lunch see somuch stuff would cghange all we have to do is not drive a little bit every week,so tightin up an lets geterdone | 01
|
fa94664 | Cars are one of the most important inventions that we ase human beings have created. They help in many more than just one occasion. Cars mostly help with transportation, because of this we are way to relient on them. Now we rely mostly on our cars which is a bad thing considering that fact that we in the future could possibly die from it. Cars produce smog which goes up in to he air and is bassically what created the greenhouse affect.
When people use cars they hardly dont ever think about what is actually happening while they use it, mostly whats thought about is how fast they are going or how much time they have left to get where they are going. When driving a car smog is released from the tail pipe and usually donsnt affect any on directly unless they are really close to it, but even then it is a momment of discnomfert nothing perminent. what most peoiple dont realize is that when smog is released from the car it gose directly up into our atmosphere. when there is an abundance of smog it acumulates creating a green house affect. what is needed to stop that is to stop driving ingeneral but scincde that cat be done do as paris has done and have sertain laws that prevent most people to drive on some day "On monday motorist with even numbered license plates were to suffer a 22 euro fine then the same would apply to the odd numberd plates the next day." this would make for people to stop driving so much ang just go for a walk to their location if it isnt too far.
Walking isnt as bad as most people would probably think it to be. Some people already do it on a normal basis. Some people could argue that the weather is to gloomy or its raining and they dont want to get wet. As the Mayor of bogota said "The rain hasn't stopped me from participating." More states should have a day with out cars like Bogota dose and have "The day with out cars is part of an improvement" and just like that as Bogota has done "parks and sports centers will bloom", "New restaurants and upscale shopping districs will be cropped up."
Americans without even realizing it have stopped driving. We have bought less cars and drivers licenses as each year gose buy. Which shows that there is a little bit of care towards the sitiation happening all around the world. Usually americans were the ones to be mostly using their cars but as the article states. "Americans love affar with their cars have began cooling down." Even thought the cars are still being used they are used much less than before. Most people instead of using cars to go to a friend house they use the internet to feel more connected with them.
Using cars help people but not for the long term goals to survive. Join most of the world and stop driving soon. Most people have already done it. Tha will help out with the smog situation in the greenhouse, help some poeple with walking to certain places that they need to go, and nations are doing it . | 23
|
a7ec7ab | Hey there, it is Luke. And I am asking you to join the Seagoing Cowboys. We are running out of people and would really enjoy some more help with the program. I would believe that you would really like this program, you would have the opportunities of a life time! Yourself and many others on the ship would be able to see and explore places that you can only think of.
Are you starting to like the idea of it now? Well I am almost sure that you would love it even more if you were on the ship right now! Expecially if you are a big animal lover why, you might as well hop on right now. Here in the Seagoing Cowboys program there are lots of animals that you can never get tired of! And I know what you are thinking, you are probally thinking about you're family and how much you are going to miss them. I know, that is what I thought about to before I myself joined the Seagoing Cowboys program. But, you really have to think about this. You would be missing out on an adventure of a lifetime! And I think you're family would understand if you were leaving to help people around the world. Mine did! And see some very very cool things while you are out there. After all there is a world out there and you are just waiting to see it.
Now maybe you could at least consider being apart of the Seagoing Cowboys program? I mean, I love it and you could too! Maybe you couldeven pass this note around? Why not ask some close friends and family or some people you know if they might want to join the program too! I think they would love it! Well, maybe you could get back to me about this. And I hope that I can see you soon! | 12
|
56c0a2c | In my opinion I think it will be a good idea for the teachers to know if a student is in a good mood or not. When a teacher calls on a student and dont not want to go the teacher might think it is because that child is being rude, and all that the child want is to be left alone.
With the scaning programs, that could scan your face and can tell if you are in a good mood or not, teachers and student could have a good bond. If the teacher scans a kid face in morning when they all enter class she could know who to call on ,or maybe even after class she could even have a talk with the child. If someone can tell how a person feel if it's fear , anger ,digust, happiness,and surprise.
Those are some examples of ways it will be useful to have the "Facial Action Coding System". That type of technolgy would be very valuable in the classroom,and maybe even outside of school. | 12
|
11c2627 | The article "Marking Mona Lisa Smile" by Nick D' Alto is a good article talking about how the system called Facial Action Coding System enables computers to identify human emotions. I believe this system is great for a student in a classroom. The system will help a teacher by telling weather or not a kid likes something. Another way the system is valuable is because the system can tell if a person like an ad on the computer or not. The system will read your facial expressions to tell weather you are happy, surprised, angry, disgusted, scared, or sad.
The first way the Facial Action Coding System is helpful is by telling the
teacher weather or not a kid likes something. Each facial expression is different from every person. For example, if a kid is reading a book on the computer. The computer will read the kid facial expressiones to tell the teacher weather he or she likes the book or not. The computer will send different percentages to the teacher on how the kid feels about the book. If the student does not like the book, the teacher could help the student by giving he or she another book to read. This system can also be helpful for companys that play videos. When someone watches a video and an ad comes on, the system can tell weather or not they like the ad or the person dislike the ad. If the person disliked the ad, the company that plays the videos and ads can play a different ad that the person may like more. I do believe this system will be valuable for the human world. The system will give percentage on how the person feel about something. The system will tell weather he or she shows happiness, surprise, anger, disgust, fear, or sadness.
Prof. Thomas Huang, of the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science at the University of Illinois has a awesome idea of a system that read people facial expressions. This system will be valuable in the world. It can help in the classroom of school or outside of school. The Facial Action Coding System will tell if a
person is happy, angry, scared, sad, surprised, or disgusted. Every person has a different facial expressions. This sytem will help tell if they are what their facial expressions say they are. | 34
|
23f9c2e | In the artical "Driverless Cars Are Coming" they are talking about the negitaves and positives of the Driverless Cars.
I think driverless car are cool but are they all safe? One of my negitives is that the cars might malfuction and make you get in a accident and cause harm to the driver in the car, and if your just sitting there will the cars diving it will be a easy way for you to dose off and fall asleep, but in the section "Driving Or Assisting?" in parigraph eight they talk about they can put entertainment in to the driverless cars and have an heads up display and when its turn for the driver to take over it will instantly turn off for the driver to drive. Some of my positives of the driverless cars are that if you late for work but didn't have time to eat breakfast then you can eat it in the car while the driverless car is driving or you could do your hair if you had to rush and all you could do is shower and get dressed. Or you have to talk on the phone for work or something because if you dont have a blutooth then you can't really drive with the phone in your hand and and you could get pulled over and get a ticked.
but one more negitive is that people might take avantige of the driverless car and on the weekend go out and get jrunk the think it'ssafe because the car an drive by its self and the car could malfuntion and then get inaccident and when the cops come the person in the car will be the blaim because they were drunk then they will go to jail. so there gose my nigitives and positives of driverless cars . | 12
|
1eb708e | People should join the seagoing cowboys program because you get to go to nine different trip.
Also they give you a lot of supplis so you can take care of the animal good and so they don't run out of food.
another reason you should join is becuase some jods can be hard but some are easy like, just checking on the animals every hour that was lukes jod.
Some details from the article to support luke's claims in why you should join the seagoing cowboys program are seagoing cowboys are more than adventure for luke bomberger.
luke opened up a new world to him.
''I'm grateful for the opportunity.
also another claim is you can go to Europe luke couldn't say no.
He know it was an opportunity of a lifetme.
also being a seagoing cowboy means to take care of the horse, young cow, and mules that were shipped overseas luke and don signed up. luke bomberger said ''it made me more aware of people of other countries and their needs,''and awareness stayed with his family to a numder of international student and exchange visitors of many years. | 12
|
0c5c345 | I think driverless cars are a cool invention but it can also be dangers if something malfuctions or breaks like the brakes for the car, i have seen videos of the testing for these cars and a man got injured badly to the point he had to co to the hospital, so i stand at the side that we should not be making these cars for they are not safe.
The cost rate to build one of these cars can be really high becouse they need lots of sensors so that it can see what is in front of it and behind it, it has a part that is a radar so it can sence things around the car but this small part can cost of to 2 hundred million dollars.
And manufactures are considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road, which is a vialation of privacy to the driver who buys the car, and if something does happen like a part on the car breaking who would get blamed the owner of the car of the manufactures that designed and built the car?, there are many things we still need to think about that would come with driverless cars.
I stand with the side that we should not have driverless cars becouse it will take the skill that is earned by driving away from those who have already learned to drive and people would get so dependent on the car driving its self and until it comes to the point that if something happens on the road the car will make the driver take control but if the driver is used to the car driving it self then that could lead to more problems that could not only put the driver in danger but anyone else that is in the car with them or any car that is around them. | 12
|
29ad56e | Technology has been used for decades in education, from the basic computer to smart boards technology has been commonly used to improve the learning capabilities of students in modern times. The 'Facial Action Coding System'
technology has the ability to help professors and teachers around the world get more into the minds of their students and engage the students into a classroom where learning is not a unified thing, but more customized and free depending on student ability.
Firstly, with technology becomming more popular, an increasing number students are having the ability to learn through technology. Along with that teachers and professors around the world have had to adapt to the higher usage of technology and programs to teach their students. This program gives teachers and technology the ability to adapt to their students, and encourage even confused or fearful students to learn by engaging a learning environment where a student's computer or device could read and recognize the confusion or joy a student is undergoing while learning,and therefor helping the teacher know the students level of understanding.
Secondly, having a program installed into the lense of cameras in students devices would open up new insight to teachers. For example, if a student watches a video lesson in a History class and is confused by something then their teacher could find the question, or peice of video, and simply adjust the lesson to fit the demographic and understanding of that child. There are many benifits to this technology including in the home, if a parent were to have the ability to see where their child was confused or frusterated the parent could also take some time to cover the missing material. This also prevents students who are fustrated but are to fearful or anxious to ask for help to not recive the assistance they need. This technology could open up door ways for students instead of them being lost in the information, but this technology is still new. .
Finnaly, one of the main reasons students do poorly in the current education system is that the student feels like they are not reciveing enough help or that they are lost. With average class sizing being anywhere from 22-32 students, a single or even two teachesr cannot assist all of the students individualy, and this creates a problem. Using the 'Facial Action Coding System' teachers can register which students need help and those who dont and pay more attention to the students who need help. This would therefore increase the amount of students able to retain information and help the school. Being lost in a lesson wouldn't be so common of a problem.
In conclusion, the 'Facial Action Coding System' opens new advancments in the the education systems by encourgaing an environment where teachers could have the technology to know when a student was confused or not understanding information, and also giving the ability for teachers to construct a lesson to fit the children who don't directly understand. It also proves a good method for parents to get involved in their child's learning and help the student with direct problems at the root instead of complications with the entire subject. So yes, this technology is very vaulable to the education of millions of students around the world who don't fully grasp their teachers learning methods or are just confused. | 45
|
fa17a90 | How many different emotions have you ever felt in your life? You cannot possibly know and remember every feeling you've ever had. Using the Facial Action Coding System is a great idea and an amazing thing that has been developed, however, there is no way it is accurate. The Facial Action Coding System is not accurate because everyone has different facial structures, this system could not possibly know the structure of everyones face, could not detect all emotions, and cannot tell an emotion by the way people look.
Though the face has the same muscles and bones in it, everyone has a different facial structure. Some peoples eyes are far apart, and some are closer together. Some people have more round faces, and others have more square shaped faces. The text states "Meanwhile, muscles called orbicularis oculi palpabraeus make crow's-feet around your eyes. But in a fake smile, the mouth is stretched sideways using the zygomatic major and a different muscle, the risorius.", but some people may not get crow's-feet around thier eyes, and some peoples mouths may not stretch sideways like this. There are many other differences in peoples faceial structures, aside from these examples.
All people feel different emotions in their life. They can also feel multiple emotions at one time. Saying that a face coding system can detect all your emotions is absurd. People have been known to feel exitement, while feeling resentment, and all other combinations of emotions. Technology today doesn't have any way of recognizing all emotions of everyone. The passage says, "Eckman has classified six basic emotions- happiness, surprise, anger, disgust, fear, and sadness- and then associated each with characteristic movements of the facial muscles." It is not hard to guess that humans are capable of feeling more than just six emotions alone or at the same time. This would mean that the recognizing emotons part of this system is inaccurate.
Acting and looking different than how you feel is an excellent way to hide your emotions. People do this almost on a daily basis. "For instance, you can probably tell how a friend is feeling simply by the look on her face." Although this may be true some of the time, even smiling to hide a frown cannot always be dected by a friend. Unless clearly obvious, hiding emotions cannot easily be found. This adds to the previous reason of why the Facial Action Coding System would be inaccurate.
The Facial Action Coding System is not accurate because everyone has different facial structures, this system could not possibly know the structure of everyones face, could not detect all emotions, and cannot tell an emotion by the way people look. In conclusion, this system could be highly inaccurate and ineffective. Perhaps sometime in the future, when technology is much more developed, this system may work a little better, but it will still take many years to perfect the Facial Action Coding System. | 34
|
4465d4c | The face on Mars is just a natural landform and not created by aliens. In paragraph one it says nasa Viking 1 spacecraft was circling the planet snapping photos of possible landing sistes for its sister ship Viking 2 when it spotted the shadowy likeness of a human face.In paragraph three it says it had a mouth;nose;eyes;and a resembles of a human head.
Second: Aliens did not create the face. When the Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia for the first time they was snapping pictures they said there was no aliens monument after all. How would aliens make a humand face on mars. Thats crazy because aliens do not exsist.
Inconclusion: the face was ca landform because as you can tell by the pictures it was a landform.It shows the face it showes how the face is getting coved up as the years pass by then it just show how the face is gone. Thats how i know the face was just a landform. | 12
|
297c419 | Dear State Senator
Should the Electoral College be kept in favor? The electoral college does avoid the problem of elections. Well on the other hand, Richard Nixon,Jimmy Carter, and Bob Dole agreed to abolish the elctoral college and change to election by popular vote for the president of the U.S.It is unfair to the voters because the electors elect the president. Also, not only are the voters voting for electors,they are voting for the canidate's electors when they think they're voting for the canidate. Choosing a president should be elected by the popular vote of people not electors.
To start with,the president of the United States should be elected by the popular vote of the people. The president is there to guide and lead the people. The citizens of the U.S should have the right to vote for who they think should be president. For instance,some residents have a feeling that their votes don't count.
To add,it is unfair to the voters because the elctors elect the the president. Eventhough the electors represent your state,they don't let the people choos who they desire for president. When voting for president, it shouldn't be all about the electors. The Electoral College even has the possibility of turning voters away that voted for a canidate that has no hope for supporting their state.
Further more,the electoral college does avoid problems. Meaning,a canidate cannot receives a certain amount of the votes cast. For instance, when a canidate has more votes than other canidates while not receiving a clear majority oof votes. Also in big states "the Electoral College rebuild some of the weight in the political balance that large states lose by virtue of the mal-apportionment of the senat decreed in the constitution."[Richard Posner {21}] | 23
|
e01085e | About twenty-five years ago, NASA's Viking 1 spotted a shadowy human face on Mars. Upon returning to Earth, scientists concluded that this shadowy face is simply a natural landform on Mars. Although conspiracy theorists and the media tend to warp the truth, it is in fact true that this face is nothing but a landform on Mars. NASA conducted two investigations, and used data they gathered and used dated the gathered prior to the "Face on Mars" to reach their conclusion.
The first image of the "Face on Mars" was taken in 1976. After receiving this information scientists concluded that this was actually another martian mesa, which is common in Cydonia, the place on Mars the image was taken. The image was released a few days later to the public. There was an uproar of theories and conclusions immediately made by the public and the media. This caused problems for NASA. The theory that NASA is hiding life on Mars from the public was a common theory made by conspiracy theorists. The public disregarded NASA's thorough investigation and proof and believed the theorists, who did not have any proof or support, rather than believing the scientists who had taken time to investigate this image and its origin.
A few scientists began to believe that the Face was actually an alien artifact. NASA then figured that the image of the Face would be important for the public. On April 5, 1998 the Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia and a camera team took pictures that were ten times clearer than the ones taken in 1976. Upon returnung to Earth scientists revealed yet again that the "Face on Mars" was a natural landform. This was no suprise to some people because the scientists had concluded before that the Face was a mere landform and nothing else, even after investigating the image twice.
NASA conducted yet another investigation on April 8, 2001 in order to make sure the Face was not created by aliens. A camera team took more photographs of the Face and made them bigger to get vloser look. Scientists concluded once more that the Face is the equivalent of a butte or a mesa. This is because landforms that are alike to buttes and mesas are common on Mars. The images that were taken also showed no form of alien life or markings near or on the Face. The scientists who believed that this was a simple landform were correct since the begining, unlike the media and theorists who made up their own conclusions to confuse the public.
After a face-like landform was found on
Mars in 1976, many people believed that there was life on Mars that NASA was hiding from the public. This theory is not true. NASA conducted two investigations after discovering the Face: one on April 5, 1998 and one on April 8, 2001. After both investigations scientists concluded that the " Face on Mars" was in fact nothing but a natural landform. This conclusion made by NASA is true. It has been stated the these types of landforms that resemble buttes or mesas are common in Cydonia, the place the Face was found. Both times the images were taken a special camra crew took photgraphs for analyzation. On the second investigation the image was made three times bigger. After not finding any evidenve of alien life form or markings near or on the Face, scientists concluded that the "Face on Mars" has always been a landform. | 34
|
75296c2 | In my opinion I think that this "Face on Mars" is a landform. For one, we have never seen an alien or have any trace of aliens. I think that we think it has something to do with aliens because it is in a face shape like us. But honestly, huge rocks or huge meterorites could have caused it to look like that. Also there hasn't been any sight of life on Mars because of the conditions. If humans couldn't live on Mars, then how could aliens?
Huge rocks and huge meters crash into the planets and moon all the time. I honestly think that it is the rocks or something in space that caused this. I don't think that there is any sight or any posssible way that there could be life or aliens on this planet.
When they went to go see again and go check out the "Face on Mars" they didn't see anything, there was no alien monument. They also talk about how it is very hard to be able to see the "Face on Mars" I think that if there was a possiblity that it could be a bout aliens and this "Face on Mars" appeared because of aliens then there wouldn't onlly be one face. I think that if there were tons of face looking landforms then maybe there could've been life on mars for aliens. Since there were no other faces that could've been another alien, I don't think that there is a way that this has anything to do with aliens.
