full_text stringlengths 737 20.5k | score int64 0 5 |
|---|---|
Do you think its is a good idea to limit car usage? Well i do and the reason for that is because more people now a days just have completely stop caring about the enviornment. I say this because more and more people are getting these big trucks and they are not realizing that when that truck starts it is letting out bad gases that harms our atmosphear.
I read that people are now getting fines in Columbia because of there cars and right now i think that's a good idea. I say this because people are just down right lazy and they need to get up and go exercise, they could just go walk or even ride a bike to where they have to go, it's really not that hard.
Next I read that president Obama has abitious goals to curb the united states greenhouse gas emission. I know that it will work out because I read that peopel think that america is pass the car age or what ever and that more and more people are starting to do whats right and start walking and riding bikes.
Now I have also read that Car compinies are suffering from that one day without cars thing because i think they fear that people might love the day without cars so much,that they just might stop buying them. Car componies are also suffering because I read that more and more people are becoming unemployed or they just cant affored it so they take alternet ways to get to where they have to go and they just dont worry about it.
These are some of the reasons why i think it is a good idea that we should limit the usage in this world because there are so many pro's and cons on why its a good/bad idea. | 2 |
The face on mars is just a natural landform , but John thinks it was created by aliens. The " Face on Mars " has since become a pop icon . The text says " It has starred in a Hollywood film , appeared in books , magazines , radio talk shows , even haunted grocery store checkout lines for 25 years!" This is basically saying that " The Face on Mars" has been around for several years.
John assumes that " The Face on Mars " was created by aliens , but from my perspective its just a natural landform. The text states in stanza 12 " What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa , landforms common around the American West." The text is basically saying the the face is a common thing . The photo in 1976 spans 43 meters per pixel . The photo in 2001 spans 1.56 meters . This means that peole couldn't really tell what it was they were taking educated guesses. The " Face on Mars " is actually called a mesa . Few scientist believed that the face was an alien artifact. The text states " Thousands of anxious wed surfers were waiting when the image first appeared on a JPL web site , revealing ... a natural landform . There was no alien monument after all." This means that Johns statement sayin that the " Face on Mars " was created by aliens is incorrect . Its just a natural landform , but not everyone was satisfied with the real answer . People think that NASA is trying to hide the real evidence . The text states " Some people think the Face is bona fide evidence of life on Mars, evidence that NASA would rather hide , say conspiracy theorists." The author only did this to attract attention for Mars.
Therefore , " The Face on Mars " is just a natural landform . The face on Mars has been around for several years . The author just wanted to get the public and attract attention to Mars. | 2 |
Do I support driverless cars or am I against driverless cars? Although in the passage, they talk about positive aspects of creating a driverless car, I do not agree in the making of them. Many consequences can come to play when manufactoring and purchashing these cars. I am against the development of driverless cars because, in my opinion they are a waste of time and a waste of money.
First of all, there can be a technology malfunction. When the development of the generic car is happening, the car gets tested to make sure that it is safe enough and won't be dangerous to the passengers. Putting more expensive technology into a car can be dnagerous and even deadly. Everyday technology even fails sometimes such as; celular devices, computers, kitchen appliances, even cars that already have a touch of technology.
What make you think that a car with more technology is safe for you. How can a diverless car be proven to be safe enough to trust a person's life. If an accident were to happen, due to a technology malfunction, what will the developers and the "driver" use to defend their case with. It is to risky to make a car with so much technology involved.
Second of all, what if an incident did happen? Whose fault would it be? If it were a normal case, with a normal car, it would be more simple to say which person to blame because both people would be driving. If technology was involved in the incident and it was a malfunction, it would be the driverless passenger. Then that passenger would bring up the developers as the one to blame. The develpoers have more money and more power than the person who bought the car. So they're going to do anything to not be the ones to blame.
Lastly, it is very expensive to keep up with such a luxury car. The parts would be more expensive. The development would be way more expensive. Where are they going to get all that money? How much would it be to purchase one? What if you get into a wreck? How much will it be to get everything fixed? All unanswered questions that people will ask when they're in that situtation. All those problems can be avoided by simpily buying a car with not as much technology in its interior.
In conclusion, I disagree with the development of driverless cars. They would be very unsafe. It would be more difficult to figure out who to blame for the accidents if they were caused by a driverless car passenger. And it would be very expensive. Other people would be exulted knowing that they dont have to drive, but keep in mind that a trip to the market, could cause you your life. My point is, technology is great but, would you really trust your life to it ? | 3 |
The author of "The Challenge of exploring Venus." Did a bad job of supporting his claims that we should study venus despites the danger that presents. His information was plentyful it gaves us a good idea on what he believes and whats happening to further their opinion. Unfourtanely it didn't provide us with enough good follow up supports.
First off with his first and second reasons being astronmers are fascinated by Venus due to the possiblity of it being it earth like previously and thats its still has some earth like features. This is stated in paragraph four as it states "Astronomers are fascinated by Venus because it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth." and "Astronomers are fascinated by Venus because it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth." Despite these good points he doesn't further it more in paragraph four he only states that it can be our nearest option for a plantary which adds nothing to the claim and isn't a good follow up of what they said previously.
His third reason is in paragraph 8 the last paragraph and it is"Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself. this is a really good claim but the author only follows it up wih human curiosty will just lead us into equally intimidating endaevors which adds pretty much nothing in regards to his claim. Paragrph 8 is the final paragraph and its a horrible placement to put your final reasoning.
Overall the author reasons are good but it lacks any follow up support to back it up. While giving information for context is great the author over did it and it took up the majority of the paragraphs leaving no room to put some of their reasons in more early paragraphs to catch the readers attention. Many follow up to their reasons added nothing to the authors claim making it usless information. It wouldn't have been so bad if the author hade made it less an info dump and more reasoning to help their claim. | 3 |
I feel like driveless cars are not the safest or most reliable solution to human driver cars. Sometimes electronics can malfunction so who's to say that the car will always stop, or that it will always tell you when to slow down. Although it says "driveless cars" the vehicles still require human assistance. Like the passage says "Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver?"
The companies that have tried to make smart cars say that smarter cars need smarter roads. For example GM created a concept car in the 1950's that could run on a special track. The track was embedded with an electrical cable that sent radio signals to a receiver on the front end of the car. Companies figured since they couldn't make the road smarter they would make the cars smarter. Manufacturers such as Google with the modified Toyota Prius uses lots of sensors, video cameras, radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. Also a Dubbed LIDAR is used to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the vehicles surroundings using laser beams.
In the 1980's automakers used speed sensors on the wheels for the creation of antilock brakes. Although sensors are not new creations the sensors on "driveless cars" tell the car when to slow down, speed up, or even stop. Companies plan on improving these sensors to make driving "safer" and so that the cars can actually become "driveless". As none of the "driveless" cars produced so far are not actually "driveless" but still require "driver assistance". Meaning the driver can't just sit back and relax they have to stay alert and be ready to take over if something should happen. GM has developed seat "notifications" that tell the driver when they are backing into an object. These seats vibrate to alert the driver of the objects behind them.
Some manufacturers plan on bringing information systems such as "heads-up displays". These information systems can be turned off as soon as the driver needs to take over. Automakers continue to work to solve the current problems with "driveless" cars. In some states it is illegal to even test computer-driven cars. These states will most likely allow them after they have been proven to be safe. \
In conclusion most driveless cars are still a work in progress and may still take years to perfect. More than just sensors have to be added to make it fully driveless meaning no driver assistance, no alerts, no seat vibrations, and no laser beams. Car companies have to make sure that the cars are safe enough to be on the roads before they release it to the public. Safety features such as the "heads-up displays" and more would have to be added to ensure the safety of the passengers. | 1 |
Dear,
State senator
I am righting to you today about about a very important topic, I am here to tell you that I believe we should change from Electoral College to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. There are many reasons why we should do this transaction.
First reason, why we should change to election by popular vote is because Electoral College is very unfair to the the people running for presdient, and the people voting. Its unfair mostley because of the winner-take-all system in each state. This system is ridicolus because a lot of candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the "swing" states. I know a lot of crazy systems like this are making people not want to vote anymore, which is not good.
Another great reason, why we should change from the Electoral College to election by popular vote is because of how out of date and irrational the Electoral College actually is. Us the people of the United States don't even get to vote for our next president directly, you help choose your state's electors when you vote for president because when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate's electors.
The last reason, why we should change over to election by popular vote is because of the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. The way the Electoral College handles ties is unprofessional to many, becasue all they do is throw the election to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president. The single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters.
In Conclusion, As you can see Mr. Senator Me and many others would really enjoy if the Electoral College was changed to election by popular vote. The reason being is because of how the Electoral College is unfair and irrational.
Sincerley, PROPER_NAME | 2 |
The landform on Mars is very similar to the mesas or platues of the North America's Southwest. The Face of Mars is indeed a natural ocurrance. It has been proven with some very expensive and accurate technology that it is not an alien artifact. It would be in NASA's interest to share it if it is an artifact. The first 1976 Viking photo is not creditable.
The credibility of the Mars Global Surveyor has been tested twice on the Face. It took its first picture of the Face in 1998. Sceptics blamed the weather for covering up "hidden alien signs." Three years later, the Mars Global Surveyor took another picture of the Face. This picture was taken with optimul weather conditions and on the highest resolution possible for that camera. The clearity showed that the Face of Mars was mearly an amazing landform, not an alien artifact.
If for some absurd chance it was an artifact of some ancient alien race it would have helped NASA. They could have recieved more funds to go explore and find remenants of the alien civilization. They would have told everyone. They could make a huge profit from it. NASA could get more money from investors and taxpayers. It would have been to there benifit.
The Viking 1 photo is 40 years-old. The quality of it is not near;y the same as the Mars Global Surveyor. The Face of Mars may have only been seen because of weather conditions that day. In 1998, the Mars Global Surveyor took a picture ten times sharper than the already 22 years-old. The Mars Orbiter Camera took a picture that was a lot clearer but still not good enough for some.
In conclusion, the conspiracy theorists have no reliable information. It has been proven by the MOC and the Mars Global Surveyor that it is just a landform. The 1976 picture is too old to be reliable. All it shows is a mesa with amazing shadows. NASA probably dreams it was an artifact so they could get a budget increase. All of these points lead to one obvious answer, the Face of Mars is just a mesa on Mars. | 3 |
The Face of Mars was created by aliens! No
it wasn't because it was a common landform in Cydonia and it looked like a face because it had unusual shadows that made it look like and Egyptian Pharaoh. The landform was called a Martian mesa, they are well known for looking like faces and are very common in Cydonia. If you think that aliens created the Face then how would it change over years and be in the land? I think that the landform was created by the erosion in mars and that it happens a lot.
Rock formations like the Face are well known in mars. But the Face was iconic because NASA unveiled the photo that was taken by viking 1 to the whole world and the world was surprised. They thought that the Face was created by aliens of course but that was because it was from a different planet and they didnt see all the other mesas that were in Cydonia. The photo also gave out many illusions of eyes, a nose, and a mouth. So people thought the Face was still created by aliens, but how? It couldnt have happened because the Viking 1 was snapping photos of the land form for 25 years and no aliens appeared in those photos.
The MGS and the MOC showed much clearer pictures than the Viking 1. The photos revealed a natural landfor not created by aliens. But not everyone was satisfied because the photo was taken 41 degrees north martian lattitude whre it was a cloudy time of the year therefore the MGS had to peer through wispy clouds to see the face. Maybe the alien markings were hidden by haze.
Garvin says "it's not easy to target Cydonia" because the MGShad to look down 2.5 km-wide strips. The MGS snapped the picture at he right moment if it didn't we wouldn't have a photo. But in 2001 on a cloudless summer day in Cydonia the MGS drew close enough for a second look Malin's team took one last photo in the highest resolution. Each pixel in 2001 spans 1.56 meters wich is way better than the Viking 1 photo in 1976. What the phos showed you ask? The 2001 photo showed what looked like a butte or a mesa often common in the west of the United States. It was a landform not one created by aliens.
"The aliens made it" you said, but it was a lava dome that takes form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on mars. This shows that landform do form in mars and on any planet. Although we don't know if aliens are real or fake they did not make this. To conclude things, The photo that was taken in 2001 gives you a vivid look at how the Face was formed and shows you how lava makes them. If you still think that aliens did this then you need to look at the photos more closely. | 3 |
This article tells us the challenges that venus has to lay for us but this auther has found the was we try to beat tose challenges like in section 7 last sentenes he say that if we can just fine the resouses to build somthing to hold that force that venus has we could fined a lot that we dont even know. Auther did a very great job finding his resouces and fact about his story he told. He's a hard worker because of this topic this isnt a everyday topic people talk about I love how he talks about the trips at the end of the passages that we might be able to go the venus and look at what its like on that planet. To support what ive been talking about in section 8 line 1 he says Striving to meet the challenge presented by venus has value I beleave that if we challenge are selfs hard and hard that we could be about to make it there and by him saying venus has values i bleave that if we got there we could possible be about to see if they ever had ocean or animals or plants just like us we all know that the plantes are almost the same but just have some slite differenes. This article is good for people how like space and sciences to learn about venus and what we want to do as later missions it is possible that somthing once lived on venus thats probablly why we call it the twin to earth because it just like earth but just the first stages of earth. | 1 |
Dear State Senator,
I am writing to you today to talk to you about keeping the Electoral College instead of changing to the popular vote. Their would be derastic changes if we switch.
First of all, the president and vice presidents election is held every four years which means that every four years the goverment needs to pay for all these polls for the Electoral College and the popular vote. Yes, I see that if we switch to the popular vote it would save money and you would not need to even include the electoral colledge anymore but, a counter of that is if a recount is called upon the our voting citizens then they need to go vote again and the govermeant needs to pay for all these polls. I am guessing that Electoral Colleges are alot cheaper to put together and easier. To keep the Electoral College would be cheaper in the long run.
Also getting all those American voting citizens to vote again,well thats another story. In many of the cases I have seen is that people want to do the least amount of work they have to do and making them go vote again that involves quite alot of work actually. Lines for polls can be out the door in some cases and most people are not that in to goverment in the first place. People are just flat out lazy Mr. Senator.
I also would not be very happy if the goverment had to do a recount on the popular vote. I for one dont want to have to go back up to the poll booths. That would be a insult to me if I had to do it all again because I have already broadcasted my opinion to the goverment once already. I for one dont want to have to do it again and I dont think anyone would want to. Hell,you may even start a rade or protesters,you never know intill you try. But be honest would you want to risk that. The Electoral College almost would never need to have a recount because of the small numbers considering how big Americas population plus, like I said before, it would be consideribly cheaper than the popular vote.
So their it is Mr. Senator do you want to start a state wide rade or have protestors at your door steps,do you want to have to get up and inconvinence your self because the goverment of America is now wanting a recount of the popular vote. I didnt think so. So now I hope you can make the right desicion here and stick with the Electoral College.
Thank you for the time you spent reading this and I hope it changed your mind or even strengthened your views.
Sincerily
Mr. Newport | 1 |
The challenge of Exploring Venus has been in minds for decades because it is the closes to earth which is why they call it earths twin. Venus aslo has the same density and size in comparison to Earth which in terms occasionally the closets in distance too. "Venus itself is right around the corner in space terms humans have sent numerous spaccraft to land on this cloud draped word". No human has never been to Venus in for good reason, which might be the issue that explains why not a single spaceship has touched down on Venus in more then three decades. The thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Whats more challenging is the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's amtosphere. Venus's planet surface temperature average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospher's pressure is 90 times than what people experience on Earth. The conditions are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth, environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of the oceans and also liquefy many metals. Take note that Venus is has one of the most hottest surface temerature in the entire solar system, though Mercury is the closests planet to the sun. But if Venus is so inhospitable, then why are scientists even discussing to move further visit to its surface. That is because Astronomers are fascinated by Venus because it most likely have been the most Earth like planet in the solar system. Venus has probably been the most largely coverd with oceans and possibly could have supported lots of various life forms, just like planet Earth. Venus has a surface of rocky sediment and includes simular features such as mountains, valleys and craters. Venus can also sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit, giving the long time frames of space travel. The value of returning to Venus seems "indisputable, but what are the options for making a mission both safe and scientifically productive. (NASA) The Aeronautics and Space Administration has one compelling idea for sending humans to Venus. NASA's possible solution to the rough conditions on the surface of planet Venus, could initually allow scientists to float above the fray. Put it like this, a huge blimp like vehicle hovering over 30 or so miles above the Venusian landscape. Just like jetplanes traveling at higher altitudes to fly over many storms, just like a vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the bad ground conditions by staying up and out of their way. Many researchers are working hard on innovations that would allow our advance machines to last a long enough to contribute to our knowledge of Venus. NASA is also working on other approaches to studying Venus. Example, some simplified electronics made of silicon carbon have been tested in a chamber which simulate the chaos of Venus surface and have lasted for less then three weeks in such condition. | 0 |
Was there a man on Mars? Magazines say yes, but the scientists have continuously said no. On May 24, 2001, NASA's ship, Viking 1, found something on Mars that had the facial features of a human. Scientists have proven that the piece of rock thought to resemble a human face is no more than just a natural landform through unusual shadows, facts that have been talked about with many scientists, and images taken that agreed with the facts.
First of all, NASA stated that they thought this landform was just another mesa found on Mars. The difference was that this strange, possible mesa obtained humanly facial features. Later, the fact the that the "facial features" on the mesa were due solely to unusual shadows, which gave the untrue image look like eyes, nose, and a mouth.
Next, the fact that the mesa is only a natural landform, not a face has been confirmed with countless scientists. On April 5, 1998, everyone was waiting to see what decision would be released about the mesa. Was it once a face of a person or just another landform on Mars? It appeared on the JPL website that there was no alien monument; it was just a nautral landform. Scientists have confirmed this. The only reason that it is even questioned is because people wanted to have been able to say that there was a face on Mars, even if it was proven otherwise. There is much more publicity for authors especially to say that there was a face on Mars. Unfortunately, scientists know the most in this situation, not authors.
Lastly, scientists took pictures to prove their evidence. In September 1997, Global Surveyor took a photograph of the landform that was ten times better quality than the original Viking picture of the "face". People who are not scientists still disagreed, so NASA and other scientists continued to take images. By the time it was 2001, the mesa did not look like a face anymore. The picture shows that it is clearly just a mesa.
In conclusion, people would be crazy to try to attempt to disagree with the scientists because of how many facts they have to prove their hypotheses. First, they explained why the mesa only looked like a face because of the illusinating shadows. Then, they confirmed it with other scientists. And lastly, the scientists took many photographs of the mesa that finally proved their point. Scientists proved their point by explaining unusual shadows, confirming information with additional scientists, and taking countless photographs of the mesa. | 3 |
Dear State senator , You should keep the electoral college , beacuse For one theres alot of electors like around 538. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the president. Then after the presidental election , your governor prepares a 'Certificate of Ascertainment ' listing all of the candidates who ran for president in your state along with the names of their respective electors.
To begin with 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" and for that saying , in the following discussion , the word state also refers to the district of columbia. Also Each and every candidate that is running for president in your state has his or her own group of electors."The electors are generally chosen by the candidate's political party , but state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are."
Foremost , under the electoral college system , voters vote not for the persident , but for a slate of electors , who in turn elect the president."Who are the electors? They can be anyone not holding public office. Who picks the electors in the first place? it depends on the state. Now i understand sometimes at state conventions , Partys , central committee , sometimes the presidental candidates themselves , Also sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate."The single best argument against the electoral college is what we might call the electoral college is what we might call the disaster factor. Its Basically whenever theres a really good argument thats what its called.
Subconstantquintly , Sometimes most people worry about the prospect of a tie in the elections vote. "In That case , the election would be thrown to the house of representatives , where state delegations vote on the president." At the most basic level , the electoral college is unfair to voters. "because of the winner-take-all system in each state , candidates dont spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning , focusing only on the tight races in the "swing" states. Then now its official " The electoral college is unfair , outdated , and irrational." The best arguments in favor of it in favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality.
To end with , Thats why you should keep the electoral college because , You should keep the electoral college , beacuse For one theres alot of electors like around 538. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the president. Then after the presidental election , your governor prepares a 'Certificate of Ascertainment ' listing all of the candidates who ran for president in your state along with the names of their respective electors. | 0 |
Have you heard of "The Face on Mars"? Do you believe that it is said to be created by aliens? Have you been told that it was said to resemble an Egyptian Pharaoh? We will find out whether or not this "Face" is created by aliens or just some sort of landform.
There has not been any evidence or information that aliens excist. These landforms are common around Cydonia. The usual shadows made it out to look like an Egyptian Pharoah. We thought it was important to taxpayers, so we took another photo when we could get a good shot in. We snapped a picture ten times sharper than the origanal, but still, nothing seemed to be out of the ordinary. This is just one factor that the "Face" was not created by aliens.
Recently in 2001, we took a picture so maximized that we would have seen something. We did not. Malin's team captured an extraordinary photo using the cameras maximum resolution. You can discern things in a digital image three times bigger than the pixel size. If there were objects in the picture such as Egyptian-style pyramids or small shacks, we would have seen what they are. Our maximized picture from Mars Global Surveyor helped provide facts to prove that it was not created by extraterestrial life.
The "Face" is similar to mesas' around the American west. The picture shows the Martian equivalent of a butte or a mesa. Garvin states that it even reminds him of Middle Butte in the Snake RIver Plain of Idaho. He says it is a lava dome that takes form of an isolated mesa about the same height as "The Face on Mars". With this fact we have proven that it is just a landform.
Since "The Face on Mars" is not really created by aliens and is just a natural landform, we can only hope for different evidence that aliens do excist. No evidence in our photos showed up that there are aliens. The photo taken by the MGS has also proven no excistence of alien life. When we found out that it resembled an American mesa, we knew that was all it was. Our "Face on Mars" is only a landform, but that does not mean we can not look for things that are not. | 3 |
There are many reasons to participate in the Seagoing Cowboys program. Not only do you get to travel around the world you get to help others who countrie or town that has been detroyed. Many people liked the outcome from their trip and you probably will too. You dont have to do it every year but if you would like to you can. You might be gone from your family for a while.
Can you just picture yourself traveling around and going places that you might only can go one chance out of a lifetime? In the passage in paragraph one it states how Luke felt about going on the trip, "He knew it was an opportunity of a lifetime." Would you want to miss out? I sure wouldn't. All you have to do is join the UNRRA.
The UNRRA stands for the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administraction. The only bad thing about the trip is that you still have to work. The article includes some information in paragraph 2 that during the program you have to take care of the horses, young cows, and mules that were shipped overseas. Your probably thinking ew,no gross, but this is progress of helping the coutries that have been ruined. Keep in mind that this is a good cause, the animals need comfort too.
Next, the good part about the trip is the unique place you would be going. In paragraph 5 it states, "Luke had made nine trips---the most of any Seagoing Cowboy." That can be one of your goals if you join the program. Not only did Luke and Don and others just travel they also had free time. They played baseball and volleyball games and many more but they also got to explore freely around the countrie they were in.
Also, in paragraph 9 includes, "But being a Seagoing Cowboy was much more than a adventure for Luke Bomberger. It opened up the world to him. "I'm grateful for the opportunity" he says. "It made more aware of other people of other countries and their needes." In conclusion, let Luke's inspiring trip be a goal for you to be apart of the UNRRA program. | 2 |
Dear Senator of Florida,
Being a man of your calibar and stature you may already know about the Electoral College. This is the process that consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of electoral votes by Congress. I'm writing this letter to you today beacuse I believe that the electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational.
The process of electoral college has been around for years. I mean think about it our founding fathers created it. Which means its four score and a thousand years too old and irrelevant to todays economy. Sure it helped thousands of years ago but this the dawn of a new era. Why would it still be effective today? Its outdated! You and I both have heard the expression of "If it aint broke dont fix it." Well this the check engine light going off in your car, which means its time for a change.
Additionally, its unfair to the citizens of our nation. For instance, because each state casts only one vote, the single representatives from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters. Sure it helps with Wyoming and the proportionality of their representatives. But,its completely unfair to all those citizens of California who pay their taxes, work hard for their money to better their state. Take the time out in their day to vote. You're telling me that their vote doesn't have a valid say in the choosing of the President?, non sense.
Lastly, the electoral college is completely irrational. Its was created to prevent any regional favorite in voting and for a long time it has been successful in doing so. It totally contradicted itself in 2000, when the Gore had more popluar votes than Bush but yet fewer electoral votes. Bush went on to win the election and manage to destroy the country along the way as well. They thought that it would never happen? I mean the amount of electoral votes is an even number(538). Its unlikely I mean but its not impossible.
In closing, I just wanted to express my thoughts about the electoral vote process with you today. I believe its very unfair, outdated, and irrational. With all the infractions that can occur and risks that are involved, I believe it needs to be changed. And I believe now is time for that change! Thank you.
Sincerely,
PROPER_NAME | 3 |
The challenge of Exploring Venus
The author supports the idea that studing Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers because Venus has the hottest surface temperature, espacially since its closer to the sun . They even had issues not having a single spaceship touch on Venus in three decades. So they didn't really had a lot of informaion, for example in the essay it says,"Each previos mission was unmanned, and for good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours". This lets me know that if a spacecraft didnt survive imagine a human, what would happen to a human ? But we will see how things got better over time!
We start of with something really interesting about Venus that it has a surface of rocky sediment and it also includes familiar features such as velleys, mountains, and craters ! I think that this fact is really cool knowing that another planet has mountains and rocks like the earth. But the author thinks that it does not have easy conditions, but survivable for humans. When time passes by we could add more things and enough to survive.
Although the technology has upgraded a lot so the NASA'S think that they might have the possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus. Imagine them creating a vehicle hovering 30 miles or more in the landscpae. But not only that but the solar power would be plentiful, it wont be easy but they say its going to be survival enough for humans! Know we have even better technology then three decades ago, they created a simplified electronics made of silicon, which has been in Venus surface about three weeks in such good conditions. Unbelievable its been there almost about a week back then it would only last about few hours!
Not only that but they also have another project just incase, you cant never go wrong with plan B. They're plan B is looking back to an old technology called "Mechanical computers". Since now days the devices are more delicated when it comes to extreme physical conditions. It would be so harsh the devices now days wont even make far enough as the mechanical computers. Like the author thinks ," Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expended to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation". Its never bad to try new stuff out, it might be hard at first but there's always a good ending to it! | 1 |
There's always that new thing that comes out and everyone decides that since everyone else is using it that they should join onto the bandwagon. There trying to invent cars that are driverless but they still will need assistance in certain areas. There are cars now that are able to be driven with assistance and they're perfectly fine. Making these cars is a cool idea for physically disabled people who can't necessarily drive, but for people who can drive and aren't physically disabled, it's just laziness.
I think the development of these cars isn't all that great for people who aren't physically disabled. People now, are lazy and they think that since they're coming out with cars that drive themselves, they can just be potatos and sleep while the car takes them to their destination. I, personally, don't think that's a great idea. These cars should be sold, when they get invented, to people who are physically disabled because they need more help driving than anyone else.
If they make these cars, something can go seriously wrong with the car if someone bought it. People could die from these cars if they go out of control. Driverless cars' systems could mess up and something could go seriously wrong and the company who made that car could get sued. Like it says in the passage, "Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009" meaning that if someone bought a car from Google, and something messed up and Google didn't explain the conditions to the buyer of the vehicle, Google could get seriously hammered with thered money. Companies would be losing millions and millions of dollars if these cars were to mess up.
These cars being made should be limited to very few per state. The people of the vehicles that buy the cars should have a 10 year warranty on the car. If something goes wrong and it results in death or injuries, they should get all money back and the company needs to pay for funeral expenses and hospital bills. The amount of cars per state should be at most 15 cars but they should be spread out among the state.
In conclusion, these cars should be sold to physically disabled people. People buying these cars and the vehicles going out of control could result in death and injuries. Limiting the cars per state would be a good idea. Basically, I think these cars shouldn't be made. If they do get made and getting sold, it should be sold to only physically disabled people. | 3 |
You may belive that it was aliens that created this "face" on mars, Where is your proof to support that eveidence? The face could just be a natural landform like many other things like we have found out about. Whats your proof that its aliens, Becasue when we have circled the rest of the planet we have not found civilizations or colonies of alien life. For instensts a metior could have just hit the planet in that spot leaving a mark that looked like a human face leaving you to belive this. There could be aliens out there but there is no proof that we have them in our universe yet, There are many diffrent reasons why there could be natrual causes as to why it would look like there is a face on the planet.
Mars has clouds around its planet and other planets do that may be where aliens hide and have there villiages. You beliveing in them could be correct but also wrong at the same time. We just dont know what could have caused that face on mars aliens, natural formation, crator. You maybe belive this because even the scientist have gotten the false imput that they were real and that this was a aien artifact. We jsut have no evidence proveing wether or not this is an alien artifact or its just a natual landform. | 1 |
Fellow citizens it is important that we talk about the advantages of limiting car usage. In the first story it says " there have been efforts in the past two decades to make cities denser, and better for walking ..." it also says that " passenger cars are respondible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe ... and up to 50 percent in some car-intensive areas in the United States." David Goldberg said, an official of Transportation for America, a fast-growing coalition of hundreds of groups in the U.S....who are promoting new communities that are less dependent on cars, " all of our development since World War II has been centered on the car, and that will have to change".
In the story "
Paris bans driving due to smog"
talks about how after days of near-record pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. It says 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 the following day, I think that this should happen all around the world, so the world can be a better palce to live in. Here is a fact form the stroy, " Paris typically has more smog then other European capitals . . . [Last] week Paris had a 147 micrograms of particulate matter (PM) per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London". The 3rd stroy was about how in Bogota, Comlombia they do a car-free day, now that should be done here in the U.S.. It says that millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during car-free day, that the streets of the captial city eerily devoid of traffic jams, and that the rain has not stopped people from participating.
The last stroy talks about how the car culture is coming to an end, but i really hope not and i think not. It is here ,in the U.S., the birthpalce of the Model T, a classic car that i love and i would hope so that a lot of more people do too; the home of Detroit, what i know is that they make cars up there; tha place where Wilson Pickett immortalized "Mustang Sally", I do not know what that is but it does sound important. It also says that " driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009..." I mean the highest it went was 2009, we are in 2014, almost 2015, im a young person and i love to drive i think and feel like i can go as fast as light. What all four storys are saying is that cars will be gone sooner or later, i hope later, but the cars is what we need to go places. The car will enither be gone or be impovred some how, the fliying car maybe, but in till that happens, because i live in now, the car is what we have, i know that it's bad for the air, so instead of not using the car we can make it better, better for the world. | 0 |
Driverless cars are coming. Driverless cars would not be a great addition to today's modern technology. Today's technology is still progressing and is not yet ready to support a driverless car. Some may believe that driverless cars would be an amazing addition to our modern world, but those who do are wrong.
Driverless cars encourage the bad habit of lazyiness, that too many people already frequently engage in today. With the possiblity of driverless cars, that can do 90 percent of driving, people now have to do less than what they already have to do. Driving has already made life easier for people, it is unnessary to do away with the little work people have to do. Driverless cars will only encourage more projects that will attempt to minimize the work preformed by humans. Thus, creating this attitude of lazyiness and not wanting to have to ever do anything that requires that slightest amount of energy.
The text states, "If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault-the driver or the manufacturer?" This quote from the text is a prime example of even if technology is ready for driverless cars are people themselves ready for the responsbility that comes with driverless cars. Today, too many people already do not take responsiblity for their actions, so what is to happen if the technology fails and a car wrecks and kills the opposing driver? Should that person be tried for manslughter or should they get to get away with killing an innocent person? People today try to blame that wrong doings on anything or anybody, they are in no position to take on the responsiblity for any accidents involving diverless cars.
Those who believe that driverless cars are a good thing for us would argue, "Now the driving experience can be alot less boring and more enterianing." Dr. Werner Huber, a BMW project manager driver, says "The psychological aspects of automation are reallly a challenge. We have to interpret the driving run in a new way." Some manufactures want to successfully bring in-car entertainment to driverless cars to prevent people from getting bored. Driving, wether it be in a driverless car or not, should not be a "fun and exciting experience". Do people realize that they are in a machine that holds the capability of taking the lives of many? That should not be something fun for you, you should take it with a great deal of seriousness. Scientist, that study the brain, say texting while driving turns off one of the parts of the brain that is used for focusing while driving. What do people think all of the in-car entertainment will affect your brain when it becomes that 10 percent of the time that you must take control and drive?
Some would also argue that technology is up to par and is able to handle driverless cars. The text states, "Automakers are contining their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved." Technology is clearly not ready if automakers are just hoping that problems ahead will be solved. This mindset will get people killed once they decide to release the car to the public.
Driverless car would not be a great addition to our modern day technology. Our already developed technology cannot support it. Automakers are hoping that problems will be solved. People are not mentally ready to take on the responsibility that comes with driverless cars. Driving should not be entertaing and the entertainment could affect our brains and the ability to focus when its the person turn to control the car. Driverless cars are not worth all of this trouble, so that people can be lazyier than they already are. Are driverless cars worth risking the safety or even the lives of innocent people? | 3 |
The FACS (Facial Action Coding System) is a valuable way to help students learn; it can tell when a student is bored and can modify the lesson to make it more interesting to the student. "A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming bored or confused".
FACS can have many different effects on an individual person. One example would be "...in a false smile, the mouth is stetched sideways using the zygomatic major and...the risorius....these muscles clues are sometimes used to spot when a "smiling" politician or celebrity isn't being truthful". Using the FACS people could tell whether or not someone is lying; this is especially helpful if the person lying is and important politician that could one day be leading a country.
FACS could also be used to help understand emotions better. "Empathy may happen because we unconsciously imitate another person's facial expressions". This could help people better understand one another. Say there are two beggars living on the street one of them is a real beggar with no money and the other is faking it just to get more money; FACS could be used to identify people who truly needs help by studying their facial muscles.
In conclusion FACS is valuable to students in a classroom because it can make the lesson the students are learning more interesting to them. It can also be used to tell whether a student is lying or not about cheating on a test or saying they accidentally left their homework at home when they really didn't do it at all. FACS can definitely improve the learning environment for students worldwide. | 2 |
Have you ever wanted to join the Seagiong Cowboys Program? If not I'll tell you some thigs about it. I will give you some reasons why you should join, details about it, and tell you what you do in this program.
First and Foremost, reasons why you should join the program. It is an amazing experience. It's a huge oppertunity to not go or take. It's very fun to travel with your group of cowboys.
Secoundly,
I will tell you the most important
details about it. You can go to help out people and their contries. You travel all types of seas like Pacific ocean, Atlantic ocean and high-seas. You get to see a lot new contries and places.
Last but not Least, I am going to tell you what you would fo in it. You will be bale to cross the land to help others. When you help others in a different contries you'll know more about them and their culture. Not just helping
people out but, you can benefit from seeing places like Europe and China.
In conclusion, those are the reasons why you should join, details about the program, and what you do in the program. Hopefully, you will join the ship wreck awesome program! | 1 |
The author supports his claim well using this article. he does this by providing reasons why we should explore Venus and how we could do this in safer ways than just landing on the surface. He also shows the opposite side of his claim to also answer questions or acknoledge reasons why we shoudn't explore it.
The first way that the author backs up his claim is by explaining ways that we could live on Venus. The author states that NASA's solution would be to hover over the clouds and higher up where the pressure is that of Earth's sea level. By presenting this information, this helps visualize a way that we could stay on Venus more safely to help study it closer than we ever have. Presenting these ideas such as the blimp or the mechanical computers that are explained in paragraph 7, is that the pursuit of Venus helps us innovate and come up with mroe technology to make our lives easier and make exploration of other planets easier. This is the main reason why the author says that it is worth exploring other planets.
Travelling to Venus would be ery difficult but also would also be worth the trip due to the human innovation and insight gained from the planet itself. The conditions closer to the surface of the planet are unbearable for any human at the moment. Tryin to survive under intense heat, an unbreathable atmosphere, and acidic rains would help increase our technological advancements even more. Bringing this new technology that would be found through the exploration of Venus would make our lives much easier. In the end, the trip to Venus would be worth it despite the dangers that lay ahead. | 2 |
I think that using driverless cars are a positive thing. There are some negatives that come along, but everything has negatives with them. There are more positives to outweigh the negatives. I think it will be much safer and enviromentally friendly.
Just think about all the drunk drivers out there. With the driverless car you do not have to worry about anymore. There are also a very high amount of people that text and drive or just on there phone. That is a bg safety issue. Again, the driverless car controls everything so you will not have to worry about any crashes or accidents because of people on there phone.
It makes it easy to get places. There is a built in GPS, so the car already knows where to go. People get lost all the time because they dont know what to do or where to go. Yes the car does make the driver actually drive when there is a lot of traffic or construction, but by the time these cars come out I am sure that problem will be fixed. Even if the problem does not get fixed, the car will still have done most of the driving for you. It makes it so much easier on the people using the driverless cars.
The driverless cars are extremely safe. There are sensors all over the car to show it how close thing are, when to stop, and where to go. There is another sensor that uses satellites to give it a map out of the car on the road, and the roads at all time. That is an axtraