full_text stringlengths 737 20.5k | score int64 0 5 |
|---|---|
Technology is gradually developing as we go into the future. New inventions are being created everyday, such as driveless cars. When you think of driveless cars you may picture things like you see in the movies, but they are much more complex. I personally think that the developement of driveless cars is a good thing and will benefit us later in the future.
In the article, the author believes."Driveless cars will use half the fuel of today's taxis and offer more flexibility than a bus". As you can see driveless cars will benefit the earth and the needs of humans. The company,Google, has had independent driving cars since the year 2009. Their research states that their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash. This research shows that the developing of driveless cars is improving and actually becoming a product that will later be in use.
Although these cars are categorized as independent, they still require the alertness of the driver. The car itself will need the driver's assistence when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with traffic issues. I believe that the car not having complete independence will actually benefit the driver. Since drivers today are already being distracted by phones and passangers, not having complete control could help them be safer on the road. I appreciate how the car can move on it's own, but also requires the driver to be somewhat aware of what is going on. Let's face it humans will always be distracted, but not having to actually drive a car might reduce the number of accidents caused by texting. I know it sounds crazy that the driver not paying as well attention, but with the car driving on its own the driver would be able to text and get distracted.
Driveless cars are improving scientific research and inventions. Back to the benefits of the driver just having to be aware, technology has helped so much in the process. The car can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves. Scientist and workers were also able to create a viberating sensor in the seat to help the driver be aware when the car needs assistence such as in a traffic jam. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone. The author believes, "Manufacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road". I believe that this would be a great idea and will improve the drivers safety. I know that driving might not be as fun and people will use interest if all they do is sit there, but then they will be able to text and do whatever else they are prevented to do when actually in control of a car.
In conclusion, I believe that driveless cars will actually benefit us later in the future. Its high-tech equitment and special sensors will fascinate people and lead to the purchasing. I believe that allowing product in other states will improve transportation systems and the needs of people. I predict that in the future, there will be other independent vechicles and systems being created. Driveless Cars are coming and we better be ready. | 4 |
Dear state senator,
In my opinoin I think we should absolutely keep the Electoral College system. I think we should keep the way we elect our presidents because it's a non-democrac way. It's also easy and fast by killing two birds with one stone. Our founding fathers compromised the Electoral system and since we can't get rid of our admendments and change the Constitution I don't tink we should get rid of the Electoral College system. It may be old, but new things aren't always the best things. I think if the Goverment wanted to change it they should try it on a state first before they roll it to the rest of the nation, and we all know the goverment isn't that smart and won't do it because we are their test animals.
Another reason to keep the Elctoral system is because it's easy and effciant. If we just have the elction just be based off votes and not popular party it would be messy. The Electoral College System allows certainity of outcome. No run-off election because mostly likely there will be no tie. No arguing about the president being from a certain place or region so that state favors the president. Winner-takes-all system allows the people to pay close attention to the election. Swing states allow a little excitement during the election because some states like Florida you don't know which way they are going to go. Big states also like Florida gets the president on the edge because the can loose every small state and still win with the big ones.
270 votes are not a lot of votes to win an elction with, but every vote counts. Some people may not vote because there are only two parties that most of the nation only cares about the Republicans and the Democrats. Some people dont like tovote in fear of their party not winning due to its unpopularity. But everyone should vote to express there politcal power. That's why we should keep it because if we change it we're changing our minds in the way vote. | 2 |
Earth, it is a beautiful planet, really one of a kind. Sadly every day billions of people around the world drive vehicles that emit fumes that are poison to earths atmosphere. If we want the earth to live as long as possible, if we want a safe enviroment for our children to live in the future, then we need change.
There is a settlement in Europe called Vauban, it is a car-free community, for the most part. There is only a couple streets in the entire community that are hospitable to cars. None of the houses except for a few have garages. 70 percent of the population does not own a car. It is a trending lifestyle in Europe, and i can see why. 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions are from cars in Europe. That number is raised to 50 percent in some parts of the United States.
In Paris, it was so smoggy that they had to ban the use of vehicles for an entire weekend, one day even license plates would be banned, the next day odd. If you were caught driving with a banned license plate you would be fined, and approximately 4,000 people were fined on that weekend, 27 people's cars were impounded. This was all part of an attempt to clear the 147 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic meter that was congesting the air. Compared to London with 79.7. Public transit however was free during this time, and hybrid cars, electric cars, and cars with 3 or more passengers were allowed.
In Bogota, Colombia, they celebrate "Car-free day", where everyone in the city leaves their cars at home and either hikes, bikes, skates, or takes the bus to work and school. Violators face a $25 fine. It all started back in the mid 1990s, the city has added 118 miles of bicycle paths since then, the most out of any latin city. Parks and sports centers have also made an appearance around the city.
Basically what im trying to get across here is that all cars do is make us get to work faster, but if you think about the cons, it pollutes our earth, it dirties our streets, it congests our cities, and it makes everyone unhappy. We need to change, not all of us, but some of us, for the children. | 2 |
I think the development of the driveless cars are a great idea. These cars will help everyone and everything. I agree with the driverless cars and think they would be a good addition to the technology in this world. If we allow the driverless cars it would help out the ecosystem, save money, and be a lot safer for everyone.
The driverless cars allow us to drive around without using up a ton of gas. In paragraph 1, they say this car will use half of the fuel we are using now a days. that would help out the ecosystem a lot. It would cause the air to be better. The air now is pollutioned. It is very unhealthy for us. These cars would let us breath in fresh air. The enviornment and ecosystem are things that should matter to everyone. The Earth is a place in which we live on. With the way we are taking care of it now it won't be here for much longer. It's very unsafe for us.
The cars we are driving now are unsafe too. When you have people fully incontrol of the car, you never know what they are going to do next. People are unpredictable. You could easily make a mistake while you are driving and it could cause you to crash. When you crash there is a chance you will get seriously hurt. With the driveless cars, you won't get into an accident because the are always looking at the road. In paragraph 8, they explain how safe the driveless car can acually be. They can have TV's in the driveless cars but if the driver has to take conrol they will turn the TV off for the time being. When you are fully in control of a car you don't have this option. Some people will drive and text and will get into multiple accidents. This driveless car can be a lot safer for you and a lot safer for other people that are on the road.
Having driveless cars will also save us a ton of money. People spend so much money year on car insurance, gas, and even fixing up your car from a recent accident. All of that money is now yours if you get a driveless car. If will save not only people money, but the government money too. They won't have to spend so much money on cars and accidents.
Driveless cars are the future. They improve the ecosystem and environment, they keep us safe, and save us money. When you are looking into buying a car those are some of the main things you think about. Driveless cars were created for the society we have created. | 2 |
In the prompt, the author supports his idea poorly. The author is trying to prove his point that Venus is worth our time and resources to explore for some further insight to a planet close to us. While this topic is interesting, it is unlikely. The author immediately tells you how harsh the planet is, not introducing it in a way that would make you think it is possible to explore. Then, after explaining the conditions, the author describes a few ways that we could try to research it, and these few ways are inefficient.
By telling us how the planet's surface is harsh and unforgiving immediately, the author presents the idea that it would be too hard to explore. The author even describes how not a single mission had lasted more than a few hours on the planet. After this description, they then try to prove to the audience that it is reasonable to research the planet further. Their argument is that since the planet is closest to us, it should be explored. While the planet does happen to be close and similar to earth, that gives us no reason to explore it. As said in the author's previous paragraph, the planet's conditions are inhabitable. The planet may at one point have been relatively similar to earth, but over time it has become completely different. This gives us a large reason to not want to further research this planet. The other argument that the author makes is how there are certain ways we could research the planet. One of said techniques of research is to have a "blimp-like vehicle" hover around 30 miles above the planet. While this idea sounds interesting in thought, there are many problems with it. In this paragraph, they describe why they think their idea would work. They think that we could develop this vehicle to resist the 170 degree temperature and air pressure similar to that of the ocean, not to mention radiation. With our current technology, it is plausable that this vehicle could be created. Plausable, however, does not mean we can. We would not only have to develop a type of airship that could resist temperatures of 170 degrees and keep it's crew from overheating, but we would also have to make it resistant to high pressure comparable to the ocean, something we see with submarines. The reason why this alone is a huge problem is because we only see submarines underwater, not 30 miles above the surface of a planet. To be able to make something that can resist high pressure, high temperature, and be able to have enough fuel to stabalize itself, is beyond our current technology.
The author has reason to want to explore Venus. As a race, we naturally want to explore, but some things we just can not. If conditions were to better over years, this idea may be considered once again, but as of now, it does not seem to be possible. | 4 |
Potentially you would think OH GREAT DRIVERLESS CARS! But these cars aren't completely driverless as mentioned in paragraph 7 and the bad thing is you really don't know how great its' manufactured mentioned in paragraph 9 for these reasons im out. There are many negatives as well as positives the positives include so many great things like you have this car driving all by its self to a certain extent, we have all these cars in the time that has passed by and a sensor is one of the oldest safety tools we have used since the 1980's as seen in paragraph 5 and prices are sky high in 2016 so some people may not be able to aford these smart cars wheres all the safety they so called want its' more in favor of money regardless if your real goal is to be safe or not because these cars are the next step to a new generation. If you think it's cheap to build and program a smart car you have another thing coming because it takes many years to develope the idea anyway so thats including every financial risk the people who developed this car would be dirt poor if they werent approved or make enough money to finance all of the product for the car such as the newer Kias have beats systems installed in them which we all know the headphones are 300 dollars a pop so how much is it to be installed in the cars? I dont exactly have an answer for that but it should be figured pretty easily either its commercialized or they payed a lot and commercialized to have this product in their cars. Now back to the smart driverless cars like i said there are positives to this which include the ones that work right and all the safety they contain if you relax and still watch the road you can have a nice conversation with your family and not feel so pressured or rushed and as said in paragraph 5 the sensors i mentioned at the beginning are developing drastically as the years go by in just 10 short years which may seem like a long time but in that time the creation of antilock breaks was born and it only progressed from there with each sensor made a new idea came along and with each car that progressed people just want more but ask your self are you for or against? and is this smart car thing really a good idea? | 2 |
In foreign countries, residents appear to prefer suburban areas with no vehicles than urban areas with the sound of motors filling the air. "German suburb, life goes on without cars" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, "Paris bans driving due to smog" by Robert Duffer, and "Car-free day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota" by Andrew Selsky, and "The end of car culture" by Elisabeth Rosenthal talk about the bannishment, or the non-use, of cars. These foreign counties are making new ways to create a more modern, peaceful, safe and healthy life for all of us.
In Vauban, Germany, residents do not use cars, 'they gave up their cars'. "Street parking, driveways and home garages are generally forbidden in thi experimental new district on the outskirts of Freiburg, near the French and Swiss borders," stated Source 1, "Vauban's streets are completely
'car-free'
- except the main thoroughfare, wher the tram to downtown Freiburg runs, a few streets on the edge of community." Residents would simply sell their cars, put them in the large garages or where a car-owner buys a space. Heidrun Walter, mother of two, said "When i had a car i was always tense. I'm much happier this way."
Paris, due to how polluted the air, partially banned the use of cars. "On monday," Source 2 states, "motorists with even-numbered license plates were ordered leave their cars at home or suffer a 22-euro fine ($31). The same would apply to odd-umbered plates the following day. 4,000 drivers were fined." Ever since Paris banned the use of cars, congestion went down 60 percent. Deisel fuel was blamed since France favors them. Paris banned cars for the health of its residents.
In Bogota, Colombia, there was a program that was used once every year. "it was the third straight year cars have been banned with only buses and taxis permitted for the Day Without Cars in this capital of 7 million. The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog. Violators faced $25 fines," stated Source 3. Later on, two other Colombian cities participated, Cali and Valledupar. Authorities from other countires came to check out the event. "These people are generating a revolutionary change, and this is crossing borders," said Enrique Riera, the mayor of Asuncion, Paraguay.
In the United States, each year less cars are being bought and driven. "When adjusted for growth, the number of miles driven in the United States peaked and dropped steadily thereafter, according to an analysis by Doug Short of Advisor Perspectives, an investment research company," stated Source 2. Most young drivers do not care which car they drive, it's mostly about the freedom they get to have a driver. The U.S. might consider wether to make ta decision about the decreasig of cars. | 0 |
From the early 2000's to the present day, the number of people who own cars throughout Europe and the United States has gone down. Although personal motorized vehicles can be convenient to own and use, there are many advantages to not owning a car, such as a decrease in air pollution, experiencing other sources of transportation, and an overall cultural shift.
Air pollution is a big issue all around the world. Cars are responsible for twelve percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and fifty percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in some highly populated areas in the United States. Cities such as Paris have banned cars for a few days in order to reduce the greenhouse gases emitted into their atmosphere. Congestion of environmentally damaging gases went down by sixty percent in Paris after their cleanse, where as before the cleanse, they were suffering through five straight days of heavy smog. Cars are the second most source for carbon emission in the United States. Lower amounts of cars owned results in less pollution in the air, which creates an all around better environment, a huge advantage.
Without personal cars, people resort to using other new and exciting forms of transportation such as biking, walking, hiking, or using buses, taxis, or the transit. In Vauban, Germany, the residents live a new lifestyle without personal cars. The community is small, and there are just a few streets that are easily accessible. The residents in the community experience a life that is close to the people around them. In Bogota, Columbia, once a year they have a car-free day, where the population must find other ways to get around instead of their personal vehicles. The car-free day is very popular, and as a result, has allowed the city to invest in one hundred and eighteen miles of new bike paths and sidewalks, new parks, and new sports centers. In the United States, some people decide to just set up their life around their home. Everything they have to get to is within walking distance of their home. The number of miles driven peaked in 2005, and then declined hevily afterward. In New York, the bike sharing program and the car pooling programs have allowed for less personal car use. Driving by teenagers all throughout the United States has decreased by twenty-three percent between 2001 and 2009.
The decrease in personal vehicle use is leading to a revolutionary cultural change that is crossing borders and making it's way around the world. Since World War II, the development of the world has revolved around the car, but that will soon change. From Vauban, Germany, where there is no car use at all, to the United States, where in 2013, the number of miles driven per person was equal to that of 1995, this cultural change is making it's way into each home. Some explanations for this change are the internet and city centers. The internet allows people to feel connected to family and friends without having to drive to see them. City centers have made the suburbs less populated, which results in less driving back and forth. Some possible results from a cultural shift away from the use of personal cars are less dependence on the car industry, and overall smaller, closer, and more community-driven cities based around transportation such as biking and walking. In the long run, this cultural shift would be an advantage to the world.
In Europe and the United States, many people have already made the shift away from personal car usage. People of the world can partake in a cultural change of less car usage, experiencing different forms of transportation, and all the while positively affecting their environment. | 3 |
Would a computer that can read you emotions be good for the class room? Facial Action Coding System allows technology to identify human emotions. Therefore it can tell weather someone is happy or sad. The machine can also tell if you are feeling mixed emotions by the muscle movement in your face.
"'A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored,' Dr. Huang ptrdicts. 'then it could modify the lesson, like an efffective human instructor" (paragraph 6 "making mona lisa smile"). If the FACS systems was downloaded into the computers at school then students would learn better because the computer would know the best way to teach them based on there emotions. Second "'most human communication is nonverbal, including emotional communication,' notes Dr. huang. 'so computers need to understand that, too."(paragraph 6 "making mona lisa smile"). Since people can't always tell the emotions of another person in the class room or if a teacher can't tell if there students are understanding the contect they are teaching then the FACS would fix this because they would be able to tell if the student understands or still doesnt undersatnd the content being tought to him or her.
FACS would be a good edition to the class room and to computers in the class room to help students learn and to help teachers teach to the best of there ability. | 2 |
Have you ever been to a dense city, where you can barley drive becuase there are to many car? Well small suburban cities are finding new solutions. These suburban parts of towns have made it so that most people walk and dont drive some nopt even having parking space. This is a great solution, they've made it so that most stores are within walking distance of the main street. The no car towns will be healthier with the walking and exhaust fuems and might save everyone some cash will less insurance, accidents, and gas prices.
These small towns have made sure that the no car rule will provent you from getting to where you need to go. According to "
In German Suburb, Life Goes on Without Cars", streets have no cars. It also reads that most stores are
"a walk away on a main street"
, making it unneccassary to have a car. It,s expected public transportation will be larger in next six years.
In Paris, France, they have banned driving due to the unpleasing amount of smog they had. The smog is caused from the exhaust of the car and released into the air forming thick air and this almost toxic fuem. By elminating cars there will be less smog to allow easier breathing and better lungs. Also, Since there are no cars citizens will walk more making it healthier to get more excersise walking around the large city.
The no cars plan will save everyone loads of money. With public transportation or smart city planing and placement, you dont need to buy a car and save you those thousands of dollars. With no car, you wont need any autoinsurance on the car. Not to mention with out a car you won't need to refeul it with gas prices getting higher everyday.