It also states in the passge that you can discern things in a digital image 3 times bigger than the pixel size. He states that if there were objects in this picture like airplanes on the ground or Egyptian-style pyramids that you would be able to see them.
If you could make things larger and see farther into the picture than I think there would've been more to find. There wasn't any other sign of aliens found in the picture. I think aliens for sure having nothing to do with this, but at the same time they could have.
I think if scientists really were able to go and see this i think they should study the face more often to see if there is any evidence of any other alien or any other landform that has to do with them. My personal opinion is that it has nothing to do with aliens. | 23
|
0be5034 | The author tells the reader how Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents because no ones been on the planet and metal would just liquefy so we can't send nothing nor no one up to Venus. But I think that the the author would like to know how it's like up there besides knowinf that it's hot, and maybe would like to know what we could do up there in those types of conditions.
Like many other planet most people would say we can't live in those types of conditions but scintist found out we could live on some planets and also grow food on some of those planets. So the author might think that it's worth finding out that if we could at least grow plants there since some plants can suvive and grow in real hot conditions.
Another posible reason why the author might would want to see if there is living life on Venus. Lots of people talk about there being more then just people on one planet so there could be some form of life on another. If we could grow food on some plants that could also mean that there's life on that planet too. So even thought it's extremelly hot on Venus doesn't mean that there isn't a form of living life on there. | 12
|
3a17a01 | When you think of Venus, you think it's just another planet in out solar system. it's a planet that humans could live on if the Earth wasn't in our solar system. Venus could be another planet of human life form if we give it a chance.
Venus has the same size, density, and closest to distance to Earth. Venus temperatures are more high than Earth but still people could surive there.
Venus still has features like Earth such as valleys, mountains, craters, and oceans too. According to the article, NASA are approaching to study Venus by old computers called mechanical computers to see what is in Venus surface and pulling samples from the planet and testing the them in a chmaber back at NASA to see if humans could surive there.
Another planet that human life form could surive on is Venus. NASA has sent pilots on a mission to see if spacecraft could surive for more than a few hours on Venus to see if humans could live there. | 12
|
6eeaebf | Studying venus can be very dangerous but that hasn't stopped scientists and astronomers from exploring Venus and studying it and having more information on that planet.
Although you never know whats going to happen when exploring new things scientists find it very intresting to keep exploring Venus to keep finding out some of the features it has and maybe what it even used to look like. Venus is the second planet from the sun so its still very hot. Exploring Venus is very nice its diffrent from earth but also very similar it has like type features to earth like the mountains, valleys, and even craters. Venus also has a surface of a rocky sediment.
On the planets surface it temperatures over 800 degrees fehrenheit so it is extreamly hot. It also has the hottest temperture in our solar system even though its not the first planet closest to the sun. Astronomers are also discussing future visits to Venus. They are very fascinated to that planet because it may have been just like earth at one point with oceans covering it and it also could have supported diffrent forms of life on its planet at some point even if it was many years ago. Astromomers also feel like it doesnt have easy conditions but its still survivable for humans they just have to figure out how they can live around the heat and diffrent things like that. In the text it says that " Venusian geology and weather present additional impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface." And the weather impediments are like some of the things we have here like the earthquakes in certain parts of the worlds and the volcanoes too. So in some ways its similar to earth but with more extreme dangers.
The author did a very good job at supporting how dangerous exploring Venus is but how it also is a very cool planet to explore. The author also stated this in the aricle " Our travels on earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expaned to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation." Which its sorta saying that even though its dangerous we shouldnt stop our minds from exploring diffrent things and imagining diffrent things. | 23
|
19ea9ea | The auther supports his idea by writing a paraghragh and putting in ideas or what people reserach. The author starts the paragragh by telling us what is venus is and what conditions that the plants has what earth does not have. The next thing is that the author said that Venus is the closest planet to the earth in terms of density and size and occasionally the closest in distance too. The next thing that the author puts in the paraghragh is that venus go around the sun in diffrent speeds then the earth. I think we should explore venus because venus might have the material that earth has not the second thing is that venus might have new creature that we never seen before that can with stand the conditions that venus has. The third thing is that venus never ben explord before so we might see thing we might not have seen on earth. The next thing I want to say is that we can use venus as a waypoint for space ships to go back and refule and get things to explore new planets but the conditons on that planet IN the paragragh it said that venus has sulfuric acid in the air is 90 time denst as the atmaspher on the earth. The second thing is that the artical said venus average tempoture is over 800 degrees fahrenhiet and venus has the hottest suface tempoture on anyother planets in our solar system. The third thing is that venus weather presents thing like eruping volcanoes powerful,earthquakes, frequent lighting strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface. The artical said that peopel try to get to the surface of venus and it was not working until they made a robot that can with stand the surface for three weeks. The next thing is that long time ago venus use to have thing that earth have to but over time they distaper and have the same surface like earth the nexts thing is that they were thinking to put a huvering vehicle like a plane that can huver over the clouds that can scan the surface with out have something happening but they cannot take samples so they have to get close and personale. so the nasa is tyring to get samples from venus and worrking on the computers that can scan the suface. Thats the thing I can sume up from the paraghragh. | 12
|
4a12dd2 | Later on in our future we will have driveless cars. Many automakers are continuing their work on the assumption of driveless cars. Some people believe this is a bad idea because they think it is not safe for our roads. Some states it is illegal even to test computer driven cars, but i am with the driveless cars.
I am with drivless cars becuase the sensors they use has become more advanced within the last ten years. There still is further improvements in sensors, computer hardware, and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more driving task on their own. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing better response and control than a human driver could manage alone. Also safety is a big concern and that's why the in-car system is actually a safety feature. The in-car system is displays that can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over, something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. Manfacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. So while the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver.
Driveless cars are our future and i am with with driveless cars. Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved. A few automakers plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. We grow closer and closer to the driveless cars everyday. | 23
|
2657aa6 | In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile" it introudeces a new invention, a computer that can reconginize emotion. There are 6 basic emotions it can recongnize such as: happiness,surprise, anger, disgust, fear, and sadness. I strongly believe that the computer would be helpful in some classrooms but not all, depending on the subject. A facial expression does not always tell a emotion.
This topic is very debatable depending on whom you ask, this would be a controversy to say the least. There are many ways around this "emotion reading computer", it only takes a fake smile to surpass this. I do not believe an instructor of a classroom should also worry about what emotion the students may be in, regardless they have to do the work assigned. There are very many opinions in this article which do not pursuade other to buy their product such as when they stated: "The Mona Lisa demonstration is really intended to bring a smile to your face, while it shows just how much this computer can do (D'Alto6)." I truly am against the idea of the emotion reading computer due to the fact that many aspects of it seem uneffective. Students may have a tired face or example and the computer may think they are upset about something even though they're just tired.
"Making Mona Lisa Smile" may have a good idea, but wasnt thoroughly thought out. They also do not have factual evidence, they state the word "predicts" which shows they don't know for sure how the computers will turn out. I believe that this will be wasted money in buying this product without any proof of the accuracy of the computer, and the way it finds out the students emotions. | 23
|
add07c0 | This new technology is valuable in the classroom. This is due to the fact that it can recognize different facial movements. This then helps the software be able to tell what kind of emotion he or she is expressing. Knowing the emotion of a student on the subject they are learning, can really tell someone how that student feels about the learning process. This is critical because it will make the learning process of a student much easier depending on how they learn, and also depending on how they are in character. Using this new technology will help students learn in a much better way in the classroom.
A teacher in the classroom might not be able to look around at every student and be able to tell if the student is learning the subject well. Using this new technology could enhance the ability of a student to learn better. By recognizing if the student is confused, the computer will automatically modify the lesson. This is very critical because not every student in the classroom learns the same way as others, modifying a lesson based on how they learn could most certainly teach a student the lesson better. As stated in paragraph 6, "A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored," after recognizing this,
the computer will then change the format of the lesson. Thus, making the student's comprehension better.
Students in every classroom vary not just in the way they learn, but also in their behavior. A student might not be able to express and talk about their feelings. There is always an introvert in the classroom who might be afraid to speak up. In paragraph 6 it is stated, "Most human communication is nonverbal, including emotional communication," this means that the computer will be able to effectively understand what someone is thinking without the use of words. Using this system will help a student, who is not able to express him or her self clearly, use his or her's facial expressions as their voice.
Knowing the ways students learn could enhance their ability of learning that subject much better. This new technology is able to tell just that. Teachers can't go around to every student of every class and ask them how they feel about the lesson. Also, there is no need for an introvert student to speak up if they don't want to. This only puts them under a lot of pressure, thus decreasing the chances that he or she will learn. The use of this technology in the classroom could even add a sense of love for the subject. The Facial Action Coding System could make the way students aquire knowledge better and can make their futures brighter by simply reading their emotions. | 34
|
7bd14db | The voting system is a very interesting thing. The electoral college is a good system that represents the population in the United States. The electoral college takes into considereation of how big the state is. Based on the population of the state is how many House of Representatives. The more House of Representatives the state has the more impact it will have on the Presendential election due to population. When you think about the presendential election and where the people that are mostly at in the United States the electoral college is a great system because it takes into considerationn where most of the population is.
There is also some wrong with the electoral college. It does have problems as most things do. The single best arguement against the electoral is what some people call the "disaster factor". The disaster factor is that the state legislators are responsible for picking electors, and electors can always defy the will of the people. For example, in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy. Therefor a popular vote for Kennedy would not have acually gone to Kennedy. Soem electors have also occasionally refeused to vote for their party's canidate and cast their deciding vote for whoever they want. The worst possible thing with the electoral college is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. In thisw case, the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives. Many people do not like the electoral college.
The popular vote is probably the most logical and most simple way to have the presedential election. I think the popular vote shows which president the people of the United States actually want. The popular vote voting system simply counts up all the votes and see which president wins. It is a very simple process. However, the Popular vote means nothing to the Electoral college vote. If a presdident wins the popular vote but gets beaten in the Electoral college vote, the president who won the elctoral college vote wins because that is just how it is.
Both of these voting systems are very interesting. I think the Popular votes barely beats out the electoral college vote for me. The popular vote just seems more accurate and more simple. You should change the voting system to the popular vote for more accuracy. The popular vote is better and will make the United States voting policies better. | 23
|
bf09ba6 | What if teachers were able to monitor their student's emotions during class? In the article, "Making Mona Lisa Smile", by Nick D'Alto, D'Alto talks about a technology that was developed that can detect how someone or something feels based off of facial expressions. How the technology works is that there are certains muscle in a person's face that codes for different feelings and if they move a certain way, then the person is conveying a certain feeling, which the computer can detect. This technology is interesting, but it shouldn't be used in school environment. Sure, there are some positives but overall, the negatives outweigh the postivies. This technology is expensive and insufficient, not necessary, and invades privacy, which can be a distraction. The technology used to identify feelings and expressions should not be allowed in a clasroom.
This technology is too expensive to put in classrooms. It requires a good amount of money in order to install in into a classroom. Many classrooms do not have it right now too so it can be a huge blow to a country's capital or economy. Since many developing countries do not have the money to put this technology into classroom, they will lag behind in education even more, since they don't get the benefits that this technology may provide. Not to mention, investing a great amount of money into the technology is nt worth it because even in developed cuntries, there are bigger problems to worry about and more important issues that the government needs to fund for. Also, this technology is insufficient because as stated in the article, "PC can't handle the complex algorithms used t decode Mona Lisa's smile." This shows that there are some computers that cannot handle the complex algorithm, so even if a school wanted to invest in this techology, they need good quality computers, whch is putting a bigger hole in their budget. Although this technology would be nice to have, it is a problem financially and insufficient.
Along with it being a financial burden, this technology is not really useful in classrooms. In schools today, many teachers plan out their lesson before the class starts. With this technology, if a student were bored, the teacher would have to either change the whole class plan or let the student be bored. Also, there will be occasions where one student is interested in material while another is bored. This info really isn't useful because the teacher cannot satisfy both students at once. And then there is the issue with techology these days. In the article, a line states "Most human communication is nonverbal, including emotional communication." Since many students are attached to their phones or devices, knowing their emotion really is not useful. They are either bored or not interested in the lesson. All in all, this technology really does not provide much in the learning environment today.
Finally, this techonology can actually be a distraction and invade privacy. By being able to detect a student's emotion in class, the student may feel insecure. This can cause them to become paranoid and focus on their thoughts and assumption rather than the lesson the teacher is teaching. In the society today, cyber bulling is fairy common. If a student is already insecure, then knowing the teacher is monitoring how they feel in a classroom could cause the student to break down. And then there are the group of kids that want to be class clowns. Students can purposely activate a muscle in the face that codes for a different feeling than they are actually feeling. This could make students focus more on messing with the technology rather than paying attention in class. Another conflict that came to mind is if a student is feeling down because of something that happened in their life. Teachers may call on that student. With this device in a classroom, students can find this technology as more of a distraction than a use for the teacher.
In conclusion, this technology has more of a negative impact rather than a positive impact in the classroom. It can serve as a distraction to the class atmosphere, a financial burden to a country's economy, and does not make a huge impact overall in the classroom. Although this technology is very interesting and provide some positives, it should be used just for kicks and giggles and not incorporated into a classroom. | 56
|
1c388f0 | Many people now a days use cars, trucks, buses or other ways of transportation on a daily baises. Most do not even think twice about all of the pollution they are creating in our world, or even the traffic that they are helping create. Fellow citizens should start becoming aware of this problem and finding different ways to travel.
Many people who work in larger cities tend to face many traffic problems when on their way to work, sometimes causing them to be late for their job. If we were to begin doing things like car-pooling, walking, biking, or even just taking a bus to work or school we could immedialty see changes in the amount of traffic. In Paris, after reaching several days of near-record pollution, they ordered a partial driving ban in attempt to clear up the city. According to source 2: Paris bans driving due to smog, "Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France..." in just five short days. Other places, such as Bogota, Columbia are also taking part in car-free days. These places are also seeing a drastic decline in the amount of traffic seen in the city. The author of source 3: Car-free day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota, Andrew Selsky, millions of Columbians 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.
Another advantage to limiting car usage will be that there will be a noticable decline in the amount of smog and pollution. "Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals" as stated in soure 2:Paris bans driving due to smog. After being ordered a car-free day, smog was cleared enough by the following Monday for them to call off the ban on cars the next day. One simple step such as a week-long car-ban can reduce the amount of pollution drastically. Elisabeth Rosenthal states in paragraph 8 that "an increasing number of private cars owned by the burgeoning middle class are choking cities." If we begin to limit our car use, we will notice great changes in our environment.
In conclusion, if we do just a few simple things in our society, we will be able to notice the great advantages to limiting car usage. The amounts of traffic in cities will decrease, as well as the amount of pollution in our city, all because of just a few simple things that we can change. | 34
|
904b3e6 | Why do people want to study Venus? Venus is a pretty dangerous planet so why do people want to study it? Is it worthy? Vensu is a planet closest to Earth and could resemble Earth a long time ago. Venus also is closest to Earth in density and size. It is a pretty dangerous planet because of its temperatures. Scientist are debating weather to study it despites its dangerous qualities it possess. In the article The Challenge of Exploring Venus The author suggests to study Venus despite its danger so we can truy find out how venus was and what we can do with the discoverings.
First, the author suggests to study Venus despite its danger so we can truly find out how Venus was. This planet could of been the most Earth-like planet long ago.
"Venus still has some feature that are analogous to those of Eath." says the author. The author also states "The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar feature such as valleys, mountain, and craters." Since Venus had all these traits that are resemble Earth its no stretch that Venus could of been just like Eath a long time ago.
Lastly, the author suggests to study venus despite its danger so what we can with its discoverings. Since we have discover some of its obvious traits we can do something about that so we can later use it a Earth-like planet. The Author sates "Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for planeary visit." What we can do with its its discovering is truly find out if we can make venus a "home planet."
In conclusion, the author find it interesting to study Venus even though it is dangerous because we it could be a loneg time ago and on its discoverings. | 23
|
eebc4eb | No, FACE is not created by aliens. as a person who works for nasa face is not created by aliens. i say this because Face is a naural landform found on mars. if you look at the pictures you can find that the imagae is getting clearer and clearer. Have you ever seen an alien in real life? do you belive that an alien has seen a human before? At first NASA
thought it was just a martian mesa that made it look like a eygptian pharoah. Afer a couple days had past we unveild the image wo the whole would could see the photo. When the image was seen by people the caption under image was " It ewsembles a human head, with eyes, nose, and mouth.''
Have you even seen an image that it looks like a person? Well, that's what we found on Mars. After a few years had past on April 5, 1998, Michael Mailen and his Mars Orbiter Camera got a picture ten times better from before. When the picture was uploaded a website it was revealing a natural land form and no alien monument after all. Since the image was uploaded not everyone was satisfied. Skeptics, still beleve that alien was hiddenby haze. To prove skepicts wrong MGS went for a second look. When they went they captured an extraordinary picture of ''Face'' for the second time.
Finally I can say that ''Face on Mars'' was not created by aliens. The image actually shows that the Martian qquivalent of a buttle or mesa which a common around the America West. | 23
|
5f570c4 | Technology to read students emootions.
I think that being able to read someone that way is really not okay. it sorta takes to personal space because there are reason these emmotions are not shown towards others and that normaly because nobody wants their feelings hurt or hurting sombody else. it doesnt feel good inside, being able to help sombody and help them keep there head up high and keep them walking tall.
The technology would be very interesting but i think it shoud only be used at certain times not to read what a student is feeling, use it on criminals and watch there change in mood threw there facial movements almost like a lie detector test. there is nothing in the article stateing the cons of this item its all about the pro's
so i cannot really find much except to type what i think it should be used for. it would be some really great stuff if it ends up being used for the right thing t the right time so hope fully when somthings likes this happens they will use it wisely. | 12
|
1ea8387 | Driverless cars, in my opinion, do not seem like a very good and safe idea. In the passage is talks about the cars only reaching up to 25 mph by themselves and that they aren't completely driverless. The cars can "steer, accelerate, and break themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents." So, what happens if there's a mechanical problem or the "driver" isn't paying attention?
When or if accidents were to occur in these driverles cars, without certain regulations being made, it would be hard for officers to determine who's fault the accident was. It could be a possible mechanical flaw, such as the seat not vibrating when the car is about to back into something. This also stirs up the problem of it possibly being the driver's fault as well since they weren't being fully alert as they should've been. I feel as though these driverless cars cause driver's to become lazy and careless. They assume nothing will go wrong and all they have to do is sit back and relax unitl they have reached their destination. This is not the case however because if there were a mechanical flaw or a work zone or accident, and the driver wasn't paying attention, they could harm themselves or others. Driverless cars provide individuals with a false sense of security.
The passage also discusses the possibility of drivers getting bored and manufacturers creating entertainment systems for the drivers that can be turned off immediately when the driver needs to take over. This kind of contradicts the authors previous claim about the drivers needing to pay attention at all times. if manufactuerers are wanting to make entertainment systems, they obviously aren't too worried about drivers paying attention to the road. The entertainment systems are basically being made to make the drivers lazy and distracted that way they don't get "bored" while sitting there letting the care drive. WIth things in the car to distract the drivers, it seems very dangerous and unsafe for everyone.
Overall, driverless cars are not a wise investment. Although they are called driverless cars, their name actually is a contradiction to what they really are. The cars do drive themsleves however they cannot maneuver around workzones and accidents so the driver must be paying attention at all times. Drivers get a false sense of security and think that the only thing they have to worry about is wathcing out for the occasioanl workzones and accidents. This is not the case. Driver's still have to be aware of other drivers as well and the driverless cars are not guaranteed that there won't be any mechanical flaws. Granted, driverless cars are an advancement in technology, but i don't believe all scenarios have been tested enough for them to work to the full potential everyone thinks they will. | 34
|
9792fe8 | Driverless cars are the transportation system of the future. Their benefits greatly outweigh those of the current system. Driverless cars are easily possible to develop, much safer than regular cars, and have benefits for both people and the environment.
Driverless cars are already in development, and many manufacturers have already designed and created the technology which makes them possible. Driverless cars require sensors which allow them to mimic human reaction to whatever situation might arise while on the road. Sensor technology has been in development and in use since the 1980s, with the introduction of antilock brakes. Using this technology, Google modified a Toyota Prius with several sensors which allows the car to access a 3-D model of its environment. The proper technology to introduce driverless cars is clearly already available to manufacturers. In fact, in 2013, BMW announced the "Traffic Jam Assistant," which allows the car to steer, accelerate, and brake itself. The world is already well on its way to the creation of a truly driverless car.
Some might object to the safety of driverless cars, but in reality, driverless cars introduce more safety to the road environment. An operating system or machine cannot become tired, frustrated, emotional, angry, or distracted in any way; its judgement is mechanical, and there are no variables of human unpredictability. Most if not all vehicular accidents are caused by some sort of human error in judgement, and driverless cars eliminate this possibility, which is conducive to a much safer driving environment. A possible cosumer concern might be that with the current model of semi-driverless cars, which still require some human effort, people may get tired or distracted waiting for their turn to drive. However, manufacturers are developing an answer to this concern which introduces more safety than a regular driving environment would have. Some manufacturers are introducing in-car displays which turn off instantly when driver assistance is required, which is not possible with a regular cellphone or messaging device. This eliminates any in-car distraction during the driving task, With human error eliminated, driverless cars are much safer than regular ones.
Finally, the driverless car introduces benefits to both people and the environment. Driverless cars can allow people to safely engage in other activities besides driving, allowing them to achieve and accomplish more. Driving can be tiring, and driverless cars eliminate driving as a task for people to complete. Many factors can impair driving ability and prevent one from driving, but with driverless cars, mobility is always possible, and transportation is always accessible. A Google cofounder estimates that driverless cars can eventually eliminate the need for personal cars at all, by introducing a public transportation system of entirely driverless vehicles, and that these vehicles can use half the fuel of current taxis. This can have huge benefits for the environment.
Driverless cars are a much better alternative to the transportation systems of today. They can and are being devleoped, carry benefits to the environment and to people, and are much safer than regular cars. | 45
|
10b6dea | There have been many discussions whether or not having an electoral college as the system to decide the president is alright. Many people say this system is corrupted and that it must be thrown out to think of a new better government system, while many other people disagree and state that "yes", this system works perfectly well and that we should keep it this way for many years. Of course, most of the population of the country simply believe this system is best and we should keep it. This may be because certainty of the outcome, and because the system is made out well. Of course, there is also a downside to this such as when a person goes to vote, their not neccesarily voting for whom they believe to be voting for.
To begin with, having the electoral college is great because of the fact that there is certainty of the outcome. As said in source 3 by Richard A. Posner, there is absolute certainty of the person you're voting for is going to win or lose. The reason is that the winning candidate's share of the Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote. For example, in the 2012 election, Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and Romney. Useing this as an example explains that the electoral college, to win it, you must need the magority votes.
Furthermore, the system it self is made out really well. As said in source 1, the electoral college process consists of the selection of the electors [ which consists of 538 and only takes 270 electoral votes to elect a president]. During this meeting they vote for who they want as president and vice president. Also, your state's entitiled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its congressional delegation. In a way you could say that, the electoral college is like a game, and many people just want it gone because they aren't good at it, or just don't understand it.
Of course there is always a downside to everything. This flaw is that, when you're voting, you're not voting for who you believe you are voting for. As said in source 2, when you vote for your president, the vote doesn't go to the president, but for the slate of electors, who in turn elect the president. This may not sound so bad, but with something such as this, there could easily be some corruption in that and could change the outcome of the election. But even with this said, it's an unlikeble chance. when you vote, the elector you voted for is most likely going to be an elector which will vote for your president. So no worries.
In conclusion, letting the electoral college stay is a good idea. It is a well thought out system, and the certainty of which president will be elected is completely accurate which doesnt make it a big guessing game. Don't pay attention to those conspiricies of the electoral college, that we have a great system. | 34
|
1c84510 | Dear Senator,
I was recently was informed that the electrol collge system is going under. It helps use with our votes. If we lose it certain American citizens votes will not be counted in for the president election. I believe that we American citizens should be able to vote. Our votes should all matter. We as a nation are one. One vote we all should be able to vote.
To begin with,
We hold our next presidnet in our hands. Thats why we should change the election by popular votes. If everybody over the age of 21 votes all of our votes would be counted in and we would pick our president. We should also keep the electrol college so congress helps our nation to vote also. Because if we give this country over to the wrong president our country could fall and we could go under. One of the reasons that our country is still standing today is because we as a nation have pick a great president, without hessition. Back in the old days we didnt have a right to vote. We are blessed to be able to vote and a system like the electrol college today. If we lose the electrol college we lose hope and faith that our country we be still standing.
In conclusion,
We americans are sometimes not greatful for the things we have but without we are lost. Senator we need your help. Without the electrol citizen we lose hope on our country. Please let us down. | 12
|
c83f4c0 | Ok, well Luke was a Seagoing Cowboy and he got to see many intresting sites when on the job. The artical states that Luke got to see what it is like to be in those countreys. But yet, in the end on their way back they did have lots of fun playing many games on ship.
The first reason you should be a Seagoing Cowboy is because you get to help other people, animals, supplies, and you get to feel what its like to be in that place. And you do get to see some pretty amazing sites. You do get to go over sea, and you will be with other people so you won't be lonly. And you can be under 18 to join the Seagoing Cowboys.
The second reason you should join is because you will not be lonly, you will have friends there, also you can get friend or family to join if you want. you also can play games on your way back. And it is the UNRRA (the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration) who are hiring you to work for them. And yet why wouldn't you want to join, it is a one in a lifetime opportunity.
Some people say that you should not join reasons why, well frist off they that you can be killed which is true but yet very low chance of that happinging. They also say that its not worth it and that all that stuff is going to be gone anyway but yet before you can lose the supplies why not use them to help. And they say that you can end up bringing crimanals but yet the Seagiong Cowboys would most likly will bring criminals to safe places but yet make sure that they don't hurt anyone.
In concusion you should join because you get to help people and animals, you get to see amazing sites, you get to have fun, and you do not have to be lonly when working for them. | 23
|
d3da047 | I am against the development of driverless cars. I am against these cars because they are not completely independent, they could cause accidents, and they will develop conflicts between the manufacturer and the driver. These cars could cause a dramatic change in the driving society.
I am against these cars because they are not completely independent. "They still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues." This means that the driverless cars are not compatable to fully being able to drive alone. The driver in the car would have to be alert when a situation has approached. If there was an incident where the driver was not paying attention or the signals would have not went off , the driver would have never known to take over, which would cause serious incidents. The driverless cars should be able to be commited to the road fully.
Although the Driveless Cars are tested, they could still cause accidents. Accidents could occur if the driver is not aware of the car being in need of help with specific traffic issues. Also, anything could go wrong with technology. These cars lack human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. These situations could cause an even more devastating effect.
Furthermore, these cars will cause conflicts with the law between manufacturers and drivers. Laws would have to be changed in order to fit with the development of these driveless cars. If a situation occurs and the driver is hurt, whose fault is it? If the car is driving, will it be the manufacturer? Or, if the driver is in control and there is an accident, how would anyone have known? These cars should be more reliable.
In conclusion, I am against the development of driveless cars. I am against these cars because they are not completely independent, they could cause accidents, and they will develop conflicts between the manufacturer and the driver. These cars could cause a dramatic change in the driving society. | 34
|
71c1f3d | In my town getting your license is a huge deal. As soon as I turned fifteen I went streight to the DMV to take my test and get to driving as soon as possible. In countries and cities such as Germany, France, and Bogota, driving is ban pretty much where ever you go. After days of near-record pollution,paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city and as a result congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after five-days of intensifying smog. Smog flooded Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the entire world.
Limiting car usage has numerous advantages from streets being safer than ever, to totally eliminating smog that drapes over the world today.
Cold nights and warm days caused the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions and desil fuel was blamed. we the people want to stop the pollution and eliminate it once and for all so the People proposed " A day without cars". It's part of an improvement campaign that began in Bogota in the mid-1990s. This campaign has seen the construction of 188 miles of nicycle paths, the most of any Latin American city, according to the citys mayor. Parks and sports centers have beeen packed throughout the city, Sidewalks have been redone, rush-hour restrictions have cut traffic, new and more resturaunts have been built, and upscale shopping districts have cropped up.
The end of car culture has hit everywhere and id just getting to the U.S.
President Obama's goal to curb the United states' greenhouse gas emissions, unveiled last week, will get a fortuitous assist from an incipient shift in American behavior. Recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewwer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by. the essential question is " Has America passed peak driving?"
the United states had been long one of the worlds prime car cultures. But America's love affair with its vehicles seems to be cooling. when adjusted for population growth, the number of miles driven in the United States peaked in 2005 and dropped steadily after. As of april 2013, the number of miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent below the peak and equal to where the country was in january 1995.
"different things are converging which suggests that we are witnessing a long-term cultural shift," said Mimi Sheller, a sociology professor at Drexel University and director of its Mobilities Research and policy center. She cites various factors about how the internet makes telecommuting possible and allows people to feel more connected without driving to meet your friends. the renewal of centercities has made the suburbs less appealing and has drawn empty nesters back in. The rise in cellphones and car-pooling apps has facilitated more flexable commuting arrangements, inncluding the evolution of shared va services for getting to work.
a study last year found that driving by young peopple decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009 and even car buyers are merely older or buying fewer cars in a lifetime rather than rejecting car culture outright. "pedestrian, bycycle, private cars, commerical and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emmissions and improve safety." | 12
|
b3a3543 | Luke had just graduated college and his friend Don Reist invited Luke to go to Europe with him. Luke said yes because it was an opportunity of a lifetime and he could not pass it up. Luke became a Seagoing Cowboy.
Luke said, "Being a Seagoing Cowboy he got to see Europe, China and he got to see the Acropolis in Greece." He got to see so many great sites. Luke toured an excaveted castle in crete and he marveled at the Panama Canal on his way to China.
Luke had to travel a lot. But, even though it took two weeks to cross the Atlantic Ocean from the eastern coast of the United states and a month to get to China. On the long journey
Luke stayed busy by taking care of animals. Taking care of animals and traveling was not all Luke did on the boat, the cowboys played lots of games. Some of the games they played was baseball and volleyball games in the empty holds where animals lived. They also did table-tennis tournaments, fencing, boxing, reading, whittling and other games to pass time.
Luke said that "being a Seagoing Cowboy was much more than an adventure." For Luke it opened up the world to him. Luke had a lot of fun seeing different sites, meeting new people, playing fun games and caring for people in a different, and better way. | 01
|
f26eb1e | I find that driverless cars is not only a bad idea but a bad advocate, I also find that this car is a bad avocate for not only teenagers but adults as well. Although the car does seem cool because it is something new doesn't mean it won't malfunction while being used at anytime. People would have to take extra procausion while using this type of car. I could see more accidents in the future rather than safe driving.
The main reason I find that driverless cars is a bad idea is because of drunk driving. Teens and adults already take full advantage of it so why wouldn't this car advocate more drunk driving? Not only on top of cars malfunctioning, you have to pay extra procausion, and plus on top of all that someone decides to drink and drive. People don't understand all of the responsiblities you have to take on while having a driverless car.
As to many teens they like to show off, a lot. That is something everyone likes to do, but imagine all the horrific things that driverless cars could cause. It only takes one person to get distracted by their cellphone or other passangers in the car. Something could happen to the car in just a short period of time, The car could malfunction but the driver responsible wouldn't know or they didn't have enough time to stop the car or give their attention to the road.
In my opinion I believe that driverless cars should be banned from every state. Driving isn't just about getting to your destiniation, but keeping drivers, passenger, and pedestrians safe. Only alert drivers would be in the proper state to drive one of these cars but teens and other drivers that aren't very alert and are already not safe drivers and could cause many problems. | 12
|
2b33dcc | The FACS (Facial Action Coding System) has good and essential uses. The FACS could be used to identify what emotion the painting or drawing has. For example, the "Mona Lisa" painting could be a great example of why to use this system. I believe that the use of this technology to read the emotional exressions of students in a classroom could be valuable. In a way, the students can be learning at a way where the lesson will have their attetntion if it is interesting to them.
I agree that the FACS could help in a classroom with students and maybe even improve their way of learning. If the computer could see what facial expression the student has, the computer realizes the student gets bored then it might boost itself so that the lesson can becomoe interesting to the child. As I read the text called "Making Mona Lisa Smile" I understood the point the author was making. "A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored", Dr. Huang predicts. I highly think there would be a change in the academic learning environment. According to the passage, "Most human communication is nonverbal, including emotional communication", meaning that the computers would also have to understand what the feeling is without actually communicating with the person.
Overall, I do agree with using the FACS in a classroom with students in a classroom to help the students and the learning environment. The computer system would read and determine what the emotion is by detecting how the muscles are behaving. Meaning that if most of the muscles are at rest, then the emotion would most likely be a resting face. If the professors are right abot their prediction, then we would see somewhat of a change. | 23
|
a61fb39 | well the ather thinks that aenus is not a bad planit. onr thing about venus is that evin thow is not that clows to the sun is more hot there then eny other planit.
it is very exstren there for a man to live there it is so bad now man or humen can live there not only cuz is vere hot there.
venus was alsow like erth it had water is was the only thing clows to erth but i think like is to hotthere the water eviperet the is why i think is good to study abut venus.
NASA
wan's to try so see if some of the mechens and work
out in venus some of thime are taking this as a risk andsome of then are taking this as a chling.
thes things colde be hard to do but not imposable these people are going to try to do what they can they are triying to make life in venus so hat is why i thing the athere is intrestid in venus cuz is the closes thing to erth. | 01
|
7afcfe2 | The author is right study Venus, in the text it says that it is earch twin and that Venus has mountains and other things like earth so they could have had life there a long time ago. Even though it will be a struggle to study Venus it would be worth it beacuse it could be a second earth. It would be hard to get on the surface of Venus the average temperature is over 800 degrees.
The study of Venus would be hard but NASA has one compelling idea for sending humans to study Venus. They would have to hover/float above the fray at about 30 or more miles above the landscape and the air pressure would be close to Earth sea levels it wont be an easy conditons for humans but surviable. However they would have to get close to Venus surface so that they could get rock samples. That's why the author says they would need to make a machine to last a long enough time to cotribute meaningfully on Venus. Venus is our sister planet it is inhopitable,still today Venus still has some features like Earth. The planet has a rocky surface and has valleys,mountains, and craters. In the text the author says;"Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit".
Venus can one day be a livning condtion for us people on Earth that's why the author wants us to study the planet in the last paragraph the author says;"Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expaned to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation." | 23
|
833f55c | Driverless Cars Are Not Good!
Driverless cars means a car that does not need a human to control of the car. Driverless cars are not safe because you can't tell if something bad can happen to it or not. If it's safe, why aren't there any in the public. Even the producers of the cars are not 100% sure of the condition. The car can't deal with big problems like; dealing with complicated traffic issues. It is better to use the now days cars than the driverless. It would cost a lot more than the cars that we use now.
The driverless cars are not trustworthy. What if you fell asleep while they car can't deal with the traffic issues? The cars are not use yet where the people like us can see it. What if the car doesn't hit the brake when you're about to crash? Some people are more confortable when they drive.
It may be the double price of the cars that we're using right now. It is better to have Honda or Toyota than the driverless car because you have the control of the car. It is important to have control of the car because you might want to change your location when you're driving. You save more money. You can feel more better if have control. If you're on driverless car; I am sure that you would feel scared.
Some people feel more confortable when they drive because they don't trust the driver. Technology is high but is it high enough to drive but it's self? If you're really sleepy and the driverless car is in the situation of traffic issues; what you it do? You might as well just crash. If you drive the normal cars it is safer and better. It is safer because you have control of it. If you're too sleepy, you can take a nap first.
Finally, driverless cars are cars that is not controlable. You don't know if its safe or not. There is no benefits; it's just that it is better because it uses less fuel than the amount we're using right now. Drive normal cars are better because it cost less. If you have control of the car; you feel more confidence. | 12
|
ecd26ea | Would it be fun to be able to know what emotion or emotions others are feeling, stictly off of facial muscle movement? Yes, it would be quite interesting to have the ability to have some insight on what other people are thinking and feeling. Although the Facial Action Coding System is a very sharp piece of modern technology, is it truly a valuable invention? Yes, it is impressive and intelligent, but it does not seem to serve a larger purpose within a classroom enviornment. Thus, although the Facial Action Coding System is an impressive piece of modern technology, it is uneeded in a classroom enviornment because it is impractical, unecessary, could potentially be very stressful.
To begin, the Facial Action Coding System is impractical in todays society, especailly within a classroom enviornment. In the text it says that, "your home PC can't handle the complex algorithms used to decode Mona Lisa's smile." So, in order to place this cutting-edge technology within schools would be a huge financial burden. Most schools only contain practical technology due to a strict, government driven budget. Attempting to fit such a modern piece of technology into the school system would not be practical, and in many cases, it would not be possible either. If the Facial Action Coding System was put into school systems, it could have to possibility to help decode bad mental health in some cases, but it could also cause the government to go even deeper into debt. Thus, because the Facial Action Coding system is predicted to be incredibly expensive, it is not a practical item for a classroom enviornment.
Next, the Facial Action Coding System may be neat, but it is also unecessary. According to the text, it has the capability of showing when "a smile is not being truthful," but lie-detector tests have already been invented for that. The article also states that,"A classroom computer could recognize whne a student is becoming confused or bored," yet this is very evident in the body language of a student. Teachers do not need need a software that tells them that their students are not interested in their teaching material because it is shown through their actions. For example, if the student has their head down, is engaging in their own conversation during the lesson, or tends to sleep during class, this portrays to the teacher that they are bored or uninterested. Therefore, because there are already similar inventions and because observance of body language is a very practical tool, it is unecessary to use the Facial Action Coding System within a classroom enviornment.
Lastly, the Facial Action Coding Sytem has the potential of being very stressful to a student. A computer system that is able to publicly expose ones emotions could stir up fear and anxiety that was not within them before. Someone who has is struggling with their mental health does not needed to be reminded of this through their test results, especially while at school. There are plenty of other treatment options for issues like these. The Facial Action Coding System would strip students of emotional privacy, which could potentially stir up stress within a student. Considering that students are already under enough stress with standardized testing, the pressure to perform well in academics and athletics, and to fit in, they do not need an added stress in their life. In conclusion, the Facial Action Coding Sytem would do more harm than good and could potentially damage the mental health of the students.
Overall, the concept of a the Facial Action Coding System is very captivating and intriuging, but it does not have many practical uses. It would place a financial burden among the school systems and could potentially stress students even more than they currently are. Thus, the Facial Action Coding Sytem would not be valuable wthin the clasroom setting. | 45
|
2235d96 | Twenty five years ago, NASA's Viking 1 spacecraft was circling Mars. While snapping photos of possible landing sites, it spotted the shadowy likeness of a human face. The head is nearly two miles from end to end and seemed to be staring back at the cameras from a region of the Red Planet called Cydonia. This head formation is just a natural landform on Mars. On the otherhand, some people think that NASA would rather hide the fact that it could be life on Mars, say conspiracy theorists.
The face on Mars is a natural land form. The article states that, "Although few scientists believed the Face was an alien artifact, photographing Cydonia became a priority for NASA when Mars Global Surveyor arrived at the Red Planet in September 1997, eighteen long years after the Viking missions ended." This shows that pictures would be taken to prove that the landform is indeed a natrual landform. The text also states that, "And so on April 5, 1998, when Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia for the first time, Michael Malin and his Mars Orbiter Camera team snapped a picture ten times sharper than the original Viking photos. Thousands of anxious web surfers were waiting when the face first appeared on a JPL web site, revealing...a natural landform. There was no alien monument after all." This peice of text shows proves that with the pictures, the head is a natural landform. These text peices show that the face is a natural landform on Mars.
The land formation on Mars is was not created by aliens. The article states that, "On April 8, 2001-a cloudless summer day in Cydonia-Mars Global Surveyor drew close enough for a second look. 'We had to roll the spacecraft 25 degrees to center the Face in the field of view, Mailin's team an extraordinary photo using the camera's absolute maximum resolution. Each pixel in the 2001 image spans 1.56 meters, compared to 43 meters per pixel in the best 1976 Viking photo." The text also states that, "As a rule of thumb, you can discern things in a digital image 3 times bigger than the pixel size, so if there were any objects in this picure like airplanes on the ground or Egyptian-style pyramids or even small shacks, you could see what they were!" These text peices show that the pictures would have caught any signs of alien incounters so these prove that the natrual landform on Mars was not created by aliens.
Some say that the face has been created by aliens and that it is not a natural landform. The article states that, "But not everyone was satisfied. The Face on Mars is located at 41 degrees north martian latitude where it ws winter in April '98-a cloudy time of year on the Red planet. The camera on board MGS had to peer through wispy clouds to see the Face. Perhaps, said skeptics, alien markings were hidden by haze." These text peices show that since it was a cloudy time, the alien markings weren't revealed which makes them believe that the face was created by aliens. However, new pictures were taken and shows that if there was alien markings, they would have been noticed which goes to show that the face is a natural landform.
In conclusion, 25 years ago, a face had been seen on Mars by pictures from the Vinking that is a natural landform and looks similar to a human face. Some say that the landform was created by aliens, but there is proof that aliens had no part in the formation what so ever. Few scientists believe that it's a alien artifact but with pictures, alien markings would have been noticed. The Face on Mars is just a natural landform. | 45
|
5bbf0ed | Dear our state Senator,
I am writing to you for not only myself but for the citizens of our state. I do not agree with The Electoral College and I think that our way of voting for president should be based off of popular vote. I know our state and our country has been using electoral college as our way of voting for a very long time throughout our nations history. But Electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrrational. and i'll tell you whats wrong with the electoral college.
As you may know we do not directly vote for our president. we vote for our electors who will (hopefully) vote for the president we want. when the time comes for voting the state legislature are technically responsible for picking our electors. We the people are not always in control of who they vote for and the electors could always defy our will. We do not always control who they vote for. So is it really fair if we vote for an elector who doesnt even support us and our say in who we want to lead our country?
Another reason why i do not agree with the electoral college is for the smaller states. they do not have as much of a say in who runs our country like we do. luckily we are one of the biggest states along with california. but in smaller states they almost have no say at all. they dont even see campaigns because no one running for office pays attention to the smaller states. For instance, The campaign in 2000 seventeen states didnt see the candidates at all.
One of the biggest faults in the electoral college even though it is very unlikely but not impossible is a tie. As you already know if there was a tie the election would be thrown to the house of representatives,where state delegations vote on the president. because each state casts only one vote, the houses selections would hardly even show the will of the people. the people would barely have any say whatsoever. does that seem fair to you?
Those are the reasons why i and many other citizens do not agree with the elecotral college. its unfair to us , the people, and smaller states. America is known for being the country of freedom and choice, but if we the people barely have say in who runs our country, are we really elligble to be called that? thats why i think we should use popular vote as our way of electing our president. | 34
|
df1e4f2 | When you look at these pictures what do you see? It may be a face to some people and to others it might be just a natural landform. We'll never really know the truth unless somebody goes there or since its been a while it may not even be there anymore. If you went there would you come back with false or true evidnece to help support what you think it is.
On May 24,2001 the text say, "Twenty five years ago something funny happened around Mars. NASA's Viking 1 spacecraft was circling the planet, snapping photos of possible landing sites for its sister ship Viking 2, when it spotted the shadowy likeness of a human face. An enormous head nearly two miles from end to end seemed to be starring back at the cameras from a region of the Red Planet called Cydonia." This shows that if this two mile long "human face" was real this must of had to of been a giant living on Mars. The text also says "Scientist figured it was just another Martian mesa, common enough around Cydonia, only this one had unusual shadows that made it look like an Egyptian Pharaoh." This shows that this helps us know that it could of just of been a Martian mesa since its common around Cydonia.
In the image of 1998 I can see where they see the face, but then look at the picture from 2001 it just looks like a large landform. Yes it could of decayed but then by the time 1998 come it should have already been decayed and you would of thought that from image from 1976. If the mesa was a human face then it wouldn't really have all those cracks like the image from 2001 has. The text says " A few days later NASA unveiled the image for all to see." What kind of rucous do you think this would of caused?
The text says " A few days later NASA unveiled the image for all to see. The caption noted a "huge rock formation...which resembles a human head...formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose, and mouth." This shows that they might of added the resembles a human face, because they can't really put if it was unless somebody actually went to Mars. Many people would have had there different opinions on if it were really a human face without the 'Resembles a human head" part or not.
The authors who wrote the story about the resembles a human head thought it would be a good way to have the public engage in attention toward Mars. It did! the text says "The Face on Mars has since become a pop icon. It has starred in a Hollywood film, appeared in books, magazines, radio talk shows." This shows that the Face on Mars is so popular even though it couldn't be a real human head. | 23
|
fb7e5d8 | would using cars less improve our lives? in frnace they enforced a partial driving ban after days of near-record pollution. which is a smart idea to have a partial ban to clear the air then after that has been done they could organize something to help not have this happen in the future. they could have a day dedicated to walking or running to get in better shape. nut they have resorted to something simular.
On monday motorist with even-numbered license plates have been ordered to leave their cars at their homes for the day while odd-numbered license plates were permitied to drive that day and they would switch off every day. seems like an effective plan. although you must always think about the people who dont follow the rules. For example a driver only aloud on tuesday due to his or her odd-numbered license plate drives their car on a monday. these motorist would be issued a fine of 22 euro which in american currency is $31. a large number of motor isnt were not please with this act. in result of this act almostt 4,000 drivers were fined twenty-seven of those motorist had their vehicles impounded for their actions towards the fine they recieved. either they refused to pay or they drove again when they werent aloud to or may have acted in a hostel manner.
congestion droped around 60 percent in the capital of france after five continuos days of intesifying smog. The smog debated between beijing france and china which is the most polluted city. people wanted to know what was to blame for this. The people blamed diesel since frnace has created a tax policy that is in favor of the use of diesel or the use of gasoline. Abgout more than half of frances vehicles are fueled by diesel. 53.3 percent average of vehicles are diesel engines in the rest of europe.
seeing all of these facts has made me come to a conclusion we all need to compromise to make our world cleaner. we have been blessed with this land by god and we shall usde it as we please but if we arent cvarefulo it could fall appart becvause of our carelessness towards or earth we call home. if we all divise a plan weither it be to create more eco friendly cars or have people who live close to school or work walk instead of drive. we can come together and help keep our earth clean. we all may be different. our color, our gender, our religion, but one thing is the same about us. we care about the earth and we want to keep it clean for future generations of humanity. we all share one world lets use it the right way. | 12
|
dcf06e8 | I believe that we should change the system to "election by popular vote". If we were to change the way we elect our president im sure citizens would be more pleased with the over all outcome. People vote on who they think is best fit to represent them and give them the best over all outcome. When using the "electoral college" you are not voting for the president but you are voting for a state of electors. It would be easier to simply allow presidents to get the popular vote in order to make the election more fair all around. The "electoral college" is unfair to voters because of the winner-take-all system. It is time to change our voting methods because the "electoral college" system is outdated, irrational, and unfair to citizens.
When people place their vote they belive they are putting in a vote for the president they choose, not for a slate of electors. The "electoral college" is a very non-democratic way of selecting your president. In a way the government is deceiving their citizens by the way our voting method is set up. When people vote they feel a sense of independence because they are allowed to choose who they would like to represent them in congress. But instead once they place their vote it goes to electors rather than a simple vote towards the one they selected. If you were to change the way people's votes were counted it would be easier and faster to elect a president and get him into office to fix world-wide problems.
In all three articles at least one section has made it clear on their opinion to abolish the electoral college. Figures such as Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have agreed on abolishing the electoral college. When voting for president you are voting for a slate of electors, but do we even know who these supposed electors are! Are votes are being manipulated and we are not even aware of who is doing it. If we can not vote for are president without going through electors we should be able to vote for the electors who are voting for are president. It is only fair that we have some say in everything that is going on. When votes are being placed we should be informed of all that is going on.
If you were to vote for your favorite tv show but your vote had to go through twenty different people all with different opinions you would be frustrated. Now imagine that scenario but with something extremely more significant than a televison show, the president. You are trusting possibly the next four years of your life with strangers in which you have never heard of before. It would only be fair if we could simply change the system to popular vote rather than electoral college.
If you switch to popular vote more people would be more likely to vote because they could have more confidence about their vote. They would feel free to make their own decision and trust it would not be tampered with by a stranger. People deserve a fair vote and with the popular vote that is what you are giving them. Because every living being deserves equality. Changing the system would not only be helpful for citizens but helpful for the congress. Instead of having random members of congress choose the president they can work on serious issues around the world. They can stop worrying about foolishness and do their jobs.
In conclusion changing the way people vote is easier for everybody. It saves time for electors and it gives people a chance to see who they are really voting for. Presidents would have to go to each state and appeal to them in order to get a vote. I belive that is what we need. They would be required to actually work for a position in office rather than speaking on whjat they are going to do and paying someone else to elect them. We should have faith in our president and know who we are voting for before we cast our vote. This system seems more fair and more modern to the twenty first century. This is a system most Americans would agree with. So to end my argument I simply say think before you act and truly try to do whats right. | 34
|
341a9c9 | I am a scientist at NASA, and over th eyears we have discovered a strange face on the planet Mars.the picture was take by one of our spacecrafts first in 1976 then again in 1998 and lastly in 2001. The news about seeing a face on Mars is a big deal,but some people didnt think it was such a big deal.Many people made comments about the picture and said it was made by aliens, but many other said it was a natural landform.many people have gotten over excited and about the face and people made movies about it and books,it was on magizine covers, it was even on talk shows.But , Scientists like myself think that this face is just an illusion.Many of us think its just another martion mesa, that ae common enough around Cydonia.A few days later we recieved an image for all to see , it noted ''huge rock formation''.so, this face that everyone is so crazy about ,thinking that aliens did it is not true.the face is just a big illusion,formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes,a nose and a mouth.the picture first take in 1976 was a not a clear shot of the face, so the next picture taken in 1998 was a better picture that showed the formation clearer.th e picture revealed a natural landformation,so there was no alien monument after all.
So, yes its disapointing that there was no aliens on Mars that amde a face ,but at least now we know what we were looking for. | 12
|
a4c474c | Driverless cars are on the verge of coming out and will be good for all people on the roads. Driverless cars will nit only take away the risk of human error but will help to decrease accidents that are happening all around the world because of human error. Humans make more mistakes than machines, so driverless cars are less prone to be in accidents.
Machines are very accurate and make very few mistakes if any. As paragraph two says, "Televisions and movies have long been fascinated with cars that could drive themselves." Driverless cars would be a huge breakthrough in science and engineering. I think that there shouldnt be any driverless cars right now, but in a few years the technology that will be out will be safe and trustworthy. I would trust driverless cars in a few more years when the technology is more advanced and sophisticated. In paragraph 2 it says, "Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash, but so far, Google cars arent truly driverless." The big car companies agree that the driverless car technology wont be out for a couple of more years because it is too dangerous right now to trust them, they say that cars arent truly driverless yet when it comes to driving in traffic jams or in construction zones because there are some problems that we probably dont know about yet, but through time we can figure out to make the driverless cars more safe.
Another reason why driverless cars would be a better go to is because it coul help from polluting the atmosphere with exaust. In paragraph 1 Sergey Brin envisions fleets of driverless cars form a public-transport taxi system that uses half of the fuel that taxi cabs use today. With less fuel consumption, the evnironment and atmosphere will not get as polluted with gas exuast. Also, with less fuel being consumed by the cars, There will be less money spent on gas which could help you save money fo more things that you want.
Another feature that you can get from driverless cars is relaxing and spending more time with the people you are with. If you are by yourself you could catch up with the news or take a quick nap and get some extra rest for wherever you are going. In paragraph 8 it says, "Some manufacturers hope to bring in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays." So while you are kicked back in your seat you can turn on a movie or bring a book and enjoy your book while your car transports you to your destination.
Driverless cars are the future and will bring many technological advances with it. All through time these self-driving cars will come out and amaze the world with all of their abilities. Whether you are for, or against, everyone will be amazed if these sci-fi vehicles are actually produced and used by the common folk. Until then, the world will wait for the best technological advancement in history to come out. | 34
|
ef20b17 | Since I have been there before and traveled many of times I could tell you it was a great opportunity to help other people and see famous structures,buildings, and cities. I think that more people should help because it is for a good cause and we need more people. Another reason as to why I say that is because it can be better pay than most jobs and believe it or not can be fun. You may be thinking how is it fun to be in a ship for months and weeks at a time, well on the way back when there are no animals in the storage area that we keep them in we can play games like Baseball,Volleyball,Table Tennis,Fencing,and Boxing.
Also, you get a great opportunity to see famous buildings,cities,structures,and landmarks like for example I have seen the Acropolis in Greece, I have taken a Gondola ride in Venice, Italy (which was like a city with streets full of water), and the Panama Canal and many more.
If you decide to join i would be very glad and hope to meet you there just rember all of the opportunity you may have there and you may be saving peoples lives. Also, are you working at a place that doesn't pay good thsi would be better because you can be away at sea for awhile and have no bills you would have food provided and water. I hope to see you there and I hope you make a difference. | 12
|
c4ecf88 | Cars, they help us get from point A to B in a shorter amount of time, but at what cost. Cars are a large source of stress, produce large ammounts of pollution, and seem, even now, to be going out of style. Cars are a luxury, not a necessity, and now they might not even be as usefull. More and more people are putting down the car keys and choosing instead to take a bike or bus. Cars are just too stressful to be a necesity.
In Vauban, Germany, many people are giving up engines. According to the
New York Times,
"70 percent of Vauban's families do not own cars," showing that life can go on efficiently even without a car. Life might actually improve without those money eating tanks. "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way" says Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two. This car free philosophy is even becoming a trend! There are hundreds of groups in the United States promoting communities that are more independent of cars, called "car reduced" communities. But stress isn't the only thing cars produce. Cars are huge contributers to pollution, and reducing car usage would greatly benifit the enviornment.
Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe, and up to 50 percent is some car-intensive areas in the united states, acording to the
New York Times . Paris actually enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city after days of near-record pollution. The ban was enforced with a $31 fine. Even with 4,000 drivers fined, congestion was down 60 percent and the smog cleared enough that the ban could be lifted the next day. Using more enviornmentally inclined sources of transportation will deffinetly help leave a cleaner planet for future generations, and the generations already here. Cars are conveinient for short term gratification, but the long term effects might devastate the enviornment. Cars are not needed, and might not even be prefered for much longer.
A study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009 in the united states. Bogota, Colombia even becan a "car-free day" in wich all cars, besides busses and taxis, are banned in this capital city of 7 million for an entire day. Violaters of this ban are fined $25. "It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution," said businessman Carlos Plaza. This event is even starting to spread. For the first time two other Colombian cities have joined the event. Using cars is becoming less and less common, and it's a trend the enviornment can enjoy.
In conclusion, cars are a hiderance. Cars are stressful and cumbersome objects, getting rid of them would help reduce stress in the population. Cars are high contributers to pollution, creating smog and causing problems. Also, cars are a comodity that is being used less and less. People are putting down the car keys and picking up a bike. So why not join the trend? | 34
|
4af77e9 | My name is Luke Bomberger and I honestly believe you should join the Seagoing Cowboys program. In the program you can stay on until you are at least 18 years of age. Joining the sea cowboys is a way to go on many journeys through out your lifetime. It is a way to learn different types of animals and, since I used to work on a farm I can help you feed the animals if you need any help. Even though im above 18 I still want to stay on the program with all of the new followers but, I did have to be drafted in 1947.
When I was traveling across the sea I got to see Europe, China, the Acropolis in Greece, Venice, Italy, Crete, and Panama Canal on my way to China. I had very rough times at night watchmen, one time I was going to go and feed the animals and I fell down the slippery stairs, it didn't hurt to bad but I did feel alot of pain. We also had a fun time on board playing baseball and volleyball. After all of the animals had been feed and put to bed we also played table-tennis, boxing, fencing, reading, and whitling. As the time went by it is always ttime to go to bed because when we were playing the games time had been flying.
Joining the Seagoing Cowboys was a great decision. After I had quit my two half-time jobs, banking and working at a grocery store my friend Don had asked if I wanted to join the Seagoing Cowboys. It was as fun as it gets having a friend aboard that I was able to talk to. Joining the Seagoing Cowboys was a great opportunity to help me see everyone elses needs in other countries. So if you ever want to talk stop by my house where I have very many vistors each and evrey year. | 23
|
70cf70a | The author states that despite the challenges Venus presents in order to further explore it is worth of the danger that follows. The author states how Venus is "Often refered to Earth's twin" and becasue of this fact and how close venus is to Earth obvious curiosity sparked missions in order to try to land a spacecraft "on this cloud-draped world" named Venus. Although the author states how "no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours" and there have been numerous spacecrafts that have been sent on this mission it still should not stop us from trying again and finding solutions to these challenges. This ultimately leads the author to support the idea that "studying venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents."
There are numours evdience in this article that support the main claim made in the article that "studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents." First off the author states how Venus has a "temperature average over 800 degrees farrenheit and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experiance on our own planet" or earth. The author even gives an anaology to show, with imagery, what thoses numbers look like as he says, "such envioronment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of the our ocenas and would liquefy many metels." However this raises a question: If Venus is so "inhospitable" then why are there futher visits to its surface being discussed? This ties back into the origal claim the author supports as he says, " Astronomers are fascinated by Venus becasue it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Venus was proably covered largely with ocenas and could have have supported various forms of life, just like earth." The author is infering, because of these similarites between Eartjh, it is only crutial that an expolration of Venus happens soon, also becasue given the long time frame of the when the last spaceship tried to enter Venus's atmosphere which was three decades ago. The authorr is infering how despite how dangerous it is, like we have seen in the past attempts to fly to venus, it is more worth it to be more proactive and find options to make a "misson both safe and scientifically producitve" to futher study the unanwered question of Venus. Futhermore the author states how NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray. This way " a vehicle hovering over Venus would aviod the unfriendly ground conditions." This is one possible solution the auhtor claims that NASA has come up with to at least try to get close to Venus without damaging spacecrafts. With this approch the article even states they hope to send humans to Venus too. However this approch has its down side because; "peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions." "Researchers cannot take smaples of rocks, gas or anything else, from a distance." This however supports authors claim that "studying venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents." This is supported when he states that we should see this downside as a challenge to make it even better so we can ultimaly touch the suface of Venus even despite the dangers that come with this. The author supports this by stating that, "many resaerchers are working on inovations that would allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaninfully to our knowlegde ofVvenus. Even despite the risk that eveyone knows by now scientists and reserchers find it worthy enough to keep studting Venus and how to get a human on its surface.
In conclusion, through out the article, the reader is given inshight to the dangers Venus presents on what reserchers are trying to do today which is to get a human on Venus. The author with evidence supports the idea that "studying venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents." The author makes it clear that these dangers do not have to be looked at in a negative way but rather can be looked at as challenges to try to overcome. He claims that these challenges venus presents have value becasue of how similar Venus us to earth. The author infers his will untimilty lead to human curiosity which will lead to endevors yet to come. Futhermore the author claims how setbacks should not make us quit and how our pursuit to Venus should not be limited by dangers we find along the way. Rather we should take that uncertinity and danger and us it to make venus a a worthy persuit to further reseach in the recent years to come. | 45
|
7d62d5d | Exploring venus sounds like a great idea, in despite of all the dangerous things that are out there. venus can be very dangerous but it has so much thing s that we can learn about and just makes us want it more. Studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents because venus is the most Earth-like planet in our solar system and because even if it's dangerous we still wanna know whats out there.
Venus is sometimes called Earths "twin." Our planet earth and venus are very alike, Earth its actually pretty close to it, sometimes we're closer to Venus and sometimes we're closer to Mars. In the article " The Challange of Exploring Venus" it says "Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth." this quote shows how Venus was like Earth before, it had large amounts of oceans just like our planet Earth does. Oceans have a lot of living creatures in them which means that Venus maybe had all of those creatures too." Today Venus still has some features that are analogous to those on Earth.... has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such a valleys, mountains, and craters." This quote shows how Venus and Earth are alike in many features, if Venus has mountains there might be animals that live in there which means that just like the oceans may have living creatures maybe Humans could live in there too. But we still don't know what is in Venus somethings that we do know it's that Venus can be very dangerous.
Venus can be like Earth except Venus can be dangerous and Earth is not dangerous . In the article the author argues that Venus can be very dangerous to explore, many of us have tried but the article argues that " Humans have sent numerous spacecraft to land on this cloud-draped world.Each mission was unmaned.....no spacecraft survided the landing for more than a few hours." this quote is showing us how humans have tried to send spacecratfs but not one has come survived, venus can really be that dangerous. The author states "Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system...Venusian geology and weather present additional inpediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lighting strikes." Venus can be really dangerous for humans to actually go in there and explore it, theres too much risk but we keep on trying because we really wanna know what's out there.
in conclusion we know that Venus is dangerous but we still want to know about it. Venus is a worthy pusuit in despite of all the danger because it's like our planet Earth, and we really wanna know whats out there. We should keep on trying to study it, is worth it because maybe and just maybe there could be a possibility that there might be life in Venus. | 34
|
e962f04 | I am writing this paragraph about a argumentive essay and to say that the face that was found on Mars was not a alien it's a natural born landform.
The face that was found on Mars was not a alien, I think that because it had the shape on a human face and a human face does not look anything like a alien face, they are two different types of faces.
The reason is on May 24, 2001 when the face was spotted it even says " When it spotted the shadowy likeness of a human face", it does not say anything about it looking like a alien face.
Then, the NASA opened up the image for everyone to see this caption had a huge rock resemble they said, " which resembles a human head formed by shadows giving a illusion of eyes, nose, and mouth". This little sentence that was stated when they took a good look at the picture pretty much states that they is a possiblity that it could be a alien head but a very low chance, so most likely this head is a human head (90%). This little sitiuation attracted a nice amout of attension to Mars.
Also, on April 5, 1998 Michael Malin and his camera got 10 good pictures of the face the pictures were better than the vikings pictures so now they can really look into the picture. Then the pictures that were taken a lot of people were waiting on them, and finally they first appered on a JPL web site, the picture that first appered on JPL's web site revealed a natural landform. They said, " There was no alien monument after all ", so that means that the head was into a human head and it was not a alien head. So they were planning a date to take more pictures just so they can look at it and make sure that there evidence is not wrong and they said everything right.
In Conclusion, I wrote this argumentative essay to explain how the head that was found on Mars is a human head not a alien head. It so happend to be that it was a human head and it had thne natural landform to even show that it was a human head. After all it takes alot of research to get things done and have them done the right way in science, but it was a human head. | 23
|
29194fa | Though the electorial college is considered a non-democratic way of selecting a president it still seems unbias and fair. Lets think about it for a moment the one who recieves the most votes is declared the winner right? so that means everyones vote is considered equal. Wrong! its means that we are actually voting for slate electors to vote for us. either way each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the nominee and that very trust is yet barely even broken. that is why i believe that voting by electorial colleges is the best why for choosing a new president.
For instance lets say that we were to choose based on the majority of the votes that means the one with the most votoes wins. It seems reasonable but unfair at the same time. Lets say your state is sevearly low on its population then that would mean your vote won't count against a densely populated one. The one with the most people would win without a doubt. the popular or should i the say the one with most votes will win the election.
The Electorial Colleges restore some of the weight of large states in the political balance. The Electorial college also avoids the problem of run-off elections. This is means electorial colleges produce a clear winner by a landslide. This means that there shall not be any ties. In the electorial votes the electorial colleges are worth much more then the popularity because almost all states award electoral votes compared to popular ones.
The Electoral Colleges require trans-regional appeal. Which means no region has enough electoral votes to elect a president. for instance Mitt Romney was in the south and went for states he knew he would win. This was a desireable result and presidents with regional appeals are unlikely to become president. So the residents of the remaining regions are highly to disenfranchise him for thinking that there votes shall not count. It makes them think the new president has no interest in his regards. It makes that them feel as if hes not really their president.
In Conclusion i believe that our state should keep the electorial college for it is fair amongst the people. This way the peoples voices will be heard and feel as if the president does care for his people and their needs. Also it will leave out unnecessary drama and ties among the candidates. That the election will have a clear finish of who really won. But also Avoid from having the people feeling as if their votes do not count. | 23
|
3a0a581 | Dear Senator,
As you may know, there is a huge dilema with the voting system we have as of right now. I am writing to you because it is in our best interest to abolish the Electoral College and change election to popular vote for the next presidential election. The reasons we should make this change is because the Electoral College is unfair for voters, also a disaster waiting to happen and the popular voting system bring so many more benefits and opportunities for the people.
The Electoral system simply takes away the people's say on who they think the best candidate is. It is simply unfair for the voters. In this system, according to the second source, popular vote, which is what the majority people select, most of the time loses the election due to the Electoral System. An Example used in this source was the 2000 election with Al Gore, he had won the popular vote, but had lost the election thanks to the Electoral College. With this system in play, voters cannot control who they want to vote for and that is not how it should be. In source one, it clearly states most states have a "winner-take-all" type of system that awards all electors of that state to the specific candidate, which is the complete opposite of benefiting the people, because not everyone in that state wants to vote for that specific candidate. Source 3 says big states that a larger state gets more attention than a smaller state does because of the amount of votes, however some states claim they never even got to see a presidential campaign had because of how small the states was. Its is Unfair to these states which include Rhode Island, South Carolina. It takes away opportunities from these smaller states.
In source two, Bradford Plumer mentions the single best argument against the Electoral College, which he calls the "disaster factor". Voters vote not for the president but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president. This means that voters dont really have control on who they vote for, as mentioned before. The Electors can defy the will of the people, the only reason people vote, in this system, is to "sway the opinion". This is known as the "disaster factor", the electors defying the will of the people. Another problem with this system is that if there is a tie, it is definately out of the peoples choice. The decision is left to the House Of Representatives. The Electoral College is a disaster waiting to happen, like a bomb ticking, at some point in time, it will explode.
The benefits of switching to popular vote really pays off. With popular vote, these issues adressed would not be a problem at all, such as the unfairness to voters, the disasters awaiting to happen with the Electoral College. The only downside to this is that it will take a little longer to count the votes and finalize the election, but it is worth it. All voters would be at peace of mind knowing that their vote actually counted for something. In my opinion, this is the best choice and option out there. We need to get rid of the Electoral College because it brings us no good at all. We could finally stop worrying about the timer!
I hope you take this into consideration.
Sincerely,
PROPER_NAME | 34
|
3902084 | "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" is about how dangerous other planets are to humans but in this passage they specifically talked about Venus which happens to be one of the most dangerous planets. Venus is the second planet to the sun which makes the surface very hot and dry and so it doesn't allow for us humans to land there easily and just explore. The passage even says "Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans" this shows how we can land on Venus and survive but the conditions make it so hard that humans usually die after a while. and even though Venus is a dangerous planet I understand why people explore the planet regradless.
Scientists and NASA have been trying to figure out if we can survive on a different planet or if would be able to build there and have people live there because the world could get over populated. So, when they search new planets it's not for fun its because they want to see what else is out there and as dangerous as conditions may be I repsect the people who go out and discover things we didn't know existed. As of right now the only way to find out more about Venus is by going there, however, "NASA is working on other approaches to studying Venus, some simplified electronic made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simulating the chaos of Venus's surface and have lasted for three weeks in such conditions. Another project is looking back to an old technology called mechanical computers." These projects could work one day and we wouldn't have to risk lives to find something new, we could just use the resources found here on earth.
The very last sentence of the passage says "Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation. I strongly agree because if we didn't take risks and put ourselves out there we wouldn't have half of the stuff we use on a daily basis. Having the technology we have today we will be doing great things one day with the amount of knowledge we have rn and we will only build off of what we have. | 23
|
b5c8650 | In the artical "the challenge of exploring Venus" the author suggets that studying Venus is worthy. The question would be, would you like to study and explore the planet of Venus? In the solar system the planet Venus is the second planet from our sun, Venus is simple to see from the distant but safe vantag point of Earth. Venus is clostest planet to Earth.
Studyng about another planet is really not that bad espically with facts and information you will learn about a certian planet like for example in this situtaion you are talking about the planet of Venus. Planet Venus is bad as you think , you learn alot about it in this text that you , yourself probably didn't know.
The author provides alot of information that you will probably be suprised about for example did you know that the tmpatures are over 800 degrees fahrenheit and the atmospheric prssure is 90 times greater than we on earth experience. meaning its way too hot, then here in earth. Unlike planet Mecury which is closer to the sun. Venus is more likely to experince impediments for example erupting volcanoes , earthquakesand mostly lightning strikes and land on its surface.
Venus still has surface of rocky sediment and also include familiar features just as earth like valleys ,moutains, and craters. Imporantly researchers cannot take swamples of rock , gas or anything but from a distance , therefore scienctist seek through mission to understand Venus. Venus tend to be more delicate when it comes to physical conditions as the example the author uses "just imagin exposing a cell phone or tablet to heat of melting tin" the author here is trying to get your attention and make you think about it and have you wondering what would happen if you wer too expose someting like that to heat.
In conclusion studying a planet is not bad nor is dangered to anyone unless you are going pshically there. So therefore the author is telling you its a good idea to study about Venus andf meet new information about the planet. | 12
|
d04405b | Dear Senator Rubio I feel that there are some conserns about the Electoral College, now i feel that it should be kept as the way to pick the president and not just change to poular vote. I am sending this letter to tell my oppinons and to mabe here back from you about what you think is a better idea.
Well here is the first thing if you keep the elctoral college than you still have a possiblity of the man in the poular vote to win and with all the states having to pick how gos is helping the poular vote man because it is putting some how will vote for you in that chair. aswell as being able to campain in sertain places i mean sure you campain any way but if you know you have the elctoral votes you can focus on the regions and states that have the big voting numbers like Ohio Florida Pennsylvania New York and few others. these show that you need to campain in high Demacratic states if you are Repulican and visa verse. But if you relize quite a few states dont get visited to by the candates. why is that? well some states are dominatly Blue and others are dominatly Red like no Repulican goes and campains in Califonia and no Democrat campains in Texas. If looked at you see all those states that arent being paid attentin to the are the little one ore two vote places that the runner doesent feel that they absolutely need and it is like a little bounus if they vote for them.
Well know the stats show that a little over half the US does not vote,WHY? Because they feel there vote does not matter one bit and that leeds to them saying na why vote examples are showen like in texas if you are a Democrate why vote when you know that your vote doeent matter any whay because of the college. Also same for Repulicans in Califonia there votes are cancled outbecause of the state they are in. they all say that there are many that belive there is a big problem here with the college that it is riged because you can put your own people in there that may not vote for what you belived in well there is an example of that happening in one state they threw in men that wouldent vote fpr JFK to prove they can change the vote. know if they want to stay as an oficial than they need to do what the party states well that is exactly what most people do and that is why there has not been very many surprises while the votes are in after the voting that night.
So Senator Rubio you heared what I had to say you have heard my counter claim know it is time for you to go and tell me what you think of the Electorial College so send me back a note and tell me all your oppinouns on this topic. | 23
|
d50b813 | Venus, a very similer planet to our own both in size and density. The surface and conditions of Venus however are much more treturous and inhospitable to us humans. The author of The Challenge of Exploring Venus believes that even though there are many life threatening risks to exploring venus, that it is still possible and worth while to study.
With an atmosphere of 97% carbon dioxide, an atmospheric pressure over 90 times Earth's and an average surface temperature of 800 degrees Venus is uninhabitable for humans. The author of the article states that "NASA has one particularly compelling idea for sending humans to study venus" this idea may lead us to the cultavation and or the possibility of inhabiting Venus.
The author explains that from an air ship that would fly 30 miles over the surface of Venus the conditions would be hot (170 degrees) and the air pressure would be the same as sea level on earth. The author says that the conditions would not be easy but they would be survivable. NASA's plan if functional will give us the option of maned exploration over the surface of Venus.
With an atmosphere of 97% carbon dioxide, an atmospheric pressure over 90 times Earth's and an average surface temperature of 800 degrees Venus is uninhabitable for humans. The author of the article states that "NASA has one particularly compelling idea for sending humans to study venus" this idea may lead us to the cultavation and or the possibility of inhabiting Venus.
The author explains that from an air ship that would fly 30 miles over the surface of Venus the conditions would be hot (170 degrees) and the air pressure would be the same as sea level on earth. The author says that the conditions would not be easy but they would be survivable. NASA's plan if functional will give us the option of maned exploration over the surface of Venus.
the author expresses greatly that even though there are dangers in exploring Venus, that earth should not be limited by danger nor doubt but should overcome the dangers and push space exploration to its limits. | 23
|
9d4a923 | Cars have become apart of the everyday life of the average person. It's a mode of transportaion that everyone uses in every second of their life; though it is faster then walking itself, cars are not always helpful to us. Sources inidcate that, by limiting car usage it is possible to relieve stress and reduce pollution.
Limiting the use of cars can bring less stress to the everyday driver. When in a car, it is easy to see when the driver is stressed out. Stress accumulates with traffic jams or when someone is becoming infuriated by another driver, who is driving right in front of the other driver and going really slow. There are people who have seen there stress levels drop when they are not in or don't own a car. For instance, a community in Vauban, Germany, at least 70 percent of their residents don't own a car, while 57 percent sold their car to move there. A woman, Heidrun Walter, who is a resident there stated, "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"(Source 1). This verifies how people can get away from stress by just not having a car. In Bogota, Colombia, there is a day when automobiles are banned for a day, with the execption of buses and taxis. This day has become very popular, and is a "good opportunity to take away stress"(Source 3), as said by Carlos Arturo Plaza, a business man who rode a two-seat bicycle with his wife on that day. On this day millions Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work, leaving the streets free of any traffic jam, when a driver gets stressed out he most, as stated in source 3. This shows the number of people who participated in this event and also shows their, less stressful, alternative modes of transportation.
Along with relieving stress, pollution will become less of a problem. Cars are beneficial when it comes transportation, but they can cause harm to the environment as well. Pollution is a major problem in the today's world, and with the number of cars that are in use everyday it will only become worse. Smog or any other type of pollution can cause a city or even a country to take action. Such a Paris, Fance, who put a ban on driving to reduce pollution in their city, which rivaled Beijing, China, known as the one the most polluted cities in the world, as said in source 2. This strenghens the problems that cars pose on the world, these problems can lead to delivery companies losing money because the ban was put up and won't be lifted until the smog is gone. In addition, more information about car pollution can be found in source 1. There it talks about how cars are the "linchpin" of suburbs, and how they're "a huge impediment to current efforts to drasticallly reduce greenhouse gas emissions." In some places this is slowly resolving itself; places such as the United States have seen a drop in miles driven per person since it's peak in 2009. Sociologists believe that, "it will have beneficial implications carbon emissions and the environment"(Source 4). This indicates that, while it is a major issue it is not impossible to solve it.
Cars are an easy and fast form of transportation, but they can also cause harm to people and the environment. No matter how beneficial cars are to us, wouldn't it be better to limit the use of them? This way if cars usage is limited, then the less problems we face. | 45
|
59ec7e2 | Many people think studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents, meaning by studying Venus, you have to face it's danger or difficult times but it's a worth of try. In ''The Challange of Exploring Venus'', the author also suggests that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. In the text it says that Venus is simple to see from the distant and it's safe vantage point of Earth so this might be the reason why Scientists and Astronomers are so curious to study about Venus so do i.
The author says "Despite the dangers it presents", because humans have sent numerous spacecraft to land on this cloud-draped world but none of the spacecraft survived more than a few hours. This makes Venus reputation as a challenging planet for humans to study so does the author. Astronomers, authors and scientists are facinated just by knowing the fact about Venus.
The author did said that studying Venus is worthy, In the article it says "Beyond high pressure and heat, Venusian geology and weather present additional impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface". This is usefull for everyone so this might be the first reason why the author says that studying Venus is worthy. The next reason why the author said this is because Venus may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system, this is worth a try in despite the dangers it presents. | 12
|
3545061 | The driverless Cars article I am against because What benefits would we get from these cars Will auto body parts run out of buisness because of the cars What will happen to taxi drivers jobs.
What benefits would we get out of these cars? Maybe we will get less wrecks with them but think of this what will happen if your car sensors and autopilot doesn't work anymore the passangers will have to drive but what if they don't know how to drive because the driving classes got taken away because these cars don't need a driver. It also shows in the text that if something bad happens who's fault is it the manufacturer or the driver in this case it would be the manufacturers fault because they didn't check the car throughly and shipped it somwhere to be sold to some people then thoese people get stuck in the middle of nowhere because of the driverless car and the manufacturer but what will happen if the car gets struck by lightning because of all the electrical systems the passangers/car is using will the passangers be unharmed or will there be a tragedy because the manufacturer didn't think ahead.
Will Auto body part shop's run out of buisness since these driverless cars will probably not get in a wreck. Do these manufacturers not know they will be taking people's jobs because of some driverless car that won't need an auto body repair anytime soon. These families with this type of buisness will go hungry because of this job loss but even if they don't lose their jobs buisness will be very slow because like again these cars won't get into an accident because of the sensors all over the car so the companies will still go bankrupt because of the slow buisness and the bills for the building and bills for their own houses, not including from their families,school bills, and bills to buy food and clothes how are they suppose to get that if there buisness is gone the state is gonna have to help them in someway because it is their fault for not making driverless cars illeagal in their state.
What will happen to the people who make money by driving cars? Will the manufacturers care that they are taking some people's only source of income away. They are doing it by taking the drivers out because that brings in a lot of money for the drives like in New York city taxi drivers get a lot of money because of the buisness there if the driverless cars get to New York where are the other people gonna work at. The unemployed rate is gonna increase because of the cars and so is the homeless rate because people are losing money causing them to get kicked out of the place they live because they can't pay their bills anymore they will also be starving because of the lack of money equals the lack of food and homeless shelters will be overwhelmed with the new increase rate of homeless people on the streets now.
So in the en I still disagree with this article Will it give us benefits will it affect autobody part shops and How will it have an affect in the Taxi drivers in New York city. These cars may seem harmless but they will have a huge impact in our society and in our economy. | 23
|
bb60c4e | Their are still tons of people that think the mesa on the planet Mars is a face created by aliens. They think this because when NASA took the pictures of it everyone that saw it thought it was a face. Nobody thought it was just a natural landform. When it was just a natural landform called a mesa.
The reason that it is impossible for that mesa on Mars to actually be a face created by aliens is because the new cameras with a high-resolution picture looks nothing like a face just a landform. The first picture was took way back inn 1976. They didn't have cameras with th picture quality that we have now so the mesa really looks like it could be a face. But then in 1998 they took some more pictures of the face and it still kinda looked like a face but more like a landform. Then they took more pictures in 2001 with a camera that had high-resolution quality and then scientist proved that is was just a normal landform.
But their still was people that thought it was still a face the some aliens created even though scientist at NASA proved it was a mesa. But for some reason tons of people thought that NASA had something to hide. The mesa that people call the face on Mars has been in movies and newspapers because a lot of conspiracy theorists think that NASA is trying to keep the face a secret because they think nobody should know about even though the pictures prove that is just a normal landform. | 23
|
00e5687 | In this ariticle the authour provides details on why Venus is worthy to be research eventhough it provide a great risk. The authour talks in details about how Venus is very alike to earth in
the sense of density and size. How it was it could have been the most similar planet to Earth in our solar system. And that many research are triying to make machines that would stand the exttreme temperatuers of Venus.
Researcher discoberd
how Venus is very similiar to Earth. The author states " Often referred to as Earth's "twin", Venus is the closest planet to earth in terms of density and size, and occassionally distance too."(paragraph 2).The statement that the autghar made makes a good point because if Venus is the closest planet to been earth like than researching it would help us discover new thing. We can get resorces that we use in earth in this planet. Also the author states" Long ago, Venus was probably covered with oceans and could have supported forms of life, just like Earth.
The author talks in detail how reserchers are already trying to make machines that could sustain the pressure and the heat that Venus produces. The author states " Many reserchers are working on innovations that would allow our machines to last long enough to contrinutes meaningfully to our knowlege of Venus." The author claim also that " Nasa is working on other approches to studying Venus.
At the end of the day the author have very good details in his claim. How persuing to research Venus can be beneficial. That Venus is very similar to Earth and been similar to Earth can help us understand Venus better. That reserching Venus we could fine rescorses that we may need in the Future because on Earth we are running out of resorces.
Venus could have been at one point very alike to Earth so we can fine resorces we need in Venus. | 23
|
87d51ad | The use of the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) is a valuable technology in that it can recognize emotions in humans and even paintings that even humans sometimes are not able to. The FACS can is a whole new discovery and tool to the psychological world of emotions because it is able recognize and calculate emotions. It is unique because although humans are able to recognize their emotions up to a certain point, they cannot calculate the exact or even the closest approximate to the emotions they feel. That's where the technology is becomes valuable because it has the ability to recognize and calculate the emotions of a human or a photo.
One may argue that the FACS is would not be effective or valuable because it is a programmed and minipualated system. While that may be true, the system is programmed to be as close to the real human facial structure as possible. The 3-D computer model face has 44 major muscles, all of them made to move like real human muscles. The work and credibility of the making of this system is credited largely to Dr. Paul Eckman, the psychologist who created the FACS and classified the six basic emotions. The FACS system can also tell the difference between a forced facial expression, such as a smile, as opposed to an unforced one based on the movement of one's facial structures. Thus, as stated in the article, "these muscle clues are sometimes used to spot when a 'smiling' politician or celebrity isn't being truthful."
This technology can help psycohlogists, doctors, or even friends and families better understand a patient or a loved one. Doctors can diagnose a patient more accurately due to a better understanding of the patient with the system. Friends and families can also use the system to have a better bond with each other through better understanding of emotions. Most humans are not able to express, or even recognize, their emotions through words and words can get lost in translations. This technology is valuable to the future of society in the sense of human relationships with each other and doctor diagnosis by using the psychological aspects of a patient. | 34
|
c282fd3 | In a world of large cities and distant suburbs, transportation is crucial, but is personal transportation truly necessary? Shouldn't there be a way of getting from point A to point B without expending an unecessary amount of harmful gases that could one day bring around our demise? As specified by Elisabeth Rosenthal, Robert Duffer, and Andrew Selsky the answer to these questions is yes. Yes, there is hope for a healthier future without the use of BMWs, Toyota Corollas, Mercedes, and other modes of personal transportation that pollute the Earth. These answers have been noticed by our World's leaders and they are finally taking initiative to save our planet.
According to Elisabeth Rosenthal, writer for the New York Times, Germany is one of the many countries beginning to take notice. This is evident in the building of a small suburb called Vauban where "life goes on without cars". Although approximately 30 percent of the residents in Vauban do own a car, it is clear that the 5,500 people living in this small town are happier residing in a place where vehicles do not crowd the streets. As said by a mother living in Vauban "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way".
This idea of a "car reduced" community is not only seen in Germany but might very well soon be found in other countries such as the United States. These ideas today might just be seen by the public as what they are: ideas. However, serious action must be taken now. Although personal transportation might be seen as a necessity by your average citizen, it is not. Personal vehicles are a luxury that we use at, no only our own risk, but at the risk of everyone forced to breathe the intoxicating fumes of these polluting machines. According to recent data, 12 percent of green house gas emmisions in Europe come from passenger cars but this number is not nearly as shocking as that of the United States: 50 percent!
As stated by Robert Duffer and Andrew Selsky, writers for the Chicago Tribune and Seattle Times, Paris and Bogota have come to understand the consequences of the use of personal cars and are taking small steps to better the circumstances brought on to the human population due to the car pollution. In Paris, however, the city had to undergo a hard blow from reality for the french government to understand how crucial this change is. After suffering near record pollution, Paris enforced a partial ban on the driving of passenger cars in order to clear the air. If the ban was not respected by an individual, he/she would be forced to pay a 22-euro fine. Although there were a few who did not follow the terms of the ban, the majority of the people did comply and the smog soon cleared.
For Bogota, however, the ban of passenger cars for a single day has been seen as more of a holiday. The people of this city have come to enjoy this somewhat stress free day away from cars. According to the Bogota mayor, Antanas Mockus, event the rain has not stopped people from participating in this day. This day is not as small of a step as you might think however. For it is a program set to spread to various countries where, for a single day a year, people will bike, hike, roler blade, etc. In other words, everything they MUST do to get from point A to point B.
Finally, as countries around the world begin to take initiative towards the better of our planet, the United States, one of the world's super powers is starting on it's path towards recovery. In the past years, data has come to support the fact that there truly is a shift in the American "way of life". As seen in recent studies, Americans are buying fewer cars , driving less and getting fewer licenses as times goes on. Although the United States peaked in miles driven in 2005 it is evident that, with time, that amount gradually declined and hit a low in April 2013 where the miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent below the peak. As a cause of this sudden hit on the use of cars researchers are beginning to ask: could the United States truly be entering a new era away from the pollution of passenger vehicels or is this just another phase?
Passenger vehicles and the gases they create could very well be the demise of our existence on Earth. This is unless, as a human poopulation, we begin to take action now. Although scientists everywhere have stressed the negative impact on the Earth brought on by cars, people are blind to see that these vehicles are not a necessity but rather a luxury. For this, it is crucial that countries and leaders around the world follow what others have done and begin to enforce the protection of the planet's health and ensure our survival as a species. | 34
|
7a92d80 | Senator, we should keep the Electoral College. The Electoral College establishes judgement and fairness by giving upcoming presidents a fair shot. People have voices and the popular vote can be biased from state to state. The proccess if mature because they chose unbiased electors, and there is a majority of 270 electoral votes. The Electoral College has 538 electors, which gives a good amount of unbiases people. They figure this amount by one for each member in the House of Representaties plus two for the Senators, which you could be one.
The Electoral College is one of the best ways to keep a fair election. We people do not make the brightest decisions sometimes, and the Electoral College keeps us from making the wrong decision for who is going to be our next president.
People can be easily affected into turning on a candidate. They could not realize that the candidate would be a great president. The Electoral College gives the candidates a fair chance. The member of the Electoral College are fair and know what is best for the country. The specific Electoral electors for your state vote what the state wants, and is not biased on what other senators or electors want. This gives the people a good amount of say in the election.
Electoral Colllege keeps the people in line and gives the people a sense of establishment. The election of the president is every four years. This gives people time to decide on a new president and who they want representing their votes. Overall the Electoral College is one of the brightest decisions that America has made. For one the Electoral College gives people a fair chance in becoming president. Also the Electoral College helps make the voting process a lot easier.
We people don't yet understand why there are not more people realizing that there is an Electoral College, and what underlies is a great idea and even a better reality . | 23
|
4104399 | When it comes to the future everybody starts to thinks about flying cars or driverless cars. Well if you didn't know we aren't that far from driverless cars. In fact Google has had driverless cars since 2009. You probably haven't heard about that but it is true. These cars aren't 100% driverless. Every once in a while there is going to be a time where the car will need a human to take over. Everybody seems to love these ideas that we will have driverless cars soon. Personally I don't like. I feel like nothing is going to change. In fact I feel like there is going to be more crashes happening. I am against the development of driverless cars because people will get distracted easily, people won't have fast reflexes, and people will crash more often.
I am against driverless cars because people will get distracted easily. People, especially teens will be on the phone the whole time. This means that they will not be paying attention to the road and watching in case they have to take over the car. Also they will be falling asleep. The driver will start to get bored by just watching the road. Then they will start to fall asleep. This will risk themselves and if they have passengers too to crash. Also if they will be talking to someone. They might have a passenger with them that is a close friend. That friend could be telling a story to the driver that makes the driver not focused on the road but focused on the story instead.
Another reason why I am against the development of driverless cars because people won't have fast reflexes. The driver could be eating while the car is driving itself. The next thing they know is that they have to start driving. The driver is going to take a while trying to put the food to the side and next thing they know is they will be crashing into some other car. Also they could be taking to a friend. If that friend is making the driver laugh the driver won't be ready if they driver has to drive the car himself. Lastly the driver would be on the phone. They'll think that since the car is driving itself that it is fine to be on the phone and they won't have to worry about anything. Well maybe out of nowhere the driver has to drive themselves, they won't be ready to take over while being on the phone.
Last reason why I'm against the development of driverless cars because people will crash more often. If they crash they can cause death of course. The driver thinks that sinec it drives itself then it won't crash at all. Well that is wrong and stupid to think about. Also they will blame the car. This means that they will say it was the cars fault for not warning me or something. When the driver clearly knws that it was their fault for crashing. Lastly they will say they "lost control." Most of the times when there is a crash it's because someone was on the phone.They always say it won't happen to them.They have to be really careful when it comes to taking over the car when they have to.
It's crazy to think that you will crash, but one small mistake and it could happen.
As you can see driverless cars are a big risk. If car companies really want to make these cars then they have to really think about the risks that they are making too. I really don't like this idea because of the risks that are going to happen. I am against the development of driverless cars because people will get distracted easily, people won't have fast reflexes, and people will crash more often. If these casrs do manage to become future cars then people will have to understand the responsibilty to drive these cars. | 23
|
c31ef3b | Mars has been a planet that we have been exploring for many years. We have discovered many abnormal objects on the planet. In 1976, we took a picture of the region Cydonia, and we found something that seemed to look like a human face. Our eyes are adapted to recognizing faces and that is why we recognized the face on Mars more easily. Higher quality images that were taken in 2001 show that the face on Mars is no sign of ancient civilization on Mars but in fact a mesa. It is a natural landform just like it would be on our home planet of Earth. Although some conspiracy theorists say differently, and think that is some sort of ancient civilization building these objects.
First off, the cameras that we have today are more advanced than the ones we had. The first picture that was taken of the face on Mars was taken in 1976 and the quality back then was not as good as it is now. The picture that was taken in 2001 was a higher quality picture and scientists figured out that is was just a mesa and not a sign of any ancient civilization on Mars. For example the camera used in 1976, spanned 43 meters compared to the camera NASA used in 2001 spanned 1.56 meters. In the picture of 1976, the shadows that were present that day formed an illusion that made it seem like there was a face. In paragraph two of the article "Unmasking the Face on Mars" it says that, "Scientists figured it was just another Martian mesa, common enough around Cydonia, only this one had unusual shadows that made it look like an Egyptian Pharaoh."
Another thing is that, Jim Garvin, a cheif scientist from NASA's Mars Exploration Program, compared the Martian mesa to natural landforms that occur here on Earth. In paragraph 12, Garvin said, " It reminds me most of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho. That's a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about thye sane height as the Face on Mars." Jim Garvin is saying that these formations on Mars are very similar to the ones that we have here on Earth. He is also saying that there os no face on Mars.
In contrast, conspiracy theorists say that there is a face on Mars and that there is ancient civilization on Mars. In paragraph 8, it says that, " The camera on board MGS had to peer through wispy clouds to see the Face. Perhaps, said skeptics, alien markings we hidden by haze." Conspiracy theorists also state that NASA would rather hide the evidence that there is an ancient civilization on Mars, as it says in paragraph 5. Also stated in paragraph 5, is that the defenders of NASA wish that there was an ancient civilization on Mars.
The face has been a pop icon ever since the discovery of the formation. the face will always be a piece of history and will always been known to man. If there was an actual face on Mars then that would be a sign of life. The face ended up eing a mesa and nothing else besides that. Although it would have been an exciting discovery for NASA, we still have much more of space that is unknown and unexplored. NASA is bound to find some kind of incredible object. We will have to wait until that day comes and find something incredible and will be part of the incredible true story of space. | 45
|
ed619fc | Would you like to travel like Luke had traveled to and by cities.Being a Seagoing Cowboy was much more for Luke Bomberger.His deamnor had changed since he became a Seagoing Cowboy.He was like a kid in a candy store,for the first when he got to see all the different countries.Then the animals were happier than a dog being scrachted on the belly when they got food or water,thanks to Luke and the workers.But Luke can be gregarious around the animals since he was a nice guy.When ever he to a nice place he thought oh-my-gosh-that is-so-pretty.
Luke also had fun on board,especially on return trips after animals had been unloaded.In the empty holds where the animals would be.They would play games to pass time.When would play games that are inncouius it would just be to pass time.Some of the Seagoing Cowboys maybe
a little zealous at times.During the games people can be exited over fencing like a professinal.
On his trip,Luke served as a night watchman.So someone can keep watch over the deck of the ship,and below the deck of the ship.He does this so all the supplies and cargo doesn't get damaged or gets hurt.He likes being a Seagoing
Cowboy becauis he gets to travel ever where.Then see animals like he is use to helping out. | 12
|
5d65b58 | In the article, my postion on driverless cars is that they need to be more attentive and cautious. Some careless drivers dont pay attention when it comes to driving.It may be a car that we will have that might not let us drive at all even when your in situations. However, we still need to be attentive at all times when it comes to driving. The negative aspects of this article is that there is no point is having a driver in a driverless car. Drivers would still want to drive
Drivers cant sit all day when it comes to riding in those driverless car. It's like they are the passengers inside the car and letting the driverless car take over. In the article it says, "A human driver in a safe car, is in control at all times" and always attentive when on the road for their safety. Even if the new traffic law does pass through, it still wouldnt do any good for the drivers in the driverless cars.
People still need cars that they can drive. There would be no point in letting a car drive for you. if that happens, people could be just taking the bus to wherever their destination is. People shouldn't want those cars because they are pointless and could be dangerous. You see it on movies and television but people don't know what it really feels like in real life when you let a car take over. It will all just be too weird.
I also disapprove because the only time the driver will be able to touch the wheel is when there is construction work, pulling out of a driveway, or in complicated traffic. It's a very pointless car to have. Why put in a lot of money in something that isnt even worth it? The article says, "Google cars aren't truly driverless," It might as well be. Drivers will only be able to touch the wheel, so does that mean that they will be in control or will the driverless car still be in control but just having the drivers hands on the wheel?
In conclusion, I dont agree with these new driverless cars. Especially when a new traffic law passes by, it wont be worth the wait. These cars are pointless and wont be worth your time. Sure they can do a lot of things a normal car can do but, the one main thing that they cant do is have a driver in control. | 23
|
e16157a | What is the square root of 100,012? You might not know, but your computer does. Infact your computer knows a lot, but one thing it doesnt know is how to detect feelings. Why is there a camera on your computer? Who knows? Lets put that camera to use! As we know computers tend to be used more often. I agree with the idea of allowing computers to identify what mood the user is in and adjusting accordingly. I agree with this because technology is advancing, normal computers can't compete with this upgrade, and computer ads tend to be annoying.
Mona Lisa, the subject of a wonderful painting. A painting which appears she is smiling in. Smiling as if she is happy? How can we be sure that she is happy? Is it as simple as looking at the picture? In paragraph 4 is tells us that "Using video imagery, the new emotion-recognition software tracks these facial movements". How can a camera identify how a person is feeling? Simple, technology is improving and computers are being updated.
Computers truly are fascinating, but as asked in Paragraph 2 "Can a computer recognize the subtle facial movements we humans use to express how we feel?". These new computers can detect movement of one or more muscles in the face. The computer will then categorize the movement into one of these 6 categories happiness,suprise,anger,disgust,fear,and sadness. But then "Boom" and ad pops up, arent ads just annoying.
Ads, ads, ads all on the screen. How could you get rid of irrelevant ads? Well with this new software your compter will be able to detect is you are satified with your ads or not. If you appear happy when an ad pops up, your computer will discontinue to show the ad and replace it with another one. If a satisfying look appears on your face after and ad appears, your computer will continue to show ads that satisfy the user. | 12
|
2bbf923 | In my opinion, driverless cars are a bad idea.
Yes, I get that it would save fuel and be much more convenient for everyday life, but i think it would cause more problems.
I think it is unnecassary to try to make these driverless cars becuase it could cost a lot, and end up not working out in the long run
First off, in my eyes these driverless cars would just cause more problems for everyday life.
These driverless cars would have trouble getting through complicated areas such as detours, road blocks, parking lots, etc.
And even though there are positive effects for this type of car, I think there are many more negative effects that could put lives at risk, and waste a lot of time getting places.
Do we have the technology to make these driverless cars happen?
Absolutely, but the risk/reward is not worth it in my opinion.
Whats wrong with just hopping in your car and driving it yourself?
"Backseat" drivers that try to tell the actual drivers what to do are already bad in todays world, just imagine a backseat driver trying to yell at a robot driving their car.
Overall, I think trying to make these driverless cars a reality is not worth the time or money.
It would be much easier and safer to have humans controlling their cars and evaluating the situation through their own eyes to mkae the judgement on what or what not to do.
I do not see anything wrong with todays ways of transportation so why fix something thats not broken? | 12
|
5f4c06e | In the article "Driverless Cars Are Coming," there are positive and negative aspects of the driverless cars. The driverless cars would use half the gas that the majority of taxis use today. As stated in paragraph 1, "The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today's taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus." These cars do have the potential to change the world we know today. The positives are powerful enough to rule out the negatives that come with the driverless cars.
A driverless car would need a lot of sensors and sensors are things that are not so new in the world we live in today. Although they may not be so new, they have become more advanced as the years have passed. These sensors can alert the car when to apply breaks on the wheels and stop acceleration of the engine. This would give a driverless care far better control than a human driver could do by oneslef. As stated in paragraph 5, "Within 10 years, those sensors had beome more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers." Sensors are a big part of making driverless cars have more control than a human would.
Although the pros outweigh the cons, there are some concerns when it comes to these driverless cars. In most states it is illegal to even test computer-driven cars. Manufactures are trying to prove that driverless cars can be safe and once they have proven this, they will allow these driverless cars. As stated in paragrph 9, "Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault - the driver or the manufacturer?" This is simply stating that if there were to be an accident with a driverless car who would be to blame? Would it be the one who made the driverless car or the person behind the wheel? In a case similar to this, like stated before, manufactures are trying to make them far more reliable and safe to use.
There is a car that is being developed by BMW called "Traffic Jam Assistant," the car can handle driving functions. Functions such as speeds up tp 25 miles per hour and special sensors on the wheel to make sure to whoever is in the drivers seat keeps ahold of the wheel. The majority of the cars made so far are not completely driverless persay. Drivers can streer, go faster, and slow down by pressing on breaks. These cars are made to alert the driver if on the road ahead of them they would need human skills. They have developed a driver seat that vibrates when the car is in danger of backing into something. These types of things would keep the driver alert to when the car would need their assistance. The manufactures would also add more things to keep the so called, "driver" to pay attention. As stated in paragraph 7, "Manufacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remainig focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver." This is stating that the driver must always be watching the road. The camera that would be installed would be a safety feature, so if the driver isn't paying any attention, the car would alert the driver to.
When it comes to driverless cars there are some worries about them, but they are being tested and going to become reliable cars. The main key is that these cars are safe to use and are made with reasons like this. As stated in paragraph 8, "Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over- something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. In this way, the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern." Driverless cars could more than likely be a positive outcome in our future and soon to be driverless. | 34
|
4fbb5ee | Wow, from the mar really look like humans face. It have eyes,nose, and mouth. It weird that on mar there is nothing and it shape like that is really weird. Most people think there is alien who live there do. They say it maybe it for living thing for alien. I think it just a natural land form because there is no alien monument.
First, The face of the mar really is popular for other. It even appear on hollywood film, books,magazines, and radio. Maybe it just not close enough to see if it flat or it like mountian. It show a lot of stuff going on on mar. Mar is really history for people in may 24,2001.
Next, I think it just natural land form because on the shadow it look like pyramid. If you look at the shadow and you can see it not it have to much pointing on the top. The eyes waht they call it might be the whole for some water. the mouth can be just a crack on it.
Finally, if we can go look closer scientist NASA might catural n tell. They just look at the front they won't know how it shape like to look side to side. Scientist NASA will have to look closer so they can tell if there is alien or not. It depend on to look closer. It just landform because it did have no alien monument.
Conclusion, this is all about face of mar well it truth, but if you look at the shadow it show only triangle. it will be better for scientist to look closer instead just making up stories about unmasking the face on mar. It just natural for land to have mountain, and there is no such an alien. according to ther text"There was no alien monument after all". | 12
|
aa771a5 | Venus is simple to see from a distance but it is challenging to see up close.The author of ''The Challenge of Exploring Venus'' suggests that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers its presents. Here are the details that support this idea.
Venus has a repuation as a challenging planet for humans to study. But astronomers are fascinated by Venus. It was once known as the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life. Today Venus still has some features that are analogous to Earth. The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters. Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit. Its basically more like Earth thats why they call Venus as the ''twin''.
NASA are compelling ideas to send humans to study Venus. Solar would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth levels. Temperatures would still be toasty at 170 degrees fahreheit but the air pressure would be close to that of sea level on Earth. These conditions are not easy but they are survivable for humans.
Many researchers are working on innovations that are going to allow machines to last long enough to contribute in Venus. Also, NASA is working on different approaches to studying Venus. For exampe they are making electronics made of silicon carbon. They have been tested in a chamber simulating Venus's surface and it had lasted for three weeks. Most technology have not even lasted a few hours. Which can be a better way for humans to study.
Humans are full of curiosity and can lead us to many things. Studying Venus is worthy but it has many dangers. Like the author said ''we should be filled with doubts and should be expanded to meet very images of imagination and innovation.'' | 23
|
004229b | I do not think that driverless cars are a good idea, i believe this because there could be a lot of hazard and danger behind this action. First how would these computers like programs know when to go or turn at a stop light? This could create many dangers and conflicts on the road. Next how could these computers detect humans? If the car doesn't know a person is j walking it could run over the person and possibly kill them, and yes j walking is illegal but it still happens. Finally i don't think these computers are a good idea because of malfunction. If something goes wrong in the car or the brakes go out it can lead to death for the passenger. I just think these vehicles are a little way to risky and not safe. In the article it says these cars need to be proven more safe. So this means these cars are not safe at the moment. As you can see i believe these cars are not safe and i am against it. | 12
|
bd80d69 | The authors support of the idea of going to Venus is not very well known, we can only infer whether they are for it or against it because they never fully specify. The author give some pros and cons to the exploration of the planet but does not pick one side more than the other. I believe that they author is against the idea of Venus exploration.
The authors pros and cons list combat eash other because, the author gives a pro on the exploration of Venus but instantly combats it with another con to weigh it out. One example of this is in paragraph 5 when the author states that the conditions of floating above planet Venus would be difficult but survivable for humans. However, right after making that statement, the authors first sentence in paragraph 6, combats the idea that it is survivable for humans because the article states, "However, peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions because most forms of light cannot penetrate the dense atmosphere, rendering standard forms of photography and vidoeography ineffective." From that statement we can infer that the author doesn't really see the exploration of humans going being very useful but, we can only infer because the author never specifies, for or against.
Another way we can infer that the author is against it, is by looking at paragraph 3 when the author is talking truthfully about the planet. The author explains that planet Venus has a thick atmorsphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide and that the planet's surface temperature averages out at over, 800 degrees Fahrenheit. The way that the author describes Venus, is not in a way of much liking or making it sound like a good planet to send our people to. The author explains how dangerous Venus is by listing the weather barreries like "...erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes and frequent lightening strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface.", all in paragraph 3. By listing how dangerous the weather is, listing how hot and unlivable it is, and by saying that the lightening frequently strikes the probes trying to get into the planets atmosphere to land, we can only infer that the author doesn't really think that the dangers of humans being out into this kind of situation, is worth it.
Additionally, one last way we can infer that the author doesn't favor the idea of Venus exploration is that when in paragraph 2, the author states, "Each previous mission is unmanned, and for good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours." That statment really pushes the idea that the author defiently doesn't not favor the idea of the exploration using man and spacecraft. But once again, we can only infer because the author never gave a clear personal opinion.
In conculsion, I believe that the author does not favor the exploration and does not think that the study of Venus is a worthy pursuit depsite the dangers it provides. The pros and cons weigh each other out, the planet is too dangerous with the heat, the weather, and the obsticles on the surface. The overall thought of the author shows no favor towards the exploration of Venus. | 45
|
6866c66 | If we want driverless cars so bad why dont we just take a taxi or a train. I think that we shouldnt try and make driverless cars just yet because we dont have the money to do so.
To make driverless cars we would need millions of dollars to even start constructing the ideas. Like it said in the article no car today is driverless, they may say it is but there is some situations where the car will still need human assistance. I think driverless cars would actually be pretty dangerous because what happens if the panel where the car is running from messes up or shuts down, then your car would have major problem or go off course from where you wanted to go. Another reason why I think that driverless cars are a dangerous idea is because what happens if the car breaks down on road side? Are we gonna have a google engineer come from 1,000 miles away in 10 minutes to help us? Probably not.
Yes driverless cars would be nice, but what I am saying is that driverless cars could also be very dangerous, and put our lives in dangerous just to have luxury. To me i dont think that having a driverless car is worth putting my life on the line for. In conclusion driverless cars would be nice, but we dont have the money to afford it, and they would be a very dangerous project to construct and test out. | 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
|
2d95b14 | "The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens."(1) This process where a selection of electors meet and vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes in Congress is a way of election that has been in the roots of this great and prosperous country since its begining. Is this way of electing really all that fair? Does it let the entire population get a fair say in who thay want to run the country? While some people may argue that this system allows the people on the commity of electors that actually want to have their fair say in who becomes president, but first you need to think about; they whole american population barely has any say at all in the election and we change this tradadition.
It is time for a change, becuase when a United States citizen votes, they actually arent even voting for president at all. They are mearly voting for a commity of electors to elect the next president for them. Also, is the the commity of electors that actaully wins the elections, and not the popular vote. This is why they call this commity of electors the swing vote because you could win the poplular vote by 78.9 percent and still lose the election because you lost the commity of electors votes. This senerio has happened a few times in our history. For instance in 2000 canidate Al Gore won there popluar vote but lost the presidencey thanks to the commity of electons from the electoral college. Some people may argue that this is a long tradtion in our country and must be kept. Yes this is true, but there are some very crusial factors against this.
I understand that this election process was put forth but our founding father and some people do not want to just throw it away. While I understand this; however, there are flaws in this process that must not be over looked. It does not include and take into count the whole population and it can lead some canadits to lose even when the whole country voted for them. So we need to do something about this process of election. We must find a new way that included and takes into count the population of the United States. Not just a commity of electors.
The Elector College has been is the building blocks of this country since its begining, but becuase of some of it's flaws it must be changed. This process does not include the entire count of the votes by american citizens. It is like our thoughts and ideas of who should be president do not even matter in the votting process. The Electoral College may be a deep tradition in our country since its begining, it must be changed if our great nation is going to be able to prosper and grow. | 34
|
36dd8e8 | Have you ever wondered what people are feeling? well now you can. Their is this new software than can tell you what people are feeling eve tho they are hidding it. Dr. Huang's computer sinces a 3-D model (human musles). it can even read a painting, it want tellwhere your eyebrows should be and where they are and hiw suprised are you in that moment. It can tell you six diffrerent emotions, happiness, anger, fear, sadness, surprised, and disgust.
Dr. Huang's invention is very interesting. one day I would love to use this meachine. its just so diffrenet from looking at your friend and seeing what you think their feeling that actually feeling what they are feeling. In this article they were testing da Vinci and they named a code for it. it is called "da Vinci code."
It's so crazy to think that a computer can tell if your sad or happy. if you did a lab on if your partner can tell if your happy or sad. the comouter can tell if your faking a smile and if your really smiling, but in a humans eye it hard to see sometimes. people say that your faking a smile until your cheek bones move and tightin up.
They should do one in a classroom to see if the kids are bored and what time they get bored and intertainded. I wonder what peoples thoughts about seeing things online and see what their emotions are when their looking at stuff online. or like if you can read someones face when their walking into a interview and what they may be feeling.
Whoever can revel so much of this tecnology could maybe make more things in the future and maybe make more products of the face reader and study peoples faces and show what they could be thinking somedays. i think this idea is pretty cool and they should be spending more time studying and making more products for the future to show people what is amazing in this world. | 12
|
764e06b | Many scientist have trouble on learnig more about Venus. It may act like it the brightest light in the sky but it`s not the easiest to study. They have a rough time try to discover it because they don`t have the right materials to study the planet. They have sent numerous spacecraft to the land on this clound-fraped world. All of the spacecrafts that have tried to land has never made it back. They have no evidence on what`s on this planet.
Scientist have tried to discover venus but they fail everytime. Do you think it`s because of how thick the atmosphere is with carbon dioxide? The air on Venus is very different that Earth. It makes it difficult because the clouds are filled with highly corrosive sulfuric acid and the average temperature is 800 degress Fahrenheit. The human body can not survive in that type of weather. The environment on venus would crush a submarine with how hot it is. Scientist compare the pressure and the heat to a erupting volcanoes. Will they ever figure out a way to do more studys on Venus.
As more and more people study Venus,they want to figure out how to get there. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has one particulary compelling idea for spending humans to study Venus. They may have came up with a idea to float above the fray. They want the vehicle to avoid the unfriendly ground conditions by staying up and away from the ground. The temperature would still be pretty hot but not as hot as the ground tempertaure. The temperature in the air would be around 170 degrees Fahrenheit but the air temperature would be close to the sea level on Earth. As many people study this idea,they will think that the human body would be able to use this method instead of going on the land of Venus. Could you see this happening in the future or not?
Other researchers think that Venus is to inhospitable to visit. They think that many years ago that Venus was just like Earth but they have no evidence to support the claim. On the other hand,how could Venus be like it is today and it like Earth years ago. Did Venus move that far away for it not to be a living place. The planet is a rocky sediment and has valleys,mountains and craters. I would say within a couple of years,scientist will have enough technology to discovert his planet. Would you ever live on this planet if they discover that it is a living place.
With all the evidence and support that scientist have,can Venus be a safe place to live. I think within the next couple years we will truely know what kind of planet it is. Scientist do a good job on studying the planets and any other things they study. I just don`t understand how it was safe man years ago and not anymore. The technology will help us study and get more information we need. I hope to see many people on the Planet Venus in the next couple years. | 23
|
3a46a7c | Cars today are driving closer and to being able to drive on their own. This can change the way people live and how people use tranportation in a positive way. Even though they aren't entirely "driverless" and still need a driver it's still a step in that direction. Driverless cars would take over public transportion system, create less accidents, and help people who can't drive well.
Driverless cars are esstientally going to be the future public transportation. The cars will end up taking the postions of taxis and even buses. Google cofounder Sergey Brin envisons a future where these cars will offer much more flexiblity while cutting the useage of fuel by half.
These self drivng cars will also be safer for others on the road reducing the chances of a crash. Car companies have taken extreme precautions with these machines fitting them with senors all over the cars. Google has taken the idea into its own hands with some companies like Toyota. They've modified a Toyota Prius and have outfitted it with a postiton-estimating sensor on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted ner the review mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS reciever, and an inertial motion sensor. These sensors will apply brakes and reduce power from the engine so that the driver at hand can take over.
Of course these driverless cars will need a passenger that a operate the car in case of an emergancy. In 2013, BMW announced a development of the "traffic Jam Assistant", which allows the cars to handle driving functions at speed up to 25 mph. Special touch sensors make sure a driver is keeping hold of the wheel at all times. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves but still need to notify the driver when it need human skills navigating through areas like work zones.
On the other hand, some people wouldn't lay their lives in the hands of a self driving car. Driving laws today focus on keeping the drivers, passengers and pefestrians safe. Today, traffic laws are written with the thought of a human driver controlling the car. In most states, it has been illegal to to even test driverless car; but scientist beileve that more states will allow testing after seeing results from those states that have been doing it already.
This future of self driving cars is near. Automakers like Telsa have projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving by it self 90% of the time. Other companies like Mercedes- Benz , Audi and Nissan have plans to release cars that drive by themselves by 2020. | 34
|
bb15869 | The Challenge of Exploring Venus
The author suggest that expolring Venus can be striving despite the challenges.The numeros of challenges presented by Venus are worthy. Eventhough studying Venus consists of many dangers it is closest to Earth, can be a planetary visit, and leads into human curiosity.
To begin with, Venus is a planet, meaning their could be life on Venus. In our solar system, Venus is the second planet. It has proved to be a challenging place to examine closely. Venus is the closest planet to Earth. It is another planetary neighbor orbit. Which means we are closer to Mars and other times to Venus. Humans have sent numerous spacecraft on to this world since, it is sometimes right around the corner.
Venus has a number of challenging reputations for human to study. People ask their self "If the planet is so inhospitable, why are scientist discussing further visit?" The answer is Venus has once been the most Earth- like planet in our solar system. Long ago Venus may have been covered with oceans, and could have covered various forms of life just like Earth today. Venus still today has some features just like Earth. It has features such as valleys, mountains, and craters. This is why Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit.
Finally, Human curiosity will likely lead us into equally intimidating endeavors. NASA has one compelling idea on sending humand to study Venus. This can be a option of making such a mission both safe and scientifically productive. Striving to meet the challenge has value because insight will be gained. Humans on earth are expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation. Human have curiosity on seeing what life on Venus consist of.
In conclusion, Studying Venus has many values despite of all the challenges. It is worth striving for due to human curiosity, the planetary visit, and how close it is and can be conisderd life on Earth. | 12
|
aacafda | Imagine a computer being able to read your facial exprssions to be able to tell if you were board or confused at school. Then that computer being able to take that data and improve your learning experiance at school. Well based off of Dr.Huang's research collaboratrion with Prof. Nicu Sebe from the University of Amsterdam, that might happen soon. They were able to find out the Mona Lisa's facial expression using a brand new computer software from Prof. Thomas Huang.
It is said in paragraph 1 "Dr.Huang and his colleague are experts at developing better ways for humans and computers to communicate." Which is great news.
This Is great news for schools because; it will make learner better for students who are having trouble in class. According to Dr. Huang in paragraph 6 he pridicts; "A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or boared, Then it could modify the lesson, like an effective human instructor." This could also help with non verbal communication, and emotional communication. Shy students wouldnt have to be quiet and have unanswerd questions if we brought this technology into schools.
In conclussion, this technology would be a major break throug in class rooms and the world itself. Teachers would have closer bonds with students who are having trouble learning and that would improve test scores and the learning department itself. "The facial expressions for each emotion are universal." is what Dr.Huang said in paragraph 4, which he is right, it could be used in video games, the medical field, schools, and our everyday lives. | 23
|
bc44ccf | In this artical is cool how this technology can read peoples faces as in emotions. If this can really happen then its going to jsut how people learn in school. in a way were it mite be fun to go to school.
I am for this technology because it can help students learn more about school. The face emotion technology is mind blowing if it works. If you think about it the computer can tell when your happy or sad which is awesome.
So when your working on a subject on your computer and the computer sees that your sad its going to make it were your happy. If your happy then its going to make you stay happy.
It goes in to the it will be a 3-D computer modle to track your face. If that happens then they would have to get everyones face in the United States and everywhere else around the world. To me i think its cool.
To me I think its a really good thing to try and see if it works. If it can tell if your happy then i say lets go for it and make everyone happy and get the world into a positive world. Students need it the most because there are so may negative students in schools and they need to start being happy for themselfs and for others in there garde and there fellow students. So I'm all for it to have this 3-D face modle thing to make you happy. | 12
|
7d09ab7 | I am all for Thomas Huang new invation. I think that the FACS is a grate invation we finaly have a way to see how people are feeling just by this computer. How this device works is that the computer constructs a 3-D computer model of the face, then studys all 44 major muscles. Moving one or more mucsles is called an action unit. After that Dr. Huang relies on Dr. Pual Eckman, the creator of FACS to find out how the preson is feeling.
The FACS software can track facial movements even if your not smiling as broadly. Just when you think that is all it can do it can also identify mixed emotions each exspession is compared to a nertarl face showing on emotion. We humans can also do this, but we would have trouble describing each facial trait. Dr. Huang wants to do a test on Mona Lsa to see if she is really smiling or not. There going to use the software to see if it can tell use if she is or not.
as you can see this software is a grate tool i can see this devise helping use out a lot in the futer. If you are interested in doing this then go look at your self and then ask your partner if he or she knows what your feeling right now. I fell like we should have more people like Dr. Huang, and Dr Paul Eckman cuase the world is changing and we need to try to keep up and not fall be hind. Life is a intresting thing and what you do with it is all up to you. | 12
|
a39770e | In this passage, the author uses evidence to support the idea that human curiosity should overpower and enable us to explore the unknown and seemingly impossible regardless of the risks or repercussions. Venus, Earth's closest neighbor to the sun, poses one of these risks that could be overcome by desires of humanity. Despite its realtion in size and distance to Earth, Venus is much different and inhabitable for humans due to its thick atmosphpere corrosive atmosphere. Though it seems that true exploration of our sister planet could never be completed, isn't it worth the risk to discover as much as we can for the saie of humanity and its curiosity? The author of this passage seems to think so and does a great job of explaining why further exploration of Venus needs to occur regardless of the obstacles.
First, the author notes a specific way in which humans can encounter Venus' landscape and conditions that is both safe and productive. In this way, a form of spacecraft would not come in direct contact with Venus' surface, but it would hover above its atmosphere and be able to collect data on the dily occurences on Venus. This circumstance would allow humans to study Venus for themselves instead of a ship that would send data back to a base on Earth. The author also notes that researchers are developing ways to allows spacecraft to survive the conditions on Venus for a long enough period to collect data from its surface. Based on the type of technology that we have today, systems like these can be improved to resist the extreme conditions of Venus itself. If scientists are able to make products on Earth that could last through simulated versions of Venus here, then there should be no debate whether its worth a shot or not.
Overall, the author makes great use of the evidence they have to support the idea that Venus is worth exploring despite its obstacles. They also do a great job of looking into the developments and possiblities of the future that can further enable scientists and researchers to fulfill the desires to learn more about Venus. They wrap up their essay by saying that the exploration of the unknown should not be pushed aside because of the obstacles presented within it, which is a great overview of the side in favor of adventuring through Venus altogether. | 34
|
d787938 | Advanatges of limiting car usage would be very useful. There are multiple ways in which doing so could benefit us citizens. There are things like pollution, and how cars are a part of the greenhouse effect. Reducing theres certain things could help poeple alot.
We have the reduction of pollution for example. There is so much pollution in this world and in the air. In Paris, they enforced a driving band to clean the air of a global city. What they did was they fined drivers in order to keep them off the streets. Their plan had worked. The smog pollution had cleared good enough that they rescind the ban forodd-numbered plates on Tuesday.
Passenger cars are responsible for 12 of greenhouse gas, and thats only in Europe. If you look at that as a world percentage, its a lot. The article says that it is a huge impediment to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions form tailpipes. Doing so would be a huge advantage to limit the car usage. | 12
|
b092ece | Have you ever wanted to explore or learn more about other planets? In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" the author suggest that studying Venus is a worthy persuit despite the dangers it presents. Venus is a near by planet, and it has much intel that we need to understand. Is the data, and research we could get from this mysterious planet worth the risk? The research we can get from Venus is well worth the risk it may take to retrieve the data needed.
We have never been to this planet before in person, but we have had unmanned ships come to Venus but with the outstanding temperatures of 800 or more degrees Fehrenhiet, and the thick atmosphere they only last on the planet a near only few hours. With the planet atmosphere 97% carbon dioxide, and Highly acidic and corrosive sulfuric acid in the atmosphere there is a big challenge even landing a ship for a day.
You may ask why would we even keep atempting to go there when there when we can't even have a ship there for even a day. We could get a lot of things from there that may help understand more about the planet and space travel. Long ago scientist believe that is once just like earth. Holding bodies of water such as oceans, lakes, and more with trees and other life forms. The planet this holds some features of a planet that was once habbitablem, the planet has a surface of rocky sediment which includes features such as valleys, mountains, and craters.
Even if we did need this, and people all around the world wanted to go there you may be thinking just how could we since the planet seems to destroy everything we send there. With better technology, and using computer sytems from the 1800s, and early 1900s we may be able to with updated sytems. These computers consist of a systems that use gears to calculate everything, meaning they aren't as fragile as other newer faster computers. Scientist believe they may be able to use these and more reinforced materials to make the ship stronger, they tested them in a chamber that had conditions like Venus and so far the materials have laster as long as three weeks.
At this point is it worth not taking the risk to get to Venus? We have improved and even may get there very safely. The risk don't present as much as rish but challenges. With all the benefits of traveling there, they overway the risk. Venus is worthy of pursuit to get anwsers and understandings we need to know such as did Venus once have life. | 34
|
c078616 | The author suggest that studying wenus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents he thinks human curiosity will began.the text states"striving to meet the challenger presented by venus has value,not only because of the insight to bo gained on the planet itself,but also because human curiosity will likely lead us into equally intimidating endeavors".the author thinks getting a closer look at venus is a way to look at venus value . the text states"Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edge of imagination and innovation".this shows how the author suggests that studyng venus is a good idea depite it's risks and dangers it has.
In the Challenge of Exploring Venus the author states a lot of good reasons they should study Venus and study the value of Venus despite it's dangers.
the authr states"NASA is working on other approaches to studying Venus".the author belives that although it may be danerous it also maybe worth the danger. the text states "Solar power would be plentiful,and radiation would not exceed Earth levels".the authors says these might not be easy conditions but they are survivable for humans. this shows why the author suggest studying Venus.
The author belives that if the research get a better and up close look at Venus they can study it better.the passage states"More importantly ,researchers cannot take sample sof rock,gas,or anything else,from a distance".research most get a closer look to study Venus fully and in the way they need and wnat to.the text states"Therefore,scientists seeking to conduct a thorough mission to undestand Venus would need to get up close and personal despite the risk".this show that the author and researchers are willing to take risk to get up close and study Venus.
Researchers belive that if they are up close and personal it would be better and give them more evidence for Venus. the text states"if our sister planet is so inhospitable,why are scientists evendiscussing further visits to it's surface".the author says from the earth u can see a nice sight but you can't see much from a distance.the passage states"The value of returning to Venus seems indisputable,but what are the options for making such a mission both safe and scientifically productive".this shows how there can be obstacles and risk but researchers and scienctists are willing to take and bypass them anyway.
The text states"a thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus".there are alot of risks with Returnint to Venus and getting rocks and samples off of venus.the text states"Often referred to as Earth twin,Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size,and occasionally the closet in distance too".the author will find anyway to over look and find new and safer ways to go up close and personal to Venus.this shows how the author suggests that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents to humans. | 23
|
888121b | To start off, changing to election by popular vote for the president of the United States elections would be better to prove who wants who presidents and people be happy baout who they voted for.
Would you like to have a president by popular vote or by the electoral collage choosing the preident. Im sure i would love to pick my own president. being an american is a privalage that most people in the world would die for, the land of brave and free. people come to asmerica to be able to be free. picking a president and voting is a privage. to be able to have popular vote is so that the american citizens can pick there own preisend by popular vote, not the electoral collage's vote. according to the article Al Gore, was runnoing for presidnt and got the most populare vote but not the most electoral votes. The majority of the citizens of the united states chose Al Gore as presient but the electoral collgae took that away.
Accoring to the artical bob dole annoced that the electorial collage is unfair with these word; "Its offical: 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 aruments against direct elections are spuriours at best. It's hard to say this, but Bob Dole was right; Abolish the electoral collage." in these words Bob dole explanes about the unfairness of the electoral collage. As stated before the electoral collage chooses the presidents not the american people.
In conclusion the electoral collage sholiuld be abolished | 23
|
ac8fa95 | This goes out to the senator of florida. I think we need to chang to voteing way. We need to change it from the Electoral college to the most popular vote for the president of th Unitd States of America. Because whats the point of all of our parents and alot of other adults of voting if we can't even get what we want but no it's all up to the electors and congress, ect. like for real what is the point in voting if it isn't a fair shot.
Now that I've read it we don't even vote for the prsident we vote for the slate of electorswho in turn elect the president. Whom are the electors? They can be anyone not holding public office. Who picks the electors in the first place? It depnds on the state sometimes state conventions sometimes the stateparty's centeral committee sometimes the presidential candidates themselves. Can voters control whom their electors vote for ? Not always. Do voters sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong canidate? Sometimes.
At the most basic level the electoral college is unfair to voters. And dont likethat because the what the heck is happening if were not acktually voting for the president and just the electors. Like for real then whats the point of voting if were not getting what we want. When the goverment is all about giveing the people what they want. Like why can't they just let the people vote for the people the want to vote for like for real. This sucks that we can't get wht we deserve. | 12
|
bf00ad9 | The Face on mars was a big controversy throughout the 1970's to 2001, and still is a popular topic of conversation. Many people believe NASA was trying to hide an alien artifact by saying it's a land form, and others believe thats all it is, a landformation. NASA has been photographing this for years, trying to figure out exactly what it is, and trying to satisfy the conspiracy theorists. In 1976, they were taking photos of a region of a planet, and discovered this strange formation with the look of a face. NASA continued to research and take photos. After years of photographing and talking, they finally figured it out.
NASA discovered in 1998, that what many people thought was an alien artifact, was actually just a landformation. From the beginning, the NASA workers had two theories. Some scientists thought the Face was an alien artifact, and most thought it was a mesa, which is a natural land formation. The second theory was right, that all it was was a strange land formation and bad camera quality. There are photos that show the 3 pictures they took of the Face. One was in 1976. That was a time where most people thought it was an alien artifact, because it looked most like a face because of the blurry quality. In addition, the next picture from 1998 showed was it really was, just a land formtion. The third, from 2001, proved people who thought it was from aliens wrong. If you examine the photos closely, you can see that there are cracks in the land, that if angled the right way with clouds in the way, can show the illusion of normal face features, like eyes and a mouth. In comparison that to the photo taken in 2001, it is obvious it's nothing more then land.
Before the photo in 2001, people still thought it was an alien artifact. An article stating that, "Meanwhile, defenders of the NASA budget wish there was an ancient civilization on Mars," proves a point. Why would NASA not want there to be aliens on other planets when it would benefit them so positively. If NASA really thought there were aliens, why would they show the photos to the whole world? When the first photo came out, NASA stated, "a huge rock formation . . . which resembles a human head . . . formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose, and mouth. They put out the photo to attract attention to mars with that caption. It explains what the formation is and how it may be mistaken as something other than rocks.
"What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesalandforms common around the American West. It reminds me most of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho, says Garvin. Thats a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars. The study was over and they stopped photographing the face once everybody understood what it was. In this paragraph, a scientist explains the mesa and compares it to a landform on earth.
In the end, the Face ends up just being a landformation, though many people hoped it would be a discovery of alien life. The photos proved that it was nothing more then a rock formation. NASA researched to find the land formation and made it clear that they also wanted it to be an alien artifact. All of the conspiracy theorists have been proven wrong, and the mystery has been solved. | 45
|
f8d4a7b | Im going to tellin you some positive and some neative ways that smart cars could be great and dangous first. Driverless Car are comin thers some postitive and negative ways. First here some positive ways first it could help stop all these wrecks that are happeni. Cause these smart cars will have antilock brakes that will come more advanced and detected and respond to the danger out of control skids and rollovers and the sensors will have the car apply these antilocking breaks at anycrashing moments.That will apply brakes on indivual wheels and reduce power from the engine that will make the car slow down even a top speeds. It also allowing way better response and control than a human driver can manage. Further improvements in sensors and computers hardware that make the car handle more
and more driving task on there own that also making drivin safer. At Last they can also help you know whre road blocks and contruction is at and takes you to a diffrent route that will make u take iver the wheel. Now heres some negative ways of havin smart cars would be a not so great idea. Fisrt cause what if car accidents happen and people get hurt who are you going to blame for the hurt people and the messed up cars who gets blamed the manufracturers or the owner.Next new law wo8uld have to be made up for the smart cars cause these law for the old regular cars would work the same. also why would people want a driveless car that needs a driver drivers would get board waitin on there turn to drive.Also That means drunk drivers could still drive and it would be more easier for them to go and get them some achol and get drunk and turn and that turns into violence. Then these cars parts would be outragous expensive for one part and be out all kinds of money on one part.These are my opinion on why smart cars would be great and why they wouldnt be good this i why. | 12
|