These cities are saving money, making their citizens healthier to live longer, and just making the town a allround better place. | 2 |
Have you ever wondered if the face on Mars was created by aliens? The face on Mars was not created by aliens it is a natural landform. Michael Malin and his Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) team got a picture of the face that was good enough to see that the face had no alien monument.
Some people think the face on Mars is created by aliens or think it's bona fide evidence of life on Mars. Scientist Michael Malin found out the right answer. That the face is a natural landform. The camera Michael and his team used was 10 times better than the one used to take the photo of the face in 1976. Jim Garvin, chief scientist for NASA's Mars Exploration Program says "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!" That quote shows how good the camera is.
Today, people still belive it was aliens who made the face on Mars. But what they dont know is that its really just a landform, thanks to Michael Malin and his MOC team we now know the truth. | 1 |
Should we wait for the future, or try to advance to it now? I for one believe we should take a leap in advancement, by allowing production of driverless cars. In the past these have all been unreachable feats, but as of now we have the technology needed to create them.
Driverless cars are not any more dangerous than regular cars, because they will never fall asleep while driving, or be intoxicated, and they most certainly won't text and drive. These are some of the leading causes of death while driving. Wouldn't it be great to be able to just relax in a car instead of having all the stress of focusing, and dealing with other drivers?? What is the extent of driverless cars? Would we one day be able to sleep for work while our car picks up our friends and famly for us? As stated in the passage Sergey Brin envisions a future where self driven cars work like a taxi. We may not be to that stage yet but as of this year (2016) Tesla is releasing a car that can drive on its own 90% of the time! This may all sound far fetched to the older generation, who doesn't trust or rely on technology as much as we do, but is technology really bad thing? I see technology as progress and if these cars become a regular on the road then we will be progressing towards a better future.
Are there down sides to this? Many people say yes, and there may be in the beginning, but after these cars are all tested and widely released i do not think you will have to worry about as many malfunctions. People are worried about what if it malfunctions and i wreck? Well ask yourself this how many times have you been in a wreck in your life, and it was because you are with a bad driver? You would no longer have to worry about that because these cars won't drive wrecklessly. If you are still worried about them malfunctioning then you are thinking short-term, because there will come a time when we have perfected these cars and they rarely malfunction, my guess is probably less than half as much as humans wreck. As hard as im trying i don't believe there will be any more faults with these on the road with them than without them.
These are just a few of many reasons as to why i believe we should have these cars. I hope you can see the need for them as much as i do, if not now in the near future. We better start making some new insurance plans, because the future is on it's way! | 3 |
The Electoral College is a way of deciding the President by having an amount of electors for each state. And the President that gets the most votes wins all [In most states] the electoral votes. Elecoral college is a great way to decide the President because having every one decide the President from popular votes is not fair because most people vote for what they hear from other people and if the others are voting for a President they are going to get more than one vote from one person. so having the Electoral College is the more fair way of deciding the votes.
People that are chosen are more cnoledgable and smarter to vote than people that vote just to say that they voted without looking and knowing why they voted for that President and not for the other. Because in the passage it says "It is entierly possible that the winner of the electroal vote will not win the national popular votes" and that suggests the point of this essay.
The Electoral College foucese more on all states than the popular votes. because big states like (Florida, texes, etc) have way more people than other states so if a state has 15 electoral votes and a diffrent state had 11 when the first state has double the amount of people in the second state. so that means that the President has to focuse on all the states so no state feels that their votes don't matter.
That is why the U.S should keep the Electeral College to decide the president because its a smarter and a better way to decide who is going to rule this country. | 2 |
The positive things the author is saying about making driverless cars is more saftey because it got senses in it that can tell if you about to bag back into something it gives you a warning or if your going to fast it uses speed sensors to detect it and gives you a warning. If your brakes stop working while you driving it can detect it and use automatic break sensor to stop your car. The cars could handle the driving task on its own. It got a lot of sensors everywhere on the vehicle. It would have a video camera on the left rear wheel. A roatating sensor on the rood. Four automotive radar sensors. And it would have a GPS reciever. It will also have Dubbed LIDAR that have laser beams to form a constanly updating 3-D model of the cars surroundings. The combination of all this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel. The negitive thing about having a driverless car is that it would take alot of upgrades and it would need smart-road systems. And the lawmakers says that the only safe way to keep drivers,passengers, and pedestrains safe is if the human driver is in control at all times. If the technology of the driverless car fails and someone is injured, they wouldnt know what to do because they wouldnt know who to blame. It could be the driver fault or the manufacturer. Some people wouldnt like a driverless car because they could get bored and tired of waiting for their turn to drive. And if any sensor breaks while the driverless car is going somebody could get hurt if any sensor is down. They don't got a back up sensor for none of the sensors. It's dangerous to have your hopes on sensors that can stop working anytime. Some people probably think if you got a driverless car what's the purpose of being behind the wheel? | 1 |
Since the rise of suburbs nationally and globally, car culture has been an important component of our history and of the typical human experience. Every teenager anticipates the excitement and freedom of a driver's license, our country is "the birthplace of the Model T" and "the home of Detroit," and mothers across the globe rely on SUVs and station wagons to haul their children to and from school, soccer practice, Sunday mass, and the like (Source 4). In recent years, however, there is a growing trend of limited car usage around the world as countries promote vehicle-free neighborhoods and as in nations like the USA, "there has been a large drop in the percentage of 16- to 39-year olds getting a license," (Source 4). This trend, while seemingly alarming in our technology-dependent universe, offers several advantages, from a better environment to healthier citizens and communities, and encouraging and promoting this pattern may just be as revolutionary for the planet as the introduction of the first car over a century ago.
From France to Colombia, first of all, governments have been encouraging limited car usage as a means to better the environment through the reduction of toxic emissions into our atmosphere - after all, "passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe...and up to 50 percent in some car-intensive areas in the United States," (source 1). As debates have run rampant around the world about global warming and air pollution, several nations have taken initiative and experimented with the effects of this idea. In the district of Vauban, Germany, for instance, "street parking, driveways and home garges are generally forbidden," and as a result of expensive parking spots for those who do choose to operate their vehicles - upwards of $40,000 a pop - "70% of Vauban's families do not own cars," (Source 1). Limited car usage and public transportation is alternatively being promoted in Germany and elsewhere as an attempt to live our day-to-day lives in a way that is healthier for ourselves and the planet. France is one such example - in Paris, for instance, "one of the most polluted cities in the world," "near-record pollution" led officials to impose a driving ban to help clear the air, and almost 4,000 were ticketed with a $31 fine as a result of not following orders (Source 2). Free public transit was offered, and a result of the actions of the ruling party, "congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after five-days of intensifying smog," (Source 2). Likewise, Bogota, Colombia annually hosts a program known as the Day Without Cars that has attracted interest from neighboring countries and cities and provides an opportunity to "take away stress and lower air pollution," according to businessman Carlos Arturo, who spent the day bicycling with his wife (source 3). Globally, limiting car usage has resulted in exciting changes for not only the environment, but, surprisingly, public health as well.
The obesity crisis and lack of healthy social interactions, secondly, both are looming global issues due the rise of supersized fast food and innovations in social media and the Internet, and this trend of limited car usage serves as an unseen, advantageous remedy by promoting healthier people and communities. Without cars, people must find alternative forms of transportation, and in Bogota, for example, during the Day Without Cars, "millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated...to work," and since this campaign began in the mid-1990s, it has seen "the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths" and has resulted in parks, sports centers, and broad sidewalks; considerably less traffic; and the emergence of "new restaurants and upscale shopping districts," (Source 3). A mother of two in Vauban, Germany, Heidrun, Walter, claims that, "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way," (Source 1). Alternative forms of transportation also allow for increased social interaction - walking with your neighbor on the way to work, your kids interacting while en route to school, or striking up a conversation with a stranger on a public bus or tram are all examples of making connections with others that do wonders for our mental and social health. | 4 |
The face on Mars is not an alien formation but just a simple play on eyes. The face just hides in the shadows on mars. One reason I think it is just a shadow is that in the comparison pictures from 1976 to 1998 and 2001 all look different. They all give a different look on the face. Another reason i think the face on Mars is fake is, if there were civilations on mars they would also on the 3D image. So if there are no homes or shelthers there, who made it? No one did. It is a natural formation. Just like the ones in the United States of America. In the U.S.A those types of formations form in the Midwest. The formation is actualy called a butte or mesa. People say it reminds them of the Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho. This is why I think the face on Mars is just a natural formation and not the work of aliens. | 1 |
In my oponion, I think the state senator should not change the Electoral College by popular vote for the President of the United States. I think it should not change because this process consists of the selection of the electors. This is where they vote for President and Vice President as well as the counting of the electoral votes by congress. The majority of the electoral votes is to elect the president. This also makes things much easier because each candidate running for president for your state has their own group electors where the electors are chosen by the candidates political party. It is also helpful because you actually help choose your states electors when you vote for your candidate you are voting for your candidates electors. At the end it makes it easier on the governor to list all of the candidates who ran for President in your state along with the names of their respective electors. | 0 |
America is the country of the people, the people are the ones in the country, and are the ones living in the country. The method of which the leader of this country are selected by the people is by popular vote. Therefore, the best way, the right way of selecting the president and vice president are by popular vote.
Starting of with that the electoral college is unfair. The electors might know more about this country and they think they know what is the best for these United states but they do not. The peoplr know best, the people knows what is actually going on. Just as Bradford Plummer stated in his article"the best arguments in favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality"(source 14). All these elector are in the politial world, so they know everything politial about the country and the best leader politically. These elector dont know about all the small things that thousands of people are suffering from.
People want to have say in their country. If the method of choosing the president was strictly by popular college the people would feel as if the country is not theirs and if they are being controlled. The people who live in the country need to agree because if not then kaos would start to happen. People would protest and this country would fall apart bit by bit. Richard A. Posner said "to feel that their votes do not count, that the new president will have no regard for their interest, that he really isn't their president"(source 19). If this is how the people feel when the other president running wins instead of the one they selected won, you coiuld just imagine how they would feel if they did not have a part choosing who is going to be the next president of the United States.
The electoral college is just not fair. Richard A. Posner says that on of the reason to retain the electoral college is "its lack of democratic pedigree"(source 17). If this country has been runnung smoothly with popular vote why would someone want to change it? Well manyy times change is good because it is improving becoming better at something although something like this should not change.
So just to restate that eliminating the popular vote would be unfair, unright, and just plain wrong. Just like in the preamble "we the people". | 3 |
Dear senator of florida state,
I believe the united states should get rid off the electorial college as we all know the electorial college consists of 538 slectors in which a majority of 270 electorial votes are required to elect the president. In response to this the citizens of the U.S.A are technically not voting for the president but voting for the group of electors chosen by the candidate's political party in which as stated in source 1
"you are actually voting for your candidate's electors."
As stated in source 2 voters cannot always control who they are voting for and voters often get confused about the electors and voting for the wrong candidate.
The evidence to support this claim is the 2000 fiasco which was the biggest election crisis of the century. State legislatures are responsible for picking electors and that those electors could always defy the will of the people. Evidence form source 2 goes back to 1960 when segregationists in the louisiana legistlature almost succeded in replacing democratic electors with new electors that did not support and oppose John F. Kennedy thus proving that the electorial college cannot be trusted. Another reason why the electorial college is unfair to the people is because of the winner-takes-all system in each state due to the candidates not being in the state and focus only on the race between "swing" states. Evidence from the 2000 campaign states seventeen states didn't see candidates at all.
Most worrying would be the prospect of the tie in the electoral vote by any means in that type of case the election would be assigned for the House of Representatives where state delegations vote on the president because each state cast only one vote.
An example of this would be the representative from wyoming representing 500,000 voters would have more to say including the representative from california who represents 35 million voters. Those voters vote for one party for president and one for congress, the decision of the house can barely be reflected on the will of the people. supporting this is the election in 1968 in which a shift of 41,971 votes would have deadlocked the election another election in 1976 a tie would occur if 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted the other way.
Though the electoral college is an anachronism it is not democratic in a modern sense because the electors are the ones who choose the president not us the people though each party has to select of slate of electors who are intrusted to vote for the party's nominee. Although the electoral college method despites its lack of democrastic pedigree is still used today its because of its certainty of outcome the reason is because the winning candidate's share of the electoral college exceeds his share of the popular vote, and also avoids run off elections to happen. Another reason why the electoral college method is still used today is as stated in source 3 because it restores weight in the political balance that large states lose by virtue of the mal- appointment of the senate decreed in the constitution. The electoral colege requires a president candidate to have trans-regional appeal no region has enough electoral votes to elect a president.
Even thogh these reasons oppose my claim as stated in source 2 the electoral college is unfair, oudated and irrational.
An example of this was in 2012 when obama recieved 61.7 percent of the electorial vote against 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and romney
Basically what the electoral college method is a method where only the electoral vote is more importnant than the popular vote or the peoples vote.
In which It supports my claim when I said the people are not voting for the president but for the group of electors who support the candidate. In the example of 2012 obama vs romney obama won because of the percentage of the electorial vote which means that a candidate that is running for president can win the election if the electoral vote surpasses the popular vote. | 2 |
Luke Bomberger has went to Europe on a castle boat witch was an offer he couldnt say no to, witch begins the journy of how he came to be a "seagoing cowboy".
Luke has crossed the Atlantic Ocen 16 times and the Pacific Ocean twice to help people in harm and in need from the war, witch he states "Im grateful for this opportunity." "It made me more aware of people of their countries and needs."
"It took two weeks to cross the Atlantic Ocean from the East coast of the United States witch had been a ship filled with horses having to be feed every hour but it was all worth it to help the people in need, and after unloading they have all the time to play basketball, tennisse, volleyball, table tennisse.
Even though luke had to work hard he had the benefit of seeing Europe and China , witch has an opportunity of a lifetime for people to see places just like Luke Bomberger did and opening up your eyes to the world. | 0 |
The Face on Mars, is it really what NASA says it is? The Face on Mars is really what they say it is;a face on Mars. Most belivers in the alien world believe that aliens did do it, while most scientist do not. I am a scientist at NASA working on the "project" and most scientist believe that it was just a giant mesa or a "mountain" or something that was formed by natural effect.
I see why most belivers, in aliens, believe that aliens did it; its out of the ordnary,just not answerable,or because it's more questionable than anything. Now you can go around saying that aliens did do it, but be positve and ahve evidence on why you think that. In April 5, 1998 the Mars Global Surveyor flew over the Cydonia, for the first time ever, and snapped a very "sharp" picture of the "site'.
Web surfers were anxious while waiting for the image to be reveled on the JPL web page. The image showed what appeared to be just a natural landfoorm, not an alien monument or anything that had to do with aliens at all.
The belivers in aliens were still not satiisfied on the image they had seen on the internet due to the weather that day. Belivers thougth that the alien makers were just covered up by the haze or fog. Then the next time on April 8, 2001 on a cloudless day the "reasearchers" spotted the face again after a complete orbit around Mars and snapper another quick shot. It wasn't as easy as it sounded, they had to roll the spaceraft 25 degrees to the middle so you could see the face entirely.
After they had gotten the second picture they "blew it up" and made it 3 times bigger than its original size. When that happened, you could see anything and everything else that was around on the planet in that particular spot, if there were any airplanes or any other pyrmids. The picture acutally showed that it is the, Martian equivalent, size of a buttle or (a. k. a. a mesa) which are landforms most commonly made by nature in the American West.
"It reminds me most of the Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho," says Gavin. "Thats's a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars."
I hope this has convienced you to believe that the picture is real and that aliens did not build it and that the pictures and people that have spoken told you that it is just a natural landform that was created by "mother-nature." | 3 |
The Electoral college should be abolished. This form of voting is unfair to the candidates. The people that vote for the candidates they only vote for a chance that their candidate may have enough people that voted for him or her in that state to recieve a slate of pre-selected electors. there is also a very likely chance that the voting may end in a tie and the election will preceed to the House of Representatives where the state delegations would vote for a president.
The electoral college is a verey unfair way of voting to the candidates because if the majority of U.S. citizens vote for an opposing candidate that candidate would have the chance to lose the election if the states favor the current president or other candidates. In the article The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong by Bradford Plumer states that "Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president". On the other hand a fovored president has a higher chance of winning the election just by the vote of the electoral college.
When a state has election day the people who vote, vote not for the president but a slate of electors. When the state counts the votes, it then decides which party gets the slate of electors based on the majority of the votes and the elctors cast votes for their candidates. In the article IN Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President by Richard A. Posner it states that "In [2012's] election, for example, Obama recieved 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and Romney". If ther ewas no electoral college the election would only rely on popular votes and in turn make the process of choosing a president easier and more simple. This process would also recieve distaste as does the electoral college.
As said by many the Electoral College should be abolished. The process is very complex and unfair. Why only dpend on a majority of state chosen elector when the citezens could be the electors. The only way to get a fair vote is without the electoral college. | 2 |
Dear Senator,
Good day, I am writing this letter to let you know it's time for things to change. I have been reading and researching the Electoral College and i have a strong opinion on it. As you know, the Electoral College is a process when all five hundred and thirty eight electors vote on electors and defenders. This way of voting for electors lets the people have no say in whose running our goverment! Our goverment should not allow or be based on "the winner takes all" method. When we choose for OUR president we should be able to choose OUR electors too! Under the 23rd amendment of the constitution, the District of Columbia is allocated 3 electors and treated like a state for purposes of the electoral college. The electors shouldnt be chosen by the canidate's political party, we should choose. By voting for a president every four years a new party of electors have already been selected to run with him and we dont get any say. After the presidential election, your governer creates a list of all the canidates that ran for president in your state with a list of their representative electors. This is later sent to Congress and the National Archives as part of the official records of the presidential election.
Richard Nixon, Bob Dole, Jimmy Carter, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFL-CIO all agree that we need to remove and forget about the electoral college. This year our voters can expect another close election in which the popular vote winner could lose the presidency. Still the electoral college still has defenders fror themselves is crazy. Facts say voters arent actually voting for the president, but for a group of electors who in turn elect the president, and that is ridiculous. How are we supposed to trust these electors if we dont even know who they are and their background until after the election? Who even are these electors i wondered. I figured out that all the electors are actually anyone with a brain and not holding a public office, fantastic. So how do i know they are reliable and going to do whats best for my state and our country? Voters dont even control whom their electors vote for most of the time which is kind of scary. Some electors are even faithless in their party's canidate so they dont even vote for them at all! How can we rely on a group of people who dont rely on their party?
As much as I hate to say it, there most definitley is an upside to the Electoral College. The Electoral College is widely regarded as an anachronism, a non-democratic method of selecting a president that needs to be overruled by declaring the canidate who receives the most popular votes the winner. I personally think that is the best way to decide who gets in. Each party selects a slate of electors that are trusted to vote for the party's nominee. Sometimes the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote. Another reason The Electoral College is a positive way of voting is how certain the outcome is. There is never failure in the counting of the votes and there us rarely a tie between two people. My favorite reason is because "everybody is president". This means everybody can make their own decisions and have a great amount of freedom.
Even though im all for removing the Electoral College there is positives too. In a few years when i am able to vote, i will be careful of who I vote for and make sure that there is great electors in the party i vote for. | 3 |
In the article "Making Mona Lisa smile :" they have a technology called the Facial Action coding system" , this system lets computers idenfy human emotions , this is a very valuable method . This could help students get better grades in class and it could also help the teacher know how the student is feeling so they can help them out if they are depressed or sad or even afraid .
This is a very vaulble system if a kid is afriad maybe somethig is going on at home to make them feel this way the teachers would be able to detect it and get the student the help it needs . In the article it says " A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored " this means if the student is confused the teacher would know to maybe take the lesson a little slower and help the kid out or if multiple students look confused she could maybe just go over the lesson all over again.
This system works like a math problem in the text it says " Shes 83 percent happy, 9 percent disgusted , 6 percent fearful, and 2 percent angry " You would know all the students feelings right away . Many kids do not ask questions or open up the saddest ones are always the quiet ones. Without this system the kids that have a fear of getting made fun of for rasing there hands to ask a question would never get help . Without this system the kids that are sad and depressed from who knows what would never get the help they need to over come that . Without this system kids that have the fear from maybe getting beat at home or getting bullied from the means kids on the play ground would never be healed , maybe the rate of school shootings would go down because the sad people would not be alone anymore .
This article says the computer can detect " happiness , suprise , anger , disgust, fear and sadness " thats 6 emotions you may never know from just looking at a kid without this technology. It says " Then it could modify the lesson like n fffective hum instructor " the computer would break down a lesson that a student is confused on and help them .
This is the best way to get into a students head and get them the help they need . The " Facial Action Coding System
" should defintley be something put into schools , it would make school a better and safer place . | 2 |
Using technology to read a persons facial emotional expressions is really not a bad idea, just think about a computer being able to tell if your happy,sad,mad ect .In paragraph 1 it states all the emotions that the mona lisa had in the panting when most of the world had thought of her having one emotion,now to think that she acually had almost 5 different things going on in her face in the panting.
"most human communtion is nonverbal including emotional communcaton " this is really cool becasue people in this time don't do a lot of talking,they most likeing have there face in a screen someone and if Dr. Hang decides to be more open with other companies like apple of samsang that i would be easier to tell what someone means though text or picture,becasue it really hard to decifier what someone truely means mean there not pyhsical there with you. Paragraph 8 says that this computer can tell if your putting on a true or false smile in other words if your telling a lie or not.
In conclusion Dr. hang has a truely great thing going on right now this could be a future in the next couple of years if technology it's any better that in is right now, small things like Dr. hang idea or invention can lead this world bigger and better. | 1 |
Have you ever wondered why the citizens of a country have the opportunity to voice their opinion in which who they feel should be president. Well i found some information in source 1 that talks about electoral college. Electoral college is not a place but its a process that was found in the constitution as a compromise between election of president by the votes in congress and election oof the president by a popular votes of qualified citizens of the country. I think that they shouldn't change to popular vote in the United States because the electoral college is more fair and plus they don't know the outcome of the election of the popular votes of the prsident of the United States.
I support the electoral college because it allows you to voice your opinions in which who you feel should been president. It's also makes you feel that once you voted that your opinion matters. In source 1 they talk about when the "Presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday afterthe first Monday in November." also you help choose youir state's electors when you vote for President because when you vote for yor candidate you are actually voting for you candidate's electors. In source 2 they explain it in more details. "Under the electoral college system, voters votes not for thre president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president." They mean that don't matter if you vote for "John Kerry" and he's a Democratic and the number of whoever pledge to Kerry would be added on to his votes. thats why i like the electoral college.
But one the other hand, there saying that they might change it to the election of the popular votes of the president of the United States. I think they should keep using the electoral college because it actually have better benefits or outcomes because you know who you voted for and from what they told you, you believe they can make it happen. There's some states that have a "winner-take-all" system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate.
But the bad side about the electoral college is that what happens if thr president you like is a republican but you like the democratic senator? Well i dont know what your going to do then because going to be a problem.
Electoral college is not a place but its a process that was found in the constitution as a compromise between election of president by the votes in congress and election oof the president by a popular votes of qualified citizens of the country. I think that they shouldn't change to popular vote in the United States because the electoral college is more fair and plus they dont know the outcome of the election of the popular votes of the prsident of the United States. | 2 |
I am a scientist at NASA my name is Jeff. There is a face on mars and people think its by aliens well I know its not by aliens. It is just a natural landform on mars its nothing big it wasnt made by aliens and a lot of people think its by aliens and then a lot of people agree with me also.
This face on mars is a natural landform anything can happen on a planet that we have'nt been on yet. We do not know what this planet is capble of and whats on the planet of mars. Well I think that it wasnt made by aliens becuase it gets more noticable by the years pass then it dissappers in a different year. Well Im sure our planet looks different from space in different years.
Why would aliens even want to put a face on the planet. Im sure if there was aliens on mars they would'nt be carving a face on there own planet. Im sure there living there life on mars not knowing we even exsit thats if there is aliens on there. They wouldnt what anything with us if they did I think they would have made more signs then just two dots and a straight line and they would have made the face more noticable and it dissapears after a couple of years that is probbaly of there is wind or something that might have blew away they face. We had our best people look into it and they think its a landform to they got pictures and eveidence that its just a regular landform! | 1 |
Hi my name is Luke! I am here to tell you some reasons why you should join the program. First I would like to say that it is so exicting to participate in the Seagoing Cowboys program! So my first reason why you should join the Seagoing Cowboys program is that you get to travel, a lot! Do you like to travel anywhere? Now is the time to do so! It is fun traveling because you get to see new things and try things that you never knew before. It is fun to explore new things like that.
Before I was given this opportunity I was just a guy who just graduated from high school. I was working a two part-time jobs in a grocery store and a bank. One day my friend came to invite me to go to Europe on a cattle boat. I knew that I had to say yes because i want to do things that i probably wouldn't be able to do in the future like travel and explore. We also signed up to take care of horses, young cows, and mules that were shipped overseas. That is another reason why you all should sign up, we get to help animals and that is fun! It is like having a pet that no one really has.
In conclusion, these are all of my reasons why you all should join. We also get to take a break and explore, I had the benefit of seeing Europe and China! I loved seeing Acropolis in Greece! There was a lot of cool things to see. You should join because you get to see, and learn things that you might never see again! But, if you join right now you will get to see everything that is fun and nice, and the honor of helping people, and animals! So go right ahead and join you will have the best time of your life! | 2 |
Hi i'm luke,i'm here to conveince you guys to join the Seagoing Cowboys. It was so much fun for me. We got to go to so many places. One of the places was China. It takes kinda long to get to those places but, hey at least it's fun.
For the Seagoing Cowboys you just don't travel you also have to do stuff. One of the things are taking care of the animals on the boat thatare traveling places. That's why were called the seagoing cowboys. All because we take care of animals on a boat while the boat is moving.
If you do join the Seagoing Cowboys you have to be carful becuase sometimes you might fall and get hurt. I had my ribs cracked one time because I slipt and fell. It hurt but I still had to do what I had to do for the animals. I got a little time off but, not a lot.
The Seagoing Cowboys are fun. So, if you ever do think about doing it JOIN! I joined and when I turned eighteen. I didn't have to join the army all because I was doing the Seagoing Cowboys. If your a boy and dont want to do your army service do the Seagoing Cowboys. | 2 |
Many cliams say that venus is in habitbal but it colud be beacuse one venus was a planet where they had ocean like places but the carbon dioxie leaves are to high to even land there. Many say that venus is earths twin and they have the same size and the same closeness to the sun. Venus had a 97% of carbon Dioxide atmosphere. Venus is very unihabital because the average is over 800 degrees. Sinceist say that this planet is unhiabl because of it atmospheric presure is 90 times more that our own planet. So people say why should we even explor this place?. Well sinceist say it a greate way to see if we colud put some chimical in there so we3 can lower the degrres and the atomic pressure. NASA Sent over a ship that orbitis slafly over the planet. NASA May use old technlogi to complete this misson because its more agenst the temps there. | 0 |
I favour the election change to popular vote because the electoral college is not reliable.
In the second source,
The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defences of the system are wrong, paragraph ten states "voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president." the whole point of an election is for the voter to vote for who they want not vote for someone who might not even stay true to their word.
Paragraph ten of the second sourse aslo states "Who are the electors? They can be anyone not holding public office.", "Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always." How can voters vote for someone who they don't even know? How can voters trust them not to betray them? This system has not been set up to benifit us, it basically makes us give power to the electors and hope for the best. This seems like a shot in the dark.
Paragraph sixteen in the third source says "each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee (and that trust is rarely betrayed)" yes it says it rarely happens but there is still a possibility that it will happen, it's inevitible.
Be skeptical. Question everything. then and only then will you find the truth. | 2 |
In 1976, the spacecraft Viking 1 took a photo of a certain area on Mars. When NASA saw the photo, they saw what looked like a face. However, many years later, the Face turned out to be a natural formation, like a mesa is on Earth. Jim Garvin, chief scientist for NASA's Mars Exploration Program, said that it reminds him of the Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho. This proves that the Face is not an alien artifact. Also, NASA has found no other evidence of alien life on Mars, so the chances that the Face is made by aliens go down even more. Some people still believe that this Face has something do to with aliens. Conspiracy theorists say that NASA is hiding evidence from us, and that they don't want us to know about aliens on Mars. This theory is also disproved. Jim Garvin said that it's hard work to get photographs of the area, so why would NASA work so hard to get pictures of the Face if they wanted to hide it? Furthermore, NASA would love to find an ancient alien civilization, and would probably share it if they did find something. Finally, there is one more piece of evidence that the Face wasn't made by aliens. There are many landforms on Earth that resemble a face. I would give an example but I cant do any research because this is a test. The reasons above prove that the landform on Mars known as the Face, is NOT made by aliens. | 2 |
Dear State Senator,
I think we should keep the way we elect our President because we have for been doing this for so long this why would we change it if it's already perfect? And mostly because if we were to change it then the most of the former US Presidents would'nt even be President because of there rivals? actually had most votes, for instance in the 2000 U.S. President race , Al Gore received more individual votes then George W. Bush nationwide, but Bush won the election, receiving 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266, so you see? Bush was'nt the best but he was the closest thing to it, imagine how the U.S. would be if someone else was President before. Would it be the same? Better? Worse? We will never know because we cant see things that never happened. And isnt the Electoral College a lot eaiser then an election by the popluar vote? So why change it now? We have been doing it this way for over 50 years and we never had a mistake, well not a big one at the very least. | 1 |
Venus, despite its harsh conditions, boasts valuable information that can only be uncovered by exploring it. At least that is what the author of "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" claims. Throughout the article, the author supports and enforces the idea that Venus' exploration involves many challenges, but scarcely explains the benefits of exploring it and consequently why it is worthy of pursuit despite the dangers.
The author firsts opens with several facts about Venus to instill a feeling of doubt within the reader. Through this, he leads into the main idea of the article by abruptly asking the question, "If your sister planet is so inhospitable, why are scientists even discussing further visits to its surface?" After a doubtful introduction, the author provides arguments of the benefits of returning to this hot, dense world. This was a crucial addition to the article that shows his consideration of uninformed readers by first explaining why Venus is so difficult to explore before beginning his first argument of the benefits of exploring Venus.
He promptly answers the question by again giving several facts about the history of Venus. The inherent nature of the first fact "Astronomers are fascinated by Venus because it may well have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system" stirs the reader's curiosity, prompting the author to ask the next question to lead into his following argument. This paragraph serves to hook the reader's by giving relatively surprising facts about Venus that consequently describes the appeal for scientists to study such a planet.
After hooking the reader, the author should go in-depth about how Venus' similarities with Earth make it a valuable target for further research and exploration, but instead, he abruptly begins his next argument about the challenges of exploring Venus. Although the main idea of this article is the difficulties of exploring Venus, the author only addresses the value of exploring it in paragraphs four and eight. The rest of the paragraphs are dedicated to giving possible solutions to the impending goal of exploring the planet; however, he does not follow up on paragraph four's message that does not wholly explain the benefits of exploring Venus. At most, the author makes an argument that Venus is ripe for exploration because of its past similarities with Earth, but he does not explain why. Moreover, he introduces his next argument in paragraph five by making the dogmatic claim that "the value of returning to Venus seems indisputable" in paragraph four.
He nevertheless makes an arguably untenable argument about the dangers and difficulties of exploring Venus, but fails to support the idea that exploring it has value. In the end, the author did well in portraying the challenges involved when attempting to explore Venus, but he did not fully support his claim in paragraph four about the initial benefits of exploring it. | 4 |
Dear Senator Adams,
Voting for a president is not what it seems to be. The electoral college makes the people's votes so that the electors are actually voted. These electors vote for the president in favor of their party which is not always trustworthy or reliable. The popularity winner can also lose, due to lack in electoral votes. Many voters are still confused or don't know how the system works. In reality, electoral system is outdated and should be tweaked of how it would work today.
To begin with, Electors that are voted for by the people are not always trustworthy. They're hand picked by their politcal party but sometimes,"-state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsiblilties are..."(Does The Electoral). Voters can't control who their electors vote for president. The electoral college should be changed to popularity votes because, "-(the) electors could always defy the will of people"(The Indefensible Electoral). This is unreliable and the way of voting by the people can be easily swayed by the electors.
Additionally, the popularity winner can lose by having less electoral votes. Voters can be discouraged to elect their president when really the electors do the job. This situation has happened when,"-Gore had more popular votes than Bush yet fewer electoral votes-"(In Defense Of). Any election, voters can expect another close election in which the popular winner could again lose the presidency. The electoral college is unstable and this major downside is a factor.
More over, many voters are still confused or don't know how the system works. In this article it states that, "-voters sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate"(The Indefensible Electoral). The electoral college does not clarify to voters on what the people are actually voting for. In another article it explains that people actually voted for a slate of electors. This would mean that the author had to reassure the right understanding. Readers of that article who've voted are now in disbelief or shocked.
In conclusion, the electoral college should be addressed to a win by popularity. The electors in favor of their political party are not always trustworthy. The popularity winner can lose due to lack in electoral votes. Also, many voters are confused or don't know how the electoral college works in presidential elections. These facts add on to more cons than pros of the idea of electoral college. | 3 |
Driverless cars are soon to be the future of the world.
People in this world have different views on the driverless cars.
Some people think it is a great idea for there to be driverless cars and other people do not think so.
The writer of this essay does not agree with driverless cars.
The driverless car seems to be a great new invention of the modern time.
It appears to the writer of this essay that it is a wrong move for this generation. The move to driverless cars seems to be the wrong idea.
The driverless car is not the best option for a mode of transportation.
Yes people are getting lazy and do not want to drive themselves, however, the car can only "handle driving functions at speed up to 25 mph[.]"
The driverless car seems pointless.
If people want a driverless car, then people need to think of ways to get around by not driving themselves.
Who wants a driverless car that still has to have a driver.
It is meaningless to have one then.
The only reason people would get one of these new cars is because of the new "entertainment and information systems" in the cars.
The driverless cars are not allowed to even be tested is most states.
In the states of California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia, they have allowed limited use of these new cars.
It seems pointless to only have these in ceartin places if they are not even going to be driven that much.
Even with the few states allowing them, it would be hard for people to even get one with the new laws for driving them.
With the new cars come new features of steering, sensors, and handiling. However is something goes wrong with the car and it causes and accident, who is to blame?
Will it be the owning company of the car, the driver, or some outside force of some kind?
This would cause a heated battle in a court room.
It should seem pretty simple.
Should company owners risk thousands of lives to make thousands of dollars, of should they not make the cars at all and carry on with the cars the people already have.
In conclusion, the use of driverless cars seems pointless.
The driverless car should not be produced because of the point of having a "driverless car" that still needs a driver. They should be taken out of production and testing to help possibly save the lives of thousands. | 2 |
Dear Citizens,
I wanted to inform you that there is a limit for driving a car there has been some changes during this few years. Its not only in America that is going on its in other cities and also in states, where people have been droping there adavantages to drive around and dicide to walk instead or to ride a bus to get to other places, they also do that to save money for the gasoline especially if they drive long distance. For example in German Suburb they have forbidden street parking, driveways and home garages, new district on outskirts of freiburg, near the French and Swiss borders. There's a place called Vauban's and its a total Car-free, 70% of vaubans don't own a car and 57% sold thier car to move here. In Paris, they have banded driving due to smog, can ya'll believe that?;they have done because after days of near pollution paris inforced partial driving to clean the air of global city. people that drived with a even-numbered license plate they were charged a 31 dollars fine almost 4,000 drivers were fine according to Reuters. Now the "smog" came from Beijing,China which is one of the most polluted city in the world.
Paris typically has more smog then other European capitals, but eventually the smog cleared enough for The Ruling French party. There's was also a Car-Free day in Bogata and it was a big hit, Colombians usually hiked,biked,skated or even took buses to work during the car-free day if you left early people avoid traffic jams. and there goal is to promte alternative transportation and reduce smog it was a good ways to take way stress and lower air pollution. there's parks and sports centers that have bloomed throughout the city; uneven pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad,rush-hours have dramatically cut traffic. The End of Car Culture, where president Obama ambitious goal to curb the United States greenhouse gas emission,unveiled last week. Americans are buying fewer cars and driving less, but also getting fewer licenses as years go by. theres a question that says 'Has America passed peak driving?"i mean am not sure how to explan ,but am sure america ids the the same as it use to be and now that they are talking or writing a articule about it means that alot of people are driving less and buying cars. A study has shown that young people decreased 23% between 2001 and 2009. | 0 |
"It's hard to say this, but Bob Dole was right: Abolish the electoral college!"
Dear Senator I strongly suggest you on changing to election by popular vote and getting rid of the Electoral College. As you can see on the quote above people really don't like the Electoral College. This would be a very wise decision because the Electoral College is very old and unfair and it cause many crisis to happened.
First and foremost the Electoral College is very old.
It states in the article "Source 2: The Indefensible Electoral College: Why the best-laid of defense of the system are wrong" "It's official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational."
This quote explains how the electoral college is getting old and unfair so we should start fresh with a new change from electoral college to popular vote. Also the electoral college sometimes causes many crisis.
It states in the article " The single best argument against the electoral college is that we might call the disaster factor. The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in the century; the system allows for much worse."
This quote explains how the electoral college caused a fiasco in 2000 because of the electoral college and if we don't get rid of it we could have another one of these crisis.
On the other hand the electoral college should not be taken away because our founding fathers established it.
It states in the article "Source 1: What is the Electoral College?" "The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens."
This quote illustrates how the electoral college is suppose to help us and noy hurt us. Also our founding fathers established so they were just trying to get everything in order and have peace with everyone.
Although the electoral college is very unfair because of the winner-take-all system.
It states in the article "Source 2: The Indefensible Electoral College: Why the best-laid of defense of the system are wrong" "At the most basic level, the electoral coolege is unfair to voters. Because of the winner-take-all system in each state. canidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing on only the tight race in the "swing" states."
This quote explains how the electoral college is unfair and doesn't give chances to other states that supposively have no chance on voting for that certain canditate.
All in all Senator the electoral college must be abolish. Not only does it create many disasters, but it is very unfair to us citizens. The electoral college is very old and we should give a break. We could start with something fresh like the popular vote and see how it turns out. As you can see there is many evidence on how the electoral college is bad and that you should give the popular vote a chance. | 2 |
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. | 1 |
Dear State Senator,
I believe that the Electorial college should stay because without it the U.S. would get out of control with voting. We need the Electorial college for so many reasons. Some of the reasons are so that we can vote and keep all of congress and our President in order. We need this mainly for voting, sometimes I can admit that not everything this Electorial College does I agree with. But for the U.S. reasons for staying as one we need this more then ever so that we can vote and so that we can have president and all our different congress people too.
But like I said at the top that there are some cons to this agrument, if we should or shouldn't have the Electorial College. Some things that bring conflict to this whole process is that some peoples votes wont have effect in the voting for who becomes president next or not. All votes should count, because if they know that why should we even vote if some peoples don't count. It is like we want that president who ever it is at that time to win and no votes even matter. This part is disappointing in the last paragraph of the Article.
It says "...for example, or republicans in California. Knowing their vote will not have effect..." Going back to what I said up in my second Paragraph, everyone needs to have their vote count. Everyone deserves a chance to say who they want to runa certain part in the U.S. should and should'nt be. Hello? Remember freedom of Speech whatever happened to that.
If Congress keeps this up people can get mad and riot about that or do bad things to harm people or congress. We need everyones vote to count no mater what. We need everyone to have a choice or say in there votes because they are voting for that person because they think that they are best to run the country or a certain roll in congress. So it may seem really crazy to think we need this but we really do so that congress doesnt fall and then conflicts come. We need this to have everything in congress and the people of the U.S. to run corectly.
Thank you for going out of your time to read this Mr. State Senator.
Sincerally, PROPER_NAME | 1 |
Driverless cars may sound like a perfect creation but for me im not to sure if i agree with it. In passage 9 it states that " if technology fails and someone is injured ,who is at falut the driver of manufacturer"? This could be the altimate problem with building these cars. Unfortunitaly heres some facts about what I think so.
Yeah sure you would want to own a car that drives it self. Thats like the american dream, I mean who wouldnt. But there comes a time on the road that technology just cant control. With the use of sensors that can tell you when and where something on the road is coming up or if you are in a dangerious position is cool. But in the process of that happening is the technology reaction time to the danger fast enough to avoid it? Thats something they dont tell you. With the fact of technology not being that advanced at the time, this would cause loads of accidents with the cars. These accidents would sturr up all kinds of problems. Such as law suits from someone with serious injury, or maybe even lead to death.
BMW was only able to get a car to control its self at 25mhp in 2013, But the driver had to keep hold of the wheel. Gm created the vibrating seats for when cars are backing into danger, But what about the danger ahead of them. All these things that can cause major safety issues are being over looked.
Designing a driverless car is a good idea but in passage 8 it states "why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver"? This brings up all sorts of commotion about the driverless car. For starters if you say your designing a car that drives its self, why do the car still needs assistance from a human? This becomes even more of a problem when you have states that dissagree with the driverless car and have laws that go aginst it. Laws focus on the safety of alert drivers, passangers, and pedestrains. How do you expect the cars to do the same?
Automakers are hoping that the asumption they have made on the problems for these cars would be worked out. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have the driverless car by 2020. But will they have all the right features to make sure there car in safe. Or for the fact of can the car operate it self as if a human was driving? Will these cars be able to withstand the dangers of the road or traffic jams. Are these cars going to have the alerts the roads? The biggest question of them all how would these cars know how to get to where the person is going without the help of the driver? None of these things was answerd of explained in the passage. But for the idea of a driverless car I personally dont agree with it.
In the following passages above I explain my thoughts on the creation of a diverless car. Leaves breif details on how I feel about it with supporting facts from the article. With all this being said I think my point is very clear on how i feel about the matter at hand. | 3 |
The new technology called the Facial Action Coding Sytem would't be valuable computers to identity human emotions.
First,Dr Huang and his colleague are experts at developing better ways for human and computers to comunicate. Dr. Huang think that it won't make a differences by the new techonlogy. Dr. Eckman has classified six basic emotions-happiness,surprise,anger,digust,fear,and sadness-and then associated each charachteristic movements of the facial muscles..Using video imagery,the new emotion recognition software these facial movements in a real face or Mona lisa. If a computer could identity then it should identy all 44 major muscles in the movement like humans.
Second,"the facial expressions for each emotion are universal,"observes Dr. Huang."A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confued or bored"Dr. Huang predicts."Then it could modify the lesson,like an effective human instructo.""Most human communication is nonverbal,including emotional communicaton,"notes Dr. Huang."So computers need to understand that,too."
Then,Your home PC can't hanlde the complex algotithms used to decode Mona Lisa's smile. But we can wrtie down some simple instruction that"encode"different emotion. In fact,these are the instructions for a face that looks happy. It;s all about those muscular action units. Humans could tell a friend is feeling simply by he look on her or hise face. Of course,most of us would have trouble actually describing each facial trait that convy happy,worried.
Finally, A classroom of student could identify more then the new technology could do. Sometimes,human might smile from the outside but human could change their feeling. A classroom of student could see their friends by thier looks.
Conclusion,The new techgology won't be valuable to read the expressions of students in a classroom because empathy may happen. | 1 |
Exploring Venus
Is Venus worth pursuiting? This question is asked by many like the authors of this story. The author told both sides of the story. He told how Venus has dangers but did say why we should go . I think the author supported his idea well.
The author did say many dangers like in paragraph 3 "over 800 degrees Fahrenheit" and "highly corrosive sulfuric acid in venus atmoshere". He also said that venus is often referred to Earths twin and that
"Venus is the closest planet to earth in terms of density and size". In paragraph 4 it says "the planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters". This means that Venus could have once had large bodys of water and could of supported life just like Earth today.
"Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for planetary visit" said the author in paragraph 4 but getting there is not so easy "given the long time frames of space travel". The author gave one idea from NASA in paragraph 5 that "would allow scientis to float above the fray" and aslo said "imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape". This would keep the scientists out of dangers conditions. in the sky he temperatures would be around 170 degrees but "solar power would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth".
But "orbiting safely far above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions" said the author because of how dense atmophere is. living far above th ground could make it hard to " smaples of rock, gas, or anything else. But "NASA is working on approaches to study Venus" says in paragrph 7. "Another project is looking back at an old technology called mechanical computers" said the author in paragrph 7. "by comparison, systems that use mechanical parts can be made more resistant to pressure, heat, and other forces". says the author in paragraph 7
The author told both sides of the story. He told how Venus has dangers conditinos but did say why we should go. he told way we could fix and how we could go to Venus. this why I think he supported his idea. | 3 |
NASA thinks this is from a alien face or a human ? Why ? This nis a natural landform , you can tell it is because a human couldnt have did ths in outer space without dieing . This could be a alien face , it could posibly be alien face or some type of uter space species because this is in outer space .
I can tell you that this is most likey an alien figure or some type of outern space figure because it is outer space and there is no way a human can do that . But although a human couldnt put their face there and die they could have made a
human shaped sculpture and put it there for people to belive that there are such thngs as aliens . The NASA just wants ople to believe that there are such things as aliens or martians becuase years back people have thought they seen signs of aiens . But i belie that this is a natural figure and this could be a normal thing to see outer space , but not normal for humans to see on a daily bases without tinking there are a such thing as aliens . | 0 |
The negative things about driverless cars: onr thing about drivless cars is that they can drive them self during construction work. They also take alot of parts to make them. such as sensors these sensors make that the car realize what it's finn
to
run in and is can also let the driver know to. It can let the driver know by alerting the drive to stop when the car is to close to something
and when to turn its wheels. even tho that smart cars can read positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code these smart roads system still require massive upgrades to existing road.
Now for the positive and negative things about driverless cars: some positive things are that the drive most of the time on their own, they are way less polutated, they also are not truly driverless, drove over a million miles without crashing, and ect.
Okay now lets talk about the positive and negatives. These driverless cars are very non-poluting because, they use half the fuel of a modern day taxi and they are far more flexibil than a bus.They might not be driverless all the the time but for the mostn of the time they can proceed to watch the driver while the driver watches the road.Not only do these car drive themselves they have drover a million miles without any car crashes nor accidents. some states limited these cars but they only did so until they can be proven safe. This because they still need to make laws in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. if the technology fails in these cars and some outside and side gets hurt, who is at fault-the driver or the manufacturer.
But still automakers are still working on the assumption that these problems would be resolved. In 2016 telsa projected that a car would be able to drive on autopilot 90 percent of the time. But still i think that we should give the cars a chance to save the fuel in these cars and to have a good ecomony. I hope that by the end of 2020 that Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan will develope these cars to. | 3 |
I think Facial Action cording system should not be able to identify human emotions. As in pargraph 1 it says, "She's 83 percent happy, 9 percent disgusted,6 percent,and 2 percent angry". What if those percentages are wrong. Those percentages could not be real just by looking at the image she could of been happy. Those emotions are just identified by a computer, not all technology could be right. The computers/technology just identify but could be wrong by looking at the face of the image/picture they have used to dectect the emotion.
As in pargraph 3 it says, "The process begins when the computer constucts a 3-D computer model of the face". Ther computer cops the face of the image and copys and make it 3-D. The expression is compared against a neutral face. The motion that is shown is showing no emotion at all which. The computer that they use shows wether the face is happy or sad.
The computers use calculation to show wether the face of the image is happy or sad. There is certain muscles in every face that make the bonestructor make it what you look like. There are six emotions that are used every day sad,mad,happy,scared,disgust,and susprised. I think computers/technology should not be able to dectect the emotion just by what the picture/image looks like. There muscles that move in your body every day that is called an "Action unit" as it says in pargraph 3. | 1 |
I think it should be the most votes each president because it should be majority rule so if many people pick one president and the other only gets a couple the one with the most should win because the peoples voice should choose who is over them.
Also because if everyone vote for this one president there electoral college can still vote for the opposite of them and go against the ones that want to vote for that particular president.
The electoral college vote is unfair to some people because they only have like a 50 percent chance to get the president they want in the white house.
If the congress or whoever was to abolish the electoral congress vote I think we would see numerous of changes in our past history and our future, so in the end it is basically like all of our votes are going to be voting vor the electoral votes then it goes to the president voting. After so long many people are going to stop voting, but not all because some people like it this way. the reason to that is because so many people are going to pay attention to their votes not being counted to the presidents voting stand. And since they know their vote is not being counted many people are going to stop voting. | 1 |
WHAT IS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE?
DOES THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WORK?
''THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS A PROCESS NOT A PLACE THE FOUNDING FATHERS ESTABLISHED IT IN THE CONSTITUTION AS A COMPRIMISE BETWEEN ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT BY VOTE IN CONGRESS AND ELECTIION OF THE PRESIDENT BY A POPULAR VOTE OF QUALIFIED CITIZENS''.THIS PROCESS CONSISTS OF 538 ELECTORS. ALSO EACH CANDIDATE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN YOUR STATEHAS HIS OR HER OWN GROUP OF ELECTORS.
"WHAT HAVE RICHARD NIXON, JIMMY CARTER, BOB DOLE, AND THE US CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, AND THEIR AFL-CIO ALL, IN THEIR TIME, AGREE ON"? THE CORRECT ANSWER IS ABOLISHING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. PEOPLE AY THEIR ARE THINGS WRONG WITH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. THAT IS TRUE. ONE OF THE TINGS THAT IS WRONG WITH IT IS "UNDER THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM , VOTERS VOT NOT FOR PRESIDENT, BUT FOR A SLATE OF ELECTOERS, WHO IT Turn elect the president.
these Are what the electoral colleges is and the goods and bads. | 0 |
The author says that exploring and studing venus is worth because it ould represnet another plate where humans coud live but the conditions to go there are very dangeuous. Venus is actually one of the cloest to earth because it had everything earth does such as mounaisnand stiff . Bujt thre are several challenges to go there first of all the weather is 800 degress farenhight . We in earth are closer to mars in distitance . A spaceship hasn't toucehd venus in more than threee decates and scientist are working on ways to get our robots to go there and do some reachers and for the robots to actually last there since the temperatues arevery high . Venus has the hottest surface than any other lanet in our solar system. Venus has errupting volcanos and earthquakes and has lighting strickers frequently . My concution is that they should at least wait until they have really good technology andactually send a space shift of something similar so they can take studyines on venus and see if humans could last there of wha tother ersources they might have . | 0 |
There are many advantages to not driving or not owning a car at all. Though i have a vehicle and do drive it the world could be a much better place if people did not use their cars so much. In this passage i will be telling you some advantages of not driving so often. So lets get started.
The first advantage i am gong to talk about has to do with pollution. The exhaust from our vehicles is terrible for the atmosphere and creates smog. one major occurance of pollution from cars afecting the atmosphere occured in Paris where tehy had to enforce a partial driving ban to clear the air. There have been many other cases of this same thing being caused by cars so too much driving can and will harm the atmosphere.
Another advantage to not driving so often is that it saves money. Not driving so often saves money in many ways one being that you dont have to pay for gas as often. Also if you never buy a car in the first place you will not have a car payment every month or an insurance payment. So save yourself some money and stop driving everywhere.
The last advantage of not driving so often that i am going to tell you about is that you will not be as stressed. Driving can put alot of stress on a person one way of doing so is road rage. Road rage can be causd by many things such as people driving to slow or not paying attenion to other drivers around them. Some people also get stressed when they are drivin somewhere they have never been before.
So all together driving less often can help stop pollution, save you money, and cause you less stress. Driving to much is a bad thing for us and the environment. So when possible walk, ride a bike, or carpool to get where you need to go. | 1 |
Dear State Senator,
I firmly belive that the electoral college is no longer applicible in todays political world. There have been a number of occations in the past were the electoral college has failed. For example in 2000, al gore won the popular vote, but lost the presedency. If we live in a deomcorcy the people should be the wons deciding our leader and in this case they did not. The electoral college must be fixed or exsponged imediatley.
The electoral college is unfair to voters. The cannidates can take advantage of a states population by only campaining in the states that "matter" to them. The president should not be determined by a couple people here and a couble people there. It should be determined by everybody that lives in america. Not a individual state.
The biggest problem here is that we (america) are so much more advanced then the system we have right now. Over 200 years later and were still using the same system. There is so much more room for improvment but that is not happening. The advances weve made in so many aspects of goverment are not being translated into the electoral college. Its time for a change in our favor.
In conclusion, the entire electoral college needs some major renovations. I ask for the issue to be reconzied and for a change to happen. I thank you for lisening to my opinion.
Farewell | 2 |
In German suburb's, life goes on without cars. There is a new experimental district, that allows people to see how much you don't need a car for. The new district without any cars, has stores and malls in walking distance. so there is no need for a car. Which can save a person lots of money.
People have sold there cars to live in this new district. But if you moved with a car, when you buy a house. And a 40,000 dollar large garage on the edge of the development. The residents also say that not having a car is a lot less to worry about. And the Unite States is promoting car reduced communities.
Paris bands driving due to smog, Paris was forced to enforce a partial driving Ban. When days of near record pollution was getting higher. If u were cought breaking the band you would be fined. They lifted the band when the smog cleard enough.
Paris has more smog than any other European Capital. But diesel fuel was blamed, cause they have a tax policy that goes for diesel over regular gasoline. Although Beijing, China is the most polluted citie in the worlde.
Car-Free day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota. Car free day, is when no cars are allowed on the road except buss's and taxis's. People walked, biked and, road bikes. Other Colombian cities are joining the year around event. People from different countrys came to see this event, and were enthusiastic about it.
The end of car culture, people have been buying and driving less in the past years. The amount people drive now is what it was in 1995. Also there as been a large drop in people geting there permintas and licenses, from 16 years old to 39 years old. And people have been taking public tranporstion and car-pooling more. | 0 |
The Face on Mars were just made from nautral landforms. In my opition I don't really believe in aliens. I will give you reasons to support why and why I think their just nautral landforms.
Some people believe in aliens and that the Face was made by alliens ,because after NASA unveiled the image for everyone to see it caught the attention of people everywhere. The "Face on Mars" became known everywhere. It became featured in Hollywood flims, appeared in books, magazines, and even haunted grocery store check out lines. Who wouldn't believe the Hollywood flims and books? Everyone beliveved and some still believe the films and books. Be carful what you believe. Sometimes it's not true like the aliens.
On April 8, 2001 MGS (Mars Global Surveyor) drew close enough for a second look at the Face and mars. They had to roll the spacecraft 25 degrees to the center of the Face. Malin's team got really good pictures using the camera's absolute maximum resolution. In 2001 each pixel had to be span 1.56 meters, compared to 43 meters per pixel in 1976.
Some people were going over the photos and if there was any kind of objects or Egyptian-style pyramids or even small shacks. You could see it. There is a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height of the Face.
The Face is a natural landform. I hope you think so now too. | 2 |
In the article "Driverless Cars Are Coming," the author describes where the cars are now and how they are effecting society.
Even, after reading the passage, I don't believe that driverless cars should be a reality right now.
Maybe in a few years, when changes are made for safety precautions, but in the now, we can handle driving on our own.
Having the "smart roads" equipped with electrical cable or magnets, as General Motors and Berkeley engineers did in paragraph 3, would never work with rebuilding all new roads all over the world just for these cars.
Imagine the time and money spent just for these roads to be built.
And what will happen once the passengers are on a road without these "smart" adaptions?
Because of this, the next version of this driverless car is to rather equip the car with sensors and not the road itself as the Toyata Prius did in paragraph 4.
But no matter how many sensors, lasers, or recievers you have on this driverless car, artificial intelligence will never be as smart as human intelligence.
What will happen when a deer jumps out from a field, a pedestrian rides his bike, a child's ball bounces out from her yard, or a pothole comes near comes bouncing from her yard? Will the sensors and lasers notice the change and react as fast a human would?
Even if there is still a driver in the seat, as said in paragraph 8, what will keep their attention on the road and not fixated on their phone or other passengers?
No amount of buzzing or flashing lights will get the attention of the driver to whatever accident may occur quick enough to make a change.
If anything, the displays will make the driver panic in such a way that will make their safety decline further.
Driverless cars are especially targeted to keep those who would normally drive while under the influence of alchohol and others safe from them.
But once again, what if something should come between the car and where the car wants to go?
The "driver" under the influence of alchohol cannot to anything otherwise, especially with the displays distracting the driver further.
Without these driverless cars those under the influence would normally grab a taxi or ride home with a friend, but with the driverless cars, he/she would be a potential threat.
In conclusion, having driverless cars in the world would not be nearly as safe as human intelligence.
The driverless cars will be more of a distraction on to the passengers and essentially, will not help any of the passengers nor pedestrians around them.
There are much too many scenarios that could go wrong rather than if a human driver was actually in control. | 2 |
Today I will be talking about my opinon on driverless cars. I think that driverless cars are not really that safe because if cars have trouble with actual human driving them what makes people think to make cars without humans driving them. I also didnt think General Motors created a concept car that could run on special test tracks because, I asked my grandma who is a retired lady from General Motors and she had no clue at the time.
There are a lot of people in this world that have many different opinions about cars that can go places without a human driving it. Cars can be smart at times like it says in the passage but, there not that smart to not have a person behind the wheel in my perspective. I think that would cause a lot more accidents and there's already enough of those every day.
I can say one thing though. If we could have a car without a person driving it that can be good for people that does not like strangers in cabs driving them around so maybe if there was cars without humans driving them that would be good and people could be a lot more comfortable. Also, that could prevent kidnapping as well. Because i've read articles about people getting kidnapped by a cab driver which could be the worst feeling ever.
For the most part, there are good and bad ways to not have a human driving a moving vehical. But not all good opions are safe either. Even though many others could have different responses and opions about how they think about driverless cars, these are jus mine. | 1 |
Dear State Sentator,
A lot of chatter about weather the president should be elected by electoral college or by popular vote is going around my school for the past couple of weeks, and i can't help but to give my own opinion about this argument. I believe that the popular vote should descide who is the president.
I believe this because of two reasons. One, the citizens are the ones that are going to have to deal with this good or bad president for four years and possibly eight years. Also the satate senators can be bribed by one or the other candidates running for president. This candidate could have the worst plans for the next four years and all because he cheated to win. This could cause riots and uprawrs around the United States.
Two, Electoral College is unfair to voters because of the winner-take-all system. What this means is that candidates are not going to focus on the staes that they know they wont get any votes from. for example in source tw, during the campain of 2000, sevebnteen states were not visited by either candidates so they didn't get to see any campain ads. this is unfair because it makes it harder, alomost impossible for these states to choose on who to vote for because they had no presentations to choose from. this puts to much power in the candidates hands.
Some may believe otherwise. For example, since the Electoral votes are from very experienced people that have put there life and time into knowing about what is right and wrong. they are much more experience than the normal citizens. Also Electoral College prevents run-off elections to occur. for example in source three, the electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes casted. This causes lots of pressure which would greaatly complicate the presidential election process. With Electoral Collage, this produces a clear winner.
In my own opinion the one that decideds the winner is popular votes. There can still be Elector Collage votes, but the Electoral votes have to much power and is unfair to the citizens of the united states. | 3 |
Clearly with all the evidence that I have proves that The "Face on Mars" is just a naturual Landform. Researchers have done way too much to prove that it is not a face but only a landform. Everybody's opinion on The "Face on Mars" doesn't effect the truth behind it. Based on the passage, In paragraph 3, it explains that NASA unveiled the image for everybody to see. They explained that it was just a "huge rock formation" . . . which resembles an illusion of eyes, nose, and mouth formed by shadows.
There is also more reasons as why this is clearly just a natural landorm.
NASA had to make sure they were correct on there research, therefor the orbiter camera team snapped a picture ten times sharper then the original Viking's photo. Which then clearly proved that there so no alien movement after all and once again that it was just a natural landform.
NASA's group didn't yet give up there research on the "Face on Mars". they rolled there spacecraft 25 degrees to center the face in the field of the view to make sure they didn't miss anything. In paragraph 11, It explains that if there were objects in this picture like airplanes on the ground or Egyptian-style pyramids or even small shacks, you would be able to see what they were. Which clearly proves that NASA did all the research but yet could not prove anything but a naturual landform.
To conclude my argument, throughout all the research proof and examples i have stated. There is absoulty no research explaniations that proves that the "Face on Mars" is anything but a natural landform. Which clearly means that NASA's research is correct and all the research they have done to make it clear was correct. | 2 |
Dear Mr. Senator,
The Electoral College is ruining everything that our fore fathers have worked for! When Americans vote, the majority believe that they are voting for the President of their choice, instead they are voting for a group of people, who will hopefully vote for the candidate they had wanted. The Electoral College is wrong for many reasons, but I'll narrow it down to two for you; People are voting for electors, not the president and electors might not choose the President based off Popular vote.
First, The Electoral College is wrong because voters are voting for electors not the President. When voting there are two groups of people voting for the President; the People and members of the Electoral College. Members of the Electoral College are actually choosen by state legislatures, meaning that their can be a point in time where the statre legislature chooses to pick a certain group of people based off of their political party. In 1960 the state legislature almost replaced the electors from the Democratic party; meaning that even if most people voted for Kennedy (the president at the time) he would still not be elected because electors would not vote for someone who was not apart of their party. It's happen before, so who's to say that it won't happen again.
Second, electors may or may not choose the President based off Popular vote. Even though if we did base the presidental election off of Poplular vote people might vote based off of region, meaning that most people in the south would vote for someone like Romney, but we have to consider that not everyone in the south would vote for one person. Also it is also true that it electors rarely vote against the Popular vote, but it is possible that the majority of the 538 electors will vote against the people.
In conclusion, The Electoral College should be terminated because People are voting for electors, not the president and electors might not choose the President based off Popular vote. In 1960 the state legislature almost replaced the Electoral group, meaning that the Popular vote would'nt even matter against the Electoral College. Also the Electoral College may acknowledge the Popular vote, but still vote for a different candidate. If you do choose to help me terminate the Electoral College, I say we try to get help from the guy who actually played the "Terminator" I heard that he is part of the government system in California now so he could probably help us. | 3 |
I would love for you to jopin his career in Sesagoing Cowboys . We aren't just some npeople who sail the seas right Charels ,"Yep". if you care about animals as much as I do you would join us today. These animals need someone like you . Thec greatest thing is you meet so many people .
If you do join I hope you beat my record for most missions completed 9. It's only nine becase it takes years to cross the ocean . On this ship you can be your self . And did Italk about the trips you take . The only thing you know about the trips you don't know the trip itself .
My favorite parts is the traveling and the games after the trip .
Like boxing baseball ,volley ball , and more . On the way you are always with friends and animals . So , now you get to keep the animals as pets .I now got one queston for you are you ready to join . | 1 |
In the article "Driverless Cars Are Coming," the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driveless cars. However, many feel that it is very dangerous and that many may abuse the technology of a driverless car.
In the article it states that the smarter cars cannot do certain things such as park. In a few states it is illegal even to test computer driven cars, such as California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia, which have led the country to allowing limited use.
In the article it also states that the smarter cars may need human assistance, so to occupy the human, while the smarter car is working, some maufacturers have decided to put a form of entertainment and information systems that turn off once the signal that the human needs to take over the vehicle. Which many believe to be reckless.
These two examples clearly demonstrate why smarter cars shouldn't be allowed. Smarter cars are a risk to those that have them and those who do not. | 1 |
In "The Challenge of Eploring Venus," the author supports the idea that Venus is a worthy planet for exploration. Even though it is very dangerous to explore he/she explains how Venus might be one of the planets humans will want to vist because it could hold secrets to our planets birth and death. Then they tell in full detail how we could possibly vist Venus safely. These few key details help the author build and support the suggested idea that we should vist Venus.
First we must know that going to Venus will not be easy for humans to do. In the text the author writes,"A thick Atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clouds of highy corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere. On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet." This further proves that Venus is going to be a serious challenge for man kind to vist because of the crazy condtions humans will have to face.
In order to vist venus safely we need to be able to plan a way to survive Venus's extreme conditions. In the text the author provides examples of how humans will do so such as,"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has one particularly compelling idea for sending humans to study Venus. NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray. Imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above roiling Venusian landscape. Just as our Jet airplains travel at a higher altitude to fly over many storms, a vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly ground conditions by staying out of their way." This futher proves that traveling to Venus in the furture is possible. Also that scientists are coming up with ways on how we can safely get to Venus's surface.
Most importantly Venus could help us understnad more about space. In the text the author writes,"If our sister planet is so inhospitable, why are scientists even discussing further vists to its surface? Astronomers are fascinated by Venus because it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system." This point further proves that Venus is a place humans should want to explore because it could hold answers for Earths begginings and how it might end. Also Venus could hold secrets about our universes beggining and end.
In concusion the author proves that Venus should be further investigated because even though it faces many dangers it is possible to vist. Also visting Venus could give humans valuble information on our planets life as well as unlock keys to how our universe could have begun and is going to end. The author does more than an perfect job at telling why humans should go to Venus. | 3 |
This technolgy of you can calculate the emotions of people just by pretty much just scanning your face is pretty cool. I believe that this is cool to have in classrooms and how teachers can teach us how to use this.
The reason why I do want this technology is classrooms is because teachers now can understand what is going through our heads when they are teaching a lesson. They can understand if we aren't getting the information that they are teaching into our heads. They can use this in the furture to better understand how to teach and how to make lessons better. This technology can change the world. This could also help in a school way by artwork like the Mona Lisa. With this technology we can now see her emotion, and with other paintings or artwork just like this. We can now connect to the artist who made it. People all over the world can now understand the artwork.
Another reason why I think we should use emotional expressions is because in the past we really can't know what a person is feeling. You can try and hide it or you can put on a fake smile and everyone believes it. We can use the emotional expressions to prevent sucide. 8th grade to 12th grade, everything is changing your friends, your family, your school, and your teachers. When growing up into a adult life can be very rough. This could help because now we ca see how needs to and how we can help them. In this acticle it says " classifed six basic emotions. Happiness, surpise, anger, digust, fear and even sadness." We can get emotions out of that are to scare to come through but are wanting help but dont understand how to. Doctors, and scientists are study even beyond how this works.
In this essay I talked about how an technology such as the emotional expressions can read off emotions. Teachings, changing the way how this could save people's life, and last six basic emotions. The world would change. | 2 |
There are different types of cars, small cars, big ones, different colors, etc. In general, we can say that cars have changed the world but, in what way? Well, people say that cars has been very useful to us all, but in reallity it has been harmful to not only us but the earth aswell. In many countries they are banning the usege of the cars because of so much pollution. Studies show that in Europe "passenger cars are responsable for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions" and to make matters worse, it is "up to 50 percent in some car-intensive areas in the United States." This shows how much cars have been harming the earth by increasing the greenhouse gases.
On the other hand, some people have been getting rid of their cars because their country charges them fees for having a car and for parking aswell. Other places where pollution is at the top like Paris, have banned car usage on certain days for people and if they fail to not us their cars they will have to pay a fine. All of this, causes tension and stress as a matter of fact, a woman once said "when I had a car I was always tense, I'm much happier this way." Limiting or not using at all your car can free you from tension and stress, also reducing pollution which will help your health.
Furthermore, studies show that in the United States people are buying less cars than before and less people are retaining their drivers license. This is something good because one of "President Obama's goals is to curb the United States' greenhouse gas emissions." This shows how many people are trying very hard to reduce car usage which will reduce pollution. Even young people who are considered rebels of the streets are taking this into consideration because studies "found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009.." People are aware of the changes that are going on like what a professor said "different things are converging which suggest that we are witnessing a long term cultural shift." Reducing or limiting car usage or not using cars at all will not only help you, it will help your neighbors, your family, and most important the earth, where we live in. Take it for granted that this will change the world once again. | 3 |
The Untied states of america have some of the most interesting history in the world from their food,people to the govrnment. They have a system of govrnment called a representative democery in this system they elect people to represent your groups need and want,but the thing that makes them intereseting isn't the way they run their country it is the way that they elect their representatives.
They use what is called The electoral college to elect their leader this system has it's problems, for an example the people aren't voting for who will be their leader other wise know as the president,but for the people who will vote for the president. Even though this system has it's down side it also helps them in a lot of ways. this stops you form having a popular vote meaning more then just two parties can send their rep.
Do you know the saying if it is not broken don't fix it well the Electoral college is that system america has use this system for so long and they aren't the type of people for change that fast, farther more the Electoral college is only used for the president compare the two system by looking at their other branchs their all doing pretty bad right now. Thats why if it ain't broke don't fix it. | 1 |
The founding fathers established the Electoral College in order to compromise between elections of the President and vice president. This process has help us to elect great presidents in which changed and make our Americas history. The Electoral College is a great process in which we should keep doing it. I favor in keeping the Electoral College because it is a faster and reliable way of electing the president. For instinct, " The Electoral College process consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President."(Source 1) All the 538 electors that is part of the Electoral College represents millions of people. In order to count all the vote takes a long time so, the Electoral College is a faster way of electing the president.
The Electoral College has a certainty of outcome for who is going to be the president and vice preisdent. But, the electoral college has an invariably exceeds their share of the popular vote. What that means is that, if the popular votes get 55% of your votes but, the electoral college get 62% of your votes. The votes from the popular votes and the electoral votes have different percentage. For this problem you cant really predict what the Electoral College will elect.
The electoral college in toss-up states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign. Because of these states like Texas, Florida, California, New York, and other states that have large amounts of Electoral College; they are more likely to vote knowing that their votes are more important because of the winner-take-all method. "The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states lose by virtue of the mal-apportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution."(Source3) This explains that the electoral college is a process that is relivent in keeping some power to the people.
The bad the thing about the electoral college is that the people dont vote for the president , but they vote for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president. This process is not always fair because if you live in florida and you wanted to elect James but slate of 29 Democratic electors pledge to Don, so that means none Replubican electors pledge to James. This means your vote dont really effect the election. This problem is argued and complained with many people. The problem of a tie could happen too but the probility of that happening is not likely.
Overall, the electoral college is process that is fair in most terms. It is a fast and reliable way in which I personially insist and favor of keep doing because the electoral college has help people to reconized the importants of people views and making people reconized how important it is to vote for their government. | 3 |
The article "Driverless Cars Are Coming" is something new the world is bringing. When I read this, their are both possitive and negative things happening. I am against the idea of having driverless cars. There could be many things that can go wrong with a car driving on its own. I strongly belive having all these fantastic ideas that your driverless car can do to be save but, this could be more deadly then somone driving on their own.
Driverless cars are just like robots. Robots can easily break down for all different reasons. When a robot breaks down, it starts to act all crazy like and the person can no longer control what the robot is doing. That could happen with the driverless car. If a person was on a highway heading somewhere and their driverless car starts to break down, it could start acting up. It wouldn't just put the driver in danger, it could affect someone else in the car or on the road too. The driverless car could start to not be able to control itself and go off the road or, have buttons on the car to turn on to do something not needed. Anything with a driverless car could be bad or go wrong.
To get your license, you have to take driving test and go threw classes all just to get your permit and license. Wants you finally have your license you can go off and drive. The people who were able to get their license were smart, responsible and independent people. When your on the road, you should
always be careful no matter what. You are the adult driving with your license being save. Why have a car driving you around places. What's the point working so hard to get your license when you have a car driving for you. All that hard work would be pointless. Also, in the article it talked about how the person with the driverless car would be board just waiting to take a turn to drive.
In conclusion, people who get there license want to drive. They like to drive. Why have a car drive for you when your smart enough to drive somewhere. It's more safer to drive on your own because, your smart and always aware when something is wrong. Your driverless car can detect that too but your alive, not your car. Lastly, in the article it talked about how it was illegal to have driverless cars in some states like California, Nevada, Flordia and District of Columbia. If other states allow driverless cars, the people in the states that can't get them would be mad and jelouse. They would think that would be unfair. If you only own driverless car you would have to rent or buy a car just to go to those states like Flordia to go to Disney World. I strongly belive the savest way is to drive on your own without anything controling you. | 3 |
Come with me on an awesome adventure. You should join the Seagoing Cowboys program. What would you say if one of your friends asked you to go to Europe on a cattle boat. I don't know what you would say, but I would say yes. I think you should say yes too.
I would go because it would be an amazing adventure. You would learn so many things that you would normaly not learn as an average high school student. World War 2 just ended in Europe. You want to see the aftermath of some of the cities are.
Every city that he stopped at, he could go to a cool muesuem or go somewhere amazing in that city. Every 18 year old would rather go to Greece than staying at school working on worksheets. Luke and Don got to take care of animals. They also took care of people who didn't have a lot of advantages.
Wouldn't you want to play some fun sports with you friend. Think about your favorite sport. You could play any of those sports. From baseball to table-tennis. You could have a really fun time. There were more things that they did to pass time. If you were tired you could sit in the shade and read you favorite book that you brought.
This would be somebodys dream to join the Seagoing Cowboys program. You should join the program today. You can also invite one of your friends just like Don Reist did to Luke. This is why you should join the Seagoing Cowboys. | 2 |
Recently, in many countries around the world, there have been actions made towards the reduction or complete banishment of most automobiles in order to help advance society. In Paris, there was a law enacted forcing drivers to leave their cars at home every other day. A majority of the reasoning behind such a ban was the pollution that were constantly emitted into the atmosphere. This is not only accepted by the general public, but some even say that their stress was much lower than with automobiles in daily life.
The people who give up their vehicles to live in Vauban, Germany report having less stess than when they did use cars as daily transportation. As stated by Heidrun Walter, a media trainer who lives in Vauban, "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way." In this experimental surburban community, places to park a car are forbidden in most areas. They go as far as to rid of all driveways and parking lots in the community. This cerates more spaces or businesses to operate, causing all stores to be built closer to households. This in turn makes getting to and from places faster and safer. The people in Paris also prefer the decreased amount of vehicles during rush hour, which allieveates their stress tremendously when navigating the city. This has affected less major cities also, such as Bogota. Their annual car-free day has lead to the construction of over 118 miles of bicycle paths, which is the longest amount in any Latin country. Not only that, but other recreational activity centers have also emerged throughout the city, according the mayor of Bogota.
Pollution has had a large impact in large, car-intensified cities like Paris, which was, at some points, comparable to places with the most pollution. The smog eventually resided, but some aspects of the ban still remained. The cars there typically use diesel over gasoline due to tax policies that prefer it specifically. Thus, about two thirds of the vehicles in France prefer diesel engines, which are to blame for the smog that engulfed Paris. According the New York Times, Passenger cars in Europe are responsible for twelve percent of the total greenhouse emissions. The percentage in the United States is over four times that in some congested areas.
The cities of Paris, Vauban, and Bogota are few of the many global areas that have taken on the challenge of removing cars from their daily lives, which has benefited both their health and their environment. This is a part of the long-term shift in our societies' way of commuting from one place to another. The amount of people going to get driver licesnses has been on a decline since 2005 in the United States, and is projected the continue that path for a long time. In fact, there was a twenty three percent decrease in young poeple driving form 2001 to 2009. People are alreading seeing the benefits of decreasing the use of cars, and the amount of traffic is only going to keep decreasing. As a local businessman in Bogota said, "It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution." | 3 |
Some resones to join the program are that you can help people after they have had a hard time. The situation from the text is after World War ll there was alot of destruction in Europe. So Luke went over to Europe to help people get thier lives back. Being a Seagoing Cowboy wasn't all just work you also got to travle the world and see cool places. He said that he and other people on the boat had fun on the way back.
He said that he saw some cool places, and did cool thing, like seeing the Panama Canal or go on a gandola ride in Veince, Italy. Whe the stalls were emty ,he said, that alot of guys on the ship would play games to make the time pass. Some of the games that he had mentoined were baseball, volleyball, table tennis, and many others. They helped pass the time by playing games, is what he said.
I think that he made it sound very appealing to be a Seagoing Cowboy it definetily had it's up's an down's. Like cleaning the stals would be a down, and a up would be playing games. Also being able to go see and do things in other parts of the world. | 1 |
Dear senator,
Retain the Electoral College. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors and a majority of 270 electors is is required to slect the President. Each state has his/her own electors which are chosen by the candidate political party. You should keep the Electoral College because you have certainty of outcome, and the President is everyones not just yours.
The first reason why you should stay with the Electoral College is because you are certain that the outcome will be in favor of one of the candidates. A tie in the nationwide electoral vote may happen but it is very unlikely that it will even though that 538(number of electors in the Electoral College) is a even number(S.3).For example in 2012's election, Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral votes compared to 51.3 percent of the popular cast for him and Romney because all states award electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis even a slight plurality in a state creates a landslide electoral-vote victory in that state(S.3). However,because of the winner-take-all system in each state,candidates dont spend time in staes they know they have no chance of winning, they only focus on the close,tight races in the "swing"states(S.2). But, the winning candidates share of the Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote.
The second reason you should keep the Electoral College is because the president is everyone's. The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have trans-regional appeal. No region has enough electoral votes to elect a president by themselves. So for example,a solid regional favorite,such as Romney was in the South,has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his plurality in states he knows for sure that he will win(S.3).A president with only his regional apppeal is very unlikely to be a successful president. The residents of the other regions may feel like there votes dont count or that he really isnt there president.
In conclusion, you should stay with the Electoral College simply because you most likely not going to have a tie and because the president is everyone's. | 3 |
Limiting car usage would have many advantages to the community around it. But the main two advantages to limithing cars is the reduction of polution,and also the reduction of congestion in many suburbs. Many cities including Bogota,Paris,and cities surrounding those have already started to limit the usage of cars.
One big problem many scientist are beginning to find out about our world is that our ozone layer is being desroyed by polution we put in the air. A big contributer to polution is the exhaust being produced by the million of cars used everyday. Another big problem countrys all over the world have to worry about is smog,or a thick layer of fog that is really hard to see through. having this very dangerous factor in the road many car crash ratings have sky rocketed. One way this can be stop is to do what these few country have been doing, that is to have days through out the year where people cant use their cars at all. To help in force this day police have been giving people fines roughly around thirty dollars. In Bogota,Colombia it was the third straight year cars have been banned. after all these years of banning cars the turnout was large. despite gray clouds that poured rain all over Bogota. When the smog went away from Bogota many other cities from Colombia have joined the event of banning cars. a qoute from
Car-Free Day is Spinning into a Big Hit in Bogota says that " Parks and sprots centers also have bloomed throughout the city; uneven,pitted sidewalks ahve been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks; rush-hour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic; and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts ahve cropped up". To have these results to such a simple idea is incredible.
Another big problem in pretty much all countrys is congestion of their inner streets. When streets have major traffic alot of things change including the mood of people,and there is a higher percentage of car crashes. To fix this problem many cities did pretty much the same as before to retrict cars on certain days. A brilliant idea was presented and used in Paris. The idea was that "on Mondays motorists with even-numbered license plates were ordered to leave= their cars at home or suffer a 22-euro fine ($31), The same would apply to odd-numbered plates that following day". After this brilliant event finished congestion was down sixty percent in the capital of France, and after five days the smog was gone.
In conclusion the advantages of limiting cars had a far greater output than input and has also solved many big problems. All we canhope for is the parcipitation of more and more countys or cities to help lives and our world. | 3 |
Dear, Senator
There are many ways in keeping the change to election by popular vote for the president of the United States instead of keeping the Electoral College. The Electoral College is a difficult process to go through. The Electoral College consists of the electors, where they vote for the President and the Vice President and also the counting of the elctoral votes by Congress. Electoral College is unfair, outdated to the voters, by using the election by popular votes for the president of the United States is fair to voters because they get to choose the person to run the office for four years.
To begin with, in favor keeping the change to election by popular vote for the president of the United States is very helpful for the voters to vote easily to choose and listen to the candidates to see who will be great to the world. In source 3: "In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President" by Richard A. Posner in paragragh 20 states, "Voters in toss-up states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign-to really listen to the competing candidates-knowing that they are going to decided the election". What this quote is trying to say that letting the voters choose and listen to the candidtes very carefully to decide on the election, who will be helpful. Letting voters vote are likely to be the most thoughtful voters, on average and that they will recieved the most information and attetion from the candidates. By aruging keeping the popular votes for the president of the united States is very fair to the voters.
Furthermore, the people such as the voters help choose the state's elsctors when you are voting for the President. For example, in soruce 1: "What Is the Electoral College?" by the Office of the Fedral Register in paragragh 6 say, "You help choose your state's electors when you vote for Presidnet because when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate's electors." This quote explains that the voters get to choose the President but it's actually voting for the candidate's electors. It's more easier keeping the popular vote for the Presidnet of Unites States instead of keeping the Electoral College because its a difficult process to go through.
Its true that election by popular vote for the president of United States is a good argument for the voters to choose wisley. As this can be seen as in source 2: "The Indfensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong" by Bradford Plumer in paragragh 9 states, "This year voters can expect another close election in which the popular vote winner could again lose the presidency." For example, in the 2000 U.S presidential race, Al Gore received more individual votes than George W. Bush nationwide, but Bush won the election by receiving 271 electoral votes to Gore's 226. By keeping the popular vote for the President of the United States is more easier for the society instead of using the Electoral College.
In Conclusion, why keep the Electoral College, when you can you use the popular vote.
So by keeping the popular votes is useful to let these people vote on who they want to choose. So by other people perspective, you should keep the popular votes.
Sincerly, anonymous, hopefully your satisfied. | 3 |
Did you know that in that in 2016 a projection was made by Tesla for the release of a car that can drive by itself with no human assistence 90 percent of the time driving? Many car companies are considering this new technology for their own car brand, but is it really in the best interest of the drivers? Driverless cars are a dangerous creation because driverless cars are not soley driven by humans, the technology of the car is not guarunteed to be cooperative at all times, and there is the danger of law suits going against the people who manufacture these automobiles.
Automated driving is projected to be driven by the technology that it is equipped with most of the time. This is an unsafe idea because technology has proven to be faulty with many other inventions. This technology also encourages texting while driving. Not only is this against the law, but it is creating detromental habits for the drivers of the car. The car is in autopilot, but if the car malfuntions the driver may be too distracted by their phone to correct the mistake.
The technology of the car is the same as any other technology. New drivers may learn only how to drive an automated car. This can lead to carelessness and irresponsibility. If the innovative technology were to suddenly stop working, run down, or go into hyperdrive it could leave the car completely abliterated. This new technology is in no way completely trustworthy and will require many tests to prove the sucess. The technology of the car will also more than likely come with an extremely high price which few will be able to afford.
Lastly, the dangers of this car are high. Not only are they high because of the safety gear price , but it may also come with a price for the manufactureer. There is the chance of large lawsuits and sueing against the companies creating these cars. If a human was to gets injured in an accident created by the car, or if the car was bought with faulty technology, these companies could be facing extremely large law suits with multidigit numbers in cash.
Overall, driverless cars are an unsafe idea. This car could leave a lot of damage to many. Driverless cars a bad idea because they are not soley controlled by humans, the technology of the car is not guarunteed to be cooperative at all times, and there is a danger of lawsuits going against the people who manufacture these automobiles. | 3 |
It's 5:00 am and you just wake up for school, but how do you get to school? Studies show the the majority of highschoolers drive. But many dont realize what emissions from fossil fuels do to the enviroment. Smog can destroy the ozone layer and induce toxins into are bloodstreams. Some countris have been inducing partial bans on cars. Limited car usage from these bands can help reduce smog, increase air quality, and save money.
The first reason why Limited car usage can be a good thing is because it can reduce smog, in heavily crowded cities passerby cars make up over 50% of fossil fuel emissions. Thats over half! reducing car usage can save the enviroment from pollution. in paris driving was partially banned for about a week and the smog in the city was reduced by almost 60%. just driving every other day instead of everyday could help your local enviroment immensly.
Secondly, Limited car usage can increase air quality. The use of less fossil fuels causes less carbon emissions. Carbon emissions can decrease the amounts of oxygen levels in the air. So to put it simply, less driving equals better air! It's that simple.
Lastly, Driving less frequently allows you to save money. Gas is expensive, the average American spends over 15% of their income on gas every year. That can really add up. I'm sure theres a million other things you would rather do with your money than pay for transportation. Many transits and buses offer free transport as a substitute. That's right, Free!
The reasons above are why limited car usage can be a good thing. So what if you have to ride a bike or use public transportation. Don't reducing smog, increasing air quality, and saving money seem more important than your complaints about sitting next to someone on the transit. Think about it. | 2 |
Ever thought of driverless cars? Sergey Brin (google cofounder) has and envisions that public trnasportation will be equipped with this new found technology in the near future. Driverless cars are very convient, they are saught after, but have not gotten far with awmakers. What do you think of cars that require little human help?
Driverless cars are extremely convienient. Firstly, the cars can handle most driving functions at 25 mph. For example, they can steer, accelerate, and break. Yes, they do still need human interractions for accidents on the road and work zones. Secondly, the GM have invented vibrating seats for whenever the car may be in danger. This is very helpful for people who may overlook a pedestrian walking behind the car. Lastly, flashing lights on the windshield and other heads-up displays are at work for the driverless car. These details from the prompt show why the driverless car is a steal.
The driverless car has was first braught up by smart roads. Firstly, smart roads like the one first invented by General Motors, was the first step to driverless cars. Engineers made an electrical cable track specifically desgined sense where the car was. Secondly Toyota Prious used postion estimating sensing to calculate where the car may be on the road. Lastly, in the 1980's, automakers used speed sensors for anti lock wheels. These details from the article show how this smart car was brought up and experimented on. | 1 |
The Face on Mars is very interesting. For many years people have thought it was aliend created. But our photographs clearly show the Face on Mars is not alien created because we have the best cameras we could get, but in 1998 they had the best cameras they could get but they were very weak, and the Face is a natural landform.
In 1998 the cameras they had were very weak they weren't like are cameras today. They are only fourty three meters per pixel which is not a lot. The cameras also captured shadows, so that interfeared with the picture and could make it look like something else. Also the cameras were weak and not very strong.
The Face on Mars is also just a natural landform, formed by the winds and rocks and the planet moving. It's also a big rock which is in the shape of an oval which is probably why people think it was alien created. Also the shadows were there because of how weak the cameras were in 1998. The landform the rock formation is called is a mesa.
Also in 2001 we had way better cameras than in 1998. Are cameras were stronger. They also had less pixels per frame. The pixels per frame were 1.56 which is great. The camera also zoomed in and could see the Face on Mars close up. The camera also took a nice clear photo rather than the one in 1998.
Because our photographs show you that the Face on Mars is a mesa. We concluded that it is not an alien created face. The image can clearly show you how it looks and that there is no face at all. | 2 |
Driverless Cars is hard.Because the Driverless Cars don't have a complete system and some suddenly thing happen it still need the driver.
Now lots of people said drive cars is fun.Because We enjoy the process of vehicle communication.
Although the Driveless cars are easy to drive, but it has a lot of security risks. For example when a pedestrian suddenly appears in front of the car, if the car's speed is higher than twenty-five miles per hour, the car can not automatically brake until the stop.As mentioned in the article:In 2013, BMW announced the development of “Traffic Jam Assistant.” The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. If a Driverless cars still need a driver be there so why you call it Driverless car?
The second aspect, if you enjoy driving, enjoy the communication between the car and you, you need to drive their by yourself, just like your pet, you are the owner of it, you will understand his habits, the cars is the same.
The traditional driving mode can not be replaced, the concept of a brand of every brand is not the same, such as BMW, it is the pursuit of driving quality.
But the Mercedes Benz driving model is comfortable, if each manufacturer are manufacturing unmanned car, then they will become the same product, they will lose their own brand culture, so the car market will be turned into a disorderly.
Why is there a lot of expensive models in the world for hand made? Because the designers want to communicate with people through the vehicle, to tell us their different views on the car, so please do not let Driverless Cars replace the traditional driving mode! | 2 |
I think that people should be able to use there own car when they to for there to get around aleats lower gas prices so people want be in there cars much as they u to be. Some people need to use there cars for the onlu way for transpartion to get doctors and dentisis appoinments they can also use there cars less because there wasting valuable resources in world because gas makes the car so that a valuavble resources we need to keep so maybe if people stay out thers cars it will make the gases prices go down they you can use for only if really need if you the car as a emgercy.
Why are there no cars on Vaubans street but expect there are only a few down town in but thats only if you are ride the tram to get around. I think every state should have a trams and bus and bullets trains to get them to one to another that would totally cut out the numbers of cars you will see on the so why not consider trying a new idea to get cars off the road maybe invent something that will occupie peoples so they want have to you there cars to get around I am try it and see though it might be good thing to do.
Why do people by more than one car its only one of them and mulitiply cars so why waste money more than one car when you can sell your for things that are important like paying a bill or get gorcery for you house or just helping otherss out so i thing that dumb for peole to have more than one car if you are not going to use the cars all time I understand that celebrites haves mulitiply cars because they show them but the car usage is still high but people can do what evere they want with there money who I am just a boy i coming telling you people with more than car is really really ricdulious to but hey I am going sit back and let people use up there gas in there so be it. | 1 |
Given all the facts about driverless cars, I still think driverless cars should not be a future technology. They are too costly, mostly require the driver to maintain contact with the wheel and in the case of an accident, who would be the cause of it?
"Driverless cars" is a broad term. Mostly because all the current driverless cars require the driver to maintain contact with the steering wheel and stay alert at all times. Not only that but the cars can only "handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph," which is not that fast. This is why the term :Driverless Cars" should be renamed to "Assisted Driving Cars."
Another thing to consider is the cost of all this. One fact is that "in the late 1950's, General Motors created a concept car that would run on a special test track." Even though the roads worked and did what they were supposed to, having to upgrade every road to have that feature was unquestionably exspensive. So that never happened and everyone decided it was time to move away from the roads and go into the cars themselves, via making them driverless.
Last but not least is the accidents. Accidents happen every now and then, but even though the cars are banned in most states and they have only driven "more than half a million miles without a crash," a crash would most likely happen if the cars were sold commercially. But in the case of an accident, who would take the blame? The Driver or the Manufacturer? I believe it would be the driverless car fault.
In conclusion, I wouldn't want cars to be on the road driverless, because the money,time and resources needed to do that. | 2 |
Using this new facial technology would be vastly benefital in the classroom. Students sit through seven hours of school a day and not every class is going to be their favorite, with this technology the school can figure out what lessons, classes, and teachers are making students the happiest and are the best. Many emotions go undetected, they cause bad grades, lack of motivation, and depression. Not only can the program detect emotions but can alert the teachers if a student needs help. It can prevent self harm, school targeties, and safety hazards. The system would not only help education wise but mental health wise, and create a safe environment to learn and grow as people.
Everyone has a different learning style, and if a teacher can see that that student is struggling and adjust the lesson for them, it would be very benefital for eveyone. Dr. Huang says, "Most human communication is nonverbal, including emotional communication". Many teachers ask thier students to ask questions as they are learning new content, but no questions are ever asked and bad tests scores come back. This could of all been avoided if the program could have seen the bored expression on a students face and a teacher could have changed it to prevent him from falling asleep. Or the confused look on a girls face, so the teacher could have come to help her instead of her asking for help from a friend who misinformed her. The computer program can take all the error out of emotion calculation, "most of us would have trouble actually describing each facial trait that conveys happy, worried, ect."(5). We would become far more accurate as a whole group, eveyone learning in school could become more inteligent, and we would become happier people.
If the computer could detect a worried or sad emotion, the people around them could resolve the issue much faster and prevent anything bad from happrning. Our society as a whole would be far more advanced and left off better if we integrate this new advancemnt into our everyday lives. School could be turned into a place every student wants to go, and the success rate could also be increasing, with the new lessons and teaching styles being integrated for students. The computer program would make schools a more efficient productive place. | 3 |
Driverless cars would increase the safety of driving on roads.
Driverless cars take away issues like human error.
Driverless cars would also reduce crashes, and deathes, involving drunk driving and texting while driving.
These would still be issues, for with all rules some are broken, however with driverless cars the effects of these incidents wouldn't be nearly as costly.
Driverless cars allow for total control of the car at all times, something quite difficult for a human driver to achieve.
Using devices such as the LIDAR and GPS, the car would have complete awareness of its surroundings, while a human driver can only strongly focus on a single direction at a time.
With driverless cars including precautions such as the car alerting the human inside if they need to take manual control of the car, driverless cars are never truly driverless, almost like with an airplane.
There is never only one pilot, the main pilot always has a copilot to take control if there is an issue that the main pilot can't handle alone.
The main causes of car crashes are human error related, such as driving under the influence or texting while driving.
Neither of these problems will have as huge of a cost to them if there are driverless cars involved.
The driverless car will be able to respond to a stopping car faster than a person if they had been texting.
Driverless cars will improve the quality of driving, as well as the safety of driving.
In driverless cars, humans can be productive in other areas, such as doing homework or finishing a file report for a job.
With only limited focus being needed of the human while the car is driving, the human's time can be managed more effectively.
Having a computer drive the car would reduce the number of crashes that occur from drivers falling asleep at the wheel as well as other crash starters.
All in all using driverless cars would greatly increase the quality and safety of being on the road. | 2 |
Dear Florida state senator,
The Electoral College may seem like a great thing to have but I think it may not be the best idea. There are plenty of reasons and one of them is that it is kind of unfair that we really don't get to vote. We vote to see who is more popular with the people but if the Electoral College wants someone else, they can vote for the person they want. People think they are voting and no one else is making the decision for them but they are being lied to. It is an unfair way of voting and is is non-democratic way in most people's eyes.
Although, most of the time the voters get who they voted for, it happened to not be that way one time. In 2000, Gore had more popular votes than Bush but Bush won because he had more electoral votes and the people were angry. The Electoral College didn't go with what the voters wanted, but what they themselves wanted. People are being lied to that they have a say so in who should be president. Yes, most of the time they go with the voters but at any time they can disregard the popular votes and vote for who they want. If that's the case then no one should vote since they basically only have an opinion on who should be elected.
I said it was a non-democratic way before and it really is. It isn't really a free way of voting, we give an opinion and the Electoral College votes for whoever. It fits back when America was just becoming America, but it is too old now. When the Declaration of Independance was made and a little while after that is what time era I think it should have died out. It is other people voting for us. In America, we have a voice, we can state opinions, we can vote too, but the Electoral College votes for us. It is telling our opinion, it is telling who we want, but why can't we have direct voting? It just isn't fair to the voters because they aren't really voting, just expressing an opinion.
Speaking of unfair, the number of electoral votes each state gets is outragously unfair! Why is it based on the number of people in the state? Why can't people just vote directly and not have to worry about how many electoral votes they can get? For example, Florida has 29, Texas has 38, and Claifornia has 55. They are all big numbers and they can easily make a huge impact on who becomes president. The less populated states on the other hand, don't really do much justice. Maine has 4, Hawaii has 4, and Alaska has 3. It seems really unfair to those states because they have a small chance of actually making any sort of dent in the numbers. Alaska's numbers compared to California's numbers is just really unfair. If people were able to vote directly, then it would be fair game for the states with fewer electoral votes.
In the end, people know the Electoral College is an unfair way of voting. People are lied to about being able to vote because it is not direct because it is the Electoral College decides anyway. The state numbers are really unfair, it is a non-democratic way of voting, and people think it is way out of date. If the Electoral College were to trade spots with the voters who aren't in it, I'm sure they'd say that it is really unfair. People don't really get to vote, if anything, there should be direct voting like most people believe there is. It would be more fair for states like Alaska and all the other states with really small numbers. I'm sure it is easy to keep track of the numbers with electoral votes, but yet like I said, it is really unfair for the smaller populated states.
Yours sincerily, Alexandria | 3 |
I think that driveless cars should not be allowed in the U.S becuse, they can be a danger to the citicens, or people on this planet or they might start messing up and might cost a lot of money to repair.
First I think that driveless cars should not be allowed because they can be a danger to the people of america, they can develop a mind of their own or they ,ight cost too much money to fix or mechanics may not be able to fix them, they weren't trained to do those type of cars.
Another reason, is that companies might stp making that much gas because we would have robotic cars and they might not run on gas so companies might not make that much money so they might slow down on producing gas and it would just cause a lot of problems.
Also, why driveless cars should not be allowed is because what if thr robotic driver and a human get into a car accident the judge or whoever is handlling the case wouldnt know who to believe so probably the human would be at fault most likely. | 1 |
The use of technology is getting advanced more and more as each day goes on. So by now we should be able to know is Mona Lisa was smiling or not. Now these days technology is informational and often true so why shouldnt we belive the results.
In the first paragraph its states she is 83 percent happy,9 percent disgusted, 6 percent fearful, and 2 percent angery. By looking at the painting you would probaly belive that because she is smiling, she couldve been fearful because she didnt know Leonardo da Vinci, and she couldve been angery because at the time she wouldve had to be sitting there for hours until he finished or he would have to start all over. In the passage tehy dop have good evidence if you studied anatomy you would be able to understand how all the facial expressions work. They even claim that da Vinci studieed anatomy which helped him paint her facial muscle precisely. They even teach you how to make the same face she made in the painting.
Based of the information they staed in the passage i do believe that the teachnology called Facial Action Coding System can identify human emotion. | 0 |
About twenty-five years ago, something happened around Mars. NASA, snapped photos of the object. On Mars, there is a face printed on the plant. People think it was created by aliens. NASA said it was created on it's own. Scientists figured it was just another Martian mesa. Those are common around Cydonia. A couple of days later NASA saw a nose, eyes, and a mouth. Everyone belived it to be a face of an alien, but NASA said it's just a face on Mars.
The face on Mars has become a popular icon. It has starred in Hollywood films, appeared in books, magazines and more! Some people think the face is "bona fide" evidence of life on Mars. Defenders of the NASA budget wish there was an acient civilization on Mars. The face, is located at 41 degrees north martian latitude where it was winter in April '98.
Mission controllers prepared to look again. Mars Global Surveyor is a mapping spacecraft that normally looks straight down and scans the plant like a fax machine. Thousand of anxious web surfers were waiting when the image first appeared on a JPL web site. The pictures were revealing a natural landform. Each pixel in the 2001 image spans 1.56 meters, com[ared to 43 meters per pixel in the best 1976 viking photo.
"As a rule of thumb, you can discern thinkgs in a digital image 3 times bigger than the pixel size". In egyptia-style prramids or even small shacks, you could see what they were! There must have been a degree of surprise among mission controllers back at the Jet Proupulsion Lab when the face apperared on their moniters. NASA, a few days later, unveiled the image for all to see. The authors thought it would be a good way to engage the public and attract attention to Mars.
What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a buttle or mesa. Landforms common around American West. People say thst it's a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars. | 2 |
Have you ever wanted to know the advantages of limiting car usage. Well you will be surprised of all the postive reviews the news has brought us to read. Limiting car usage has so many advantages that we cant see for ourselves such as citizens getting more exercise in Vauban, Germany. Less accidents and traffic jams occuring in the major cities and highways in our world, and there are less deaths that happen in our world today by deadly crashes for poor driving.
Based on source 1 it explains ''how people get better exercise with banning car usage''. Imagine living a healthy life by walking everywhere you go you would be so much more healthier with your lifestyle and how much you change dramatically by folowing the rules unless you want to get a very expensive ticket from the local police officers. I would recommend you to take this opportunity because it's only going to benefit you and everyone else if you tell them the same information.
Based on source 3 in Bogota, Columbia it explains to us ''how there is less accidents and traffic jams that are occuring everyday due to the limited car usage based on number 20 in source 3''. But they still offer bus and taxi transportation for individuals that want to travel or go to work based on what they decide to do. So imagine a world without rarely any accidents that get our citizens killed just for lack of use from driving cars.
Based on all the sources ''it also tells us that less people have death casualties ocuuring daily from car drivers that use it with no responsibility and no courage''. With less people dieing life would be so much better for everyone to hang out with there families and there friends or girlfriends and boyfriends. Limiting car usage can make this ocuur so much successfully by the bad ones to just take a bus or taxi instead of getting in the cars to just hurt someone by accident or on purposeby there lack or driving.
Altogether limiting car usage makes our world have so many advantages that we have never had before. Such as the less accidents, and traffic jams that drive people nuts. And having so less deaths our world has to face everyday from someone lacking there driving skills. Now lets get in those buses and taxis and forget about our cars please. | 2 |
This to my state senator and I wanted to talk about the favor of changing to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. The reasons to change to elction by popular vote is because under the elctoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president. Also, the Elctoral College is unfair, outdated, and irrational.
The reason why you change to elction by popular votes is because under the elctoral college system voters vote not for the president, bur for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president. There's been argument about this change. For example, the single best argument against the elctoral college is what we might call the disaster factor. This can turn in to the 2000 fiasco when was the biggest election crisis.
The Elctoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. This also confused voters sometimes when vote for the wrong candiate. The most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the elctoral vote. This can make the election get thrown to the house of representatives, which make the state deglations vote of the president. The Electoral College is unfair because of the winner-take-all system in each state candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning. For example, during the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, includin Rhode Island and South Carolina.
In Conclusion, this is in favor of chaniging to election by popular vote for the president of the United Staes. Is to change elcetion by popular vote is beacuse under the elctoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors. In the Electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. | 2 |
It's already hard enough expressing your own feelings, but trying to figure out someone else's can be a real challenge. Feeling so many emotions at once can make people angry, frustrated, or even depressed because they don't know how to handle it all. Emotions are hard to explain, after reading the article and seeing that a computer can read them in the blink of an eye than it might be safe to say that it could help people more than they think.
The article says that the new program can tell even if you're faking a smile or pretending to be happy. Being a teenager, knowing when someone is unhappy or pretending to be happy can be big thing. They might need to talk to someone but don't want to show it because they don't want to seen as weak or feel more emotion than they already do. If teachers had this technology in the computers to know how a student is feeling in class it could be a huge adavantage. That way a teacher can try and talk to the student or keep a close eye on them to make sure they get better. The article also says "... you can probably tell how a friend is feeling simply by the look on her face". It's easy to fool someone with a look but this technology can analyze each muscle in the face and tell how the person actually feels. Isn't it important for a teacher to know how a kid feels? They can't pay attention as much if something on their mind is taking most of their attention.
When walking into a class, you can tell what kind of day it will be by seeing everyone's expression on their face. Throughout the day though, there can be so many different emotions going around. From a bully you can feel scared, sad, worried, depressed, and so many other emotions but you can't say anything because you're also afraid of the situation getting worse. Anyone can fake emotions and people do it everyday just to get through it all. When no one is around though that's when we can let it all out and hope the next day will be different. How this technology can help is seeing if a student is feeling the same everyday whether it be a personal problem, bullying, feeling alone, or even depression. It can get worse everyday, but if a computer can see that it is faster than anyone else and alert a teacher that something is wrong then thats one kid saved from a whole life filled with those emotions. It could prevent the emotions after being bullied, after a loss, or even suicidal emotions. The hard thing is trying to connect with that person so they have the trust and strength to open up.
It's not easy opeing up to someone. People go around saying "it isn't hard" or "the sooner you do, the sooner you'll feel better!". What people sometimes don't think about is that how hard it really can be. The person trying to help can't feel those emotions; they don't know what the other person is thinking about. The student could have a hundred thoughts going on inside their head but they don't wanna talk about it because if they do then they have to deal with all the emotions at once. It's easier to hold it in than letting it all out. The technology is great and could help a lot of kids in need of someone or something to show how they truly feel. When a teacher sees how the kid feels, they can try in every way possible to make that kid feel safe so they feel compfortable opening up. The article says that the software reads the different muscles in our faces to show how we feel even if we are faking it. It's like a lie detector for emotions! If a kid had someone walk up to them and ask if they are okay then the kid might lie; this program could help show what's wrong without the kid saying a thing. It shows all the emotions the kid is feeling and then someone can help get down to what is making them feel that way.
People feel different emotions everyday, and we, as people, make those emotions. We can create laughter to make someone feel happy or we can bully to make someone feel like they're nothing. How people feel is something that seems only humans can explain, that no tech in the world can feel the same as we do. Fortunetly, this tech doesn't have to feel, all it has to do is show what we feel. All we have to do is decide if we want to give it a chance or keep putting on that fake smile. | 4 |
I think it is a great trchnology in human history. i agree the value of using the techology to read student's emotion.
in the university of illinois, Dr.Huang created a computer software which can identify person's emotion on their faces. here are some of the oppenents why i think that is the good technology in our life.
first of all, this inventor can be use in many way in our normal life. for example, making friends. sometime people alwasys struggle when they don't know each other's emotion. if we have this system and we can know their emotion without to ask"how are you". we also can use this to know the person like me or not. it can bring lots of convince into our life. to calculate your friens feeling simply on thier face and know them more. Human is the creature which has the most emotion in the world and if we can recognize other people's emotion, it can help our social communicate.
secondly, our laptop will get this softare in our future so that the laptop can tell we are board or confused. espectialy in school, computer can recognize student are understand the knowldge or not though the emtion.
Dr.Huang also proved that we express our emotion though our face muscle. to a expert, faces don't lie because of your muscle of the face. this technology is really accurate in some way to know people's emotion | 1 |
The driverless cars could still be dangerous. Maybe it stops working, or maybe something goes wrong. You can never trust a car because eventually everything stops working at some point in time. But how you know if this car is stable and good for you to drive. I guess we will find out.
Yes, it tells you have you make it and that they will test drive it for you but how exactly do you know that its safe to driver. A car driving all by itself coud go wrong i mean you still have to help stere it when there's like construction or a car accident up ahead. But if the car is sepposed to drive by itself if should be able to do that to because the car drives by itself. Driverless cars are scary if you think about it because something could go wrong when you're driving it. It could stop stereing by itsef and what are you going to do nothing because you can't if a car stops it's stereing. What would you do if the wheels stops sensoring the brakes and you need to stop everything could go out and you would be able to fix it. If you stay with the cars we have now you could take it into the shop have them look at it and tell what's wrong with it, and they can help you fix it. We have enough laws as it is, added more for a car that needs a law for liability in an accident just for the car, no thank you. If you get in an accident is it your fault or the manufacturer? The manufacturer because why is it your fault when the car can stere itself answer that one for me.
So why would you want a car that is not for you? You dont. Do you want to get in to an accident and them ask you if it's the cars fault or yours, cleary its the cars, because " it can driver by itself."If the car can drive by itself then why do you need to take control for construct or a accident up ahead we shouldn't have to do that, that should already be programed into the car. So i will gladly not take one in 2020. | 1 |
The use of the facial action coding system in a classroom is valuable because it can prevent fights in schools. The Facial Action Coding System can also help students understand a lesson better by adapting to what needs to be changed. The article states "A classroom computer can recognize when a student is confused or bored and modify the lesson accordingly to the student's personal pace and speed.
There are six basic emotions which are happiness,suprise,anger,fear,disgust, and sadness. The article states"the facial expressions for each emotion are universal ".
The facial action coding system works by scanning the movement of your muscles 'in your face to see and understand how a student feels. Another reason this will be a valuable tool in schools is because it could have prevented a school stabbing in Pennsylvania because the Facial Action Coding System could have seen that if the student wasnt happy and was angry the staff could have stepped in and given the kid help before he did anything dangerous to other peers and staff.
in summary,The Facial Action Coding System can be valuable in a classroom setting by seeing if if a student is confused or bored and can modify the lesson accordingly. Another reason is it could have prevented alot of bad things from happening to schools. For example, the school stabbing in Pennsylvania by seeing that the kid was unhappy and angry and therefore, the staff could have stepped in and got him help before anyone was even hurt. The Facial Action Coding System is a very helpful tool. | 2 |
"The challenge of studying Venus" is a very interesting story. In the story the author tells us a lot about Venus and its harsh conditions. The title describes the story very well. Venus seems like it would be very challenging to explore and the author gives many reasons why it would be so difficult. For some reason though he doesnt really list any benefits to exploring Venus.
Throughout the whole story the author is just making Venus sound like a horrible place. In the article he writes " Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere." Again he is describing Venus to sound like an awful place, so why would you want to explore it. Another good claim he makes is that, "since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours."
Why would you go explore Venus in a space craft if all of them were destroyed. If it where me i would not want to explore Venus, the author has given me plenty of reasons not to.
Throughout the story the author does list at least one benefit to exploring Venus. In the story he writes, " it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system." Yes i can agree that would be a great reason to explore Venus, but here are the downsides to that. Venus now is not like Earth, it is more like a destroyed Earth. The author writes " on the planets surface tempatures average over 800 degrees fahrenheit." You cant even walk on the surface without burning up, how is this like Earth? The author also mentions," Venus was probaly covered largely with oceans." All those oceans that may have been their are gone now. Why would we explore a destroyed Earth?
In conclusion the author does not give many benefits to exploring Venus. All he really did was list the benefits to why we shouldnt explore Venus. In my personal opinion if i where a scientest and somone read me this i would not want to explore Venus. In the end i do not believe the author makes a good case to explore Venus. | 3 |
I don't think that the idea of a driverless car is a good idea. I feel as if driverless cars are just the fact of people being lazy. I don't understand what's hard about driving a car just for a short amount of time. Driverless cars might be a good idea for long road trips, but just think about how much work those cars would need if they broke down.
On the positive side these driverless car might be a good idea for someone that's always is on the go & they get tired of driving. It may also be good for the mothers of young children. Only when the child is crying the can have the car driving it's self while they get the baby in order. They should really make that a feature of the car. Other than that the car seems worthless & is just another car problem that us Americans would have.
Then we have the negative & I could go on & on about this one. Now having a driverless is just insane & lazy. First off what is the point of having a car if it's just going to drive it's self? I think it would cause more accident & like the article said; who's fault would it be the would the accident be on? Then insurance would be at an all time high, because the makers of these cars are going to find everyway to make these more advanced then the next, like I said in the first paragraph how much EXACTLY would it cost to buy A car like this or even fix a car like this ? Literally us as people only make enough to support our families & pay the bill. Having to buy these cars would be another thing to break us.
To wrap things up, in my opinion i think this car is something that they should second guess. It might benefit some people & others it might put a steep hole in their pocket. Once again i feel as if there is no purpose of having a car if you're not going to drive it. | 2 |
The era of mass car usage is slowly coming to an end. Many countries around the world are implementing innovative methods of limiting car usage in their country. Although a car may seem like the logical and easier way for one to get around, there are many other less costly, and better for the environment methods of transportation. It is crucial to the future of the environment for the world to act now and use less cars. Cars produce emisions that are very bad for the ozone. If the ozone tears, radiation from the sun will penetrate the atmoshpere and severely damage the earth in which so many life formes thrive. There are countless advantages of limiting car usage that would benefit all the world in the long-haul.
New communities are rising all over the globe where car usage is severely limited and all residents are pedestrians. It may seem like a dysfunctional community but the residents actually feel to the contrary. "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way," without the use of cars, residents and their families feel much more content. All the resources they need are within the community and definently within walking or biking distance. This is just one of many progressive ideas that has proved succesful and very beneficial.
In other cities where polution is very high, bans on car usage are coming into place very well. Citizens are discouraged by law to operate personal forms of transportation on certain days. This came into place in Paris after the whole city was drowned in smog. Smog is the pollution exerted from cars and mixed with fog. Although some people did break the law to use their car, it worked for the most part. Many people do not realize the the effect polution has on the environment until they are able to see pshysical change. That is why the world must act now before pshysical change can be seen globaly.
Change needs to happen now. Many communities are begining to see the effects of their cares and are using them less. Cars are a trend that is slowly decreasing. maybe one day, there will be no harmful car usage. Maybe one day. Change is a' comin. | 3 |
I do not think that driverless cars are necessary. As we know, a lot of drivers now aren't responsible while driving manually. How could they handle an automatic car? I also feel that not only will this car be very expensive to perchase, but learning how to use the car will cost a lot of money as well. Those who have been driving cars manually would need a lesson on how to control these automatic cars because it is completely different from what the whole world is used to. It would be like driver's school; therefore, that would be pretty expensive.
To begin with, cars now are already very advanced (sensors, gps, cars that can be charged, etc.) There are even sensors to help the driver on the steering wheel. Secondly, automatic cars such as these are illegal to drive is a lot of states, as someone could be injured or killed if the computer-cars fail. I don't believe driveless cars are any more safer than manual cars for this reason. | 1 |
The technology used in the article shouldn't be used to read students emotional expressions. They shouldn't because if a student is very sad or upset even angry you'll want to know why and probably ask them why they feel that way.
Some students might want to talk about it, but most probably wouldn't so it might make them even more upset or angry and sad if you ask whats wrong and they dont want to talk about it. Also if it a personal issue the student is having and they tell you what's wrong and you can't help them they might feel like they're doing something wrong and get sad or depressed becasue you can't help them. Also if this was used to read the emotinal expressions of students in the classroom I feel like it would be a distraction and take time out of the students learing to figure out how every student is feeling based on the facial expressions. Another thing could be what of the technology making this possible is wrong, so you walk up to a student and ask them why they're so happy but they are actually really sad. What if the student just changes their apperance to make them look a different way when they are read for their emotion. The last thing is what are the teachers going to do with the imfomation on how they think their students are feeling based on a facial expression. Maybe in a college where you want to be a consuler or something along those lines it would be a good thing to have to teach you how to read others emotions better, but it would be useless in a middle or high school classroom and just cause distractions.
This shows why I dont think the technology would be good in the classroom. Becasue the technology could be wrong. Students could change their apparence to seem a different way. And it's useless to the teachers to have this information. | 2 |
The Author supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents very well in this writting. Teh author is good at showing the two diffrernent sides to the agument but makes you agree with his stance. He used many diffrent examples and also gae a lot of detail in his writting.
To start off his essay with some facts and expalined what he was going to be talking about and some things about planets. One fact he used to start his essay off was " A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere." ( paragraph 3) This was a great way to start off the writting because he informed his readers about venus before he started to persaude them on a topic.
The author also displaces the oposing information which is always a good thing to do in a pusasive writting. An example of this is " Solar power would be plentiful and radiation would not exceed Earth levels. Not easy conditions, but survivable for human." ( Paragraph 5) This is higlighing that yes Venus has some dangerous things but is still worthy. So by doing this he is showing the dangers but then can back them up and say some good things about them.
Following this, The author was really good at making the dangerous stuff sound not as bad, one example of this is "Peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely for above teh planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions because most forms of light cannot penetrated the dense atmosphere, rendering standard forms of photography and videography ineffective." (paragraph 6) This supports that he is a good authour and deplaning his stance on the agurmeny becasue he can make the other side information help his stance in an way.
In conclusion, the author did a great job at suporting his idea. The diffrent ways of supporting it made it seem more persasive and he got across alot of ideas and information. | 3 |
In the article it talked about trying to travel on Venus. I would say to my best opinion one day we will have the technology to travel to Venus and stay their for my then a couple weeks and be able to learn more about Earth's sister planet. What i like a lot about this article it that it makes sure to talk about a lot of similarities it has to earth and as well as s lot of differences it has to earth as well. What I found the most crazy about this was that no robot or anything we sent to
Venus could survive the harsh conditions for more then a few hours.
When it comes down to it the aurthor as you can tell heavily supports the thought of traveling to Venus. I support It also because it never hurts to learn new things about someone or something, but I think the thing that is stopping us is the cost that it takes to send something up there and there is no point to just send someone up there to die. What i like about this article is that it talks about a lot of things Venus has in common with earth and a lot of thing Earth and Venus have thats different then each other. Somethings Earth and Venus have in common together is they are both reletivily the same and they are really close to each other in distance. But some differences are is Earth is ble top have life on it and Venus is not because the heat, pressure, and the chemicals in the air.
Dispite the want to travel to Venus and figure it out it seems highly unklikely because how dangerous the planet actually is. While traveling to Venus sounds like a really cool to do sometime down the future right now and I know we don't have the money to support a trip that far away even if its supposed to be close by. One of the main reasons I think scientists want to travel to Venus so bad is because they're always trying to learn new things and you can't punish anyone for wanting to expand there knowledge. In the end traveling there right now seems impossible because of the air, pressure and heat would kill any human very shortly afore setting foot of the planet, but i do beleive that one day we will diffinetly be there one day in the future. | 1 |
Many people think the Face on mars is a natural landform, but others think it was created by aliens. If there were an ancient civilization on Mars NASA would benefit from sharing their discovery with the public. Scientists figured it was another mesa which were common around Cydonia.
Some scientists believe it was in fact an alien artifact. On April 5, 1998, the Mars Global Surveyor flew ovver Cydonia it too a picture much sharper than the original photos. It revealed a natural landform which meant there was no alien monument. Some skeptics argued that alien markings were hidden by a haze. In 2001 another photo was taken. Each pixel spanned 1.56 meter compared to 43 meters in the 1976 photo.
The picture shows a butte or mesa which also appear in the american west. In this photo if there were anything abnormal you would be able to see it. Instead it is just a natural landform on Mars. | 1 |
Do you know about the Seagoing Cowboys program? If you don't that's okay, because I'm going to talk about that today. Oh yeah, I'm Luke by the way, anyways let's get the program.
The Seagoing Cowboys program is amazing you get to go to all of these beautiful places. The whole point of it is too help take care of animals, people, and even help built their houses (In Europe for know). The reason for that is, because the World War II just got done in Europe and everything is ruined there and we can help them. That's why we have the Seagoing Cowboys program to help what has been ruined in countrys. This is a good experience to help and see knew things. We're traveling on sea (I hope know one is sea sick) and the cattle boats are unbelievble. While we are going to help people you get to go past China, Italy and more places. This is a very amazing opportunity and I hope you do the right thing and sign up.
In this program you can save peoples lives and make them happy. Also you can see some pretty amazing things, and you can learn new things. I really hope you join. Thanks for reading! Bye! | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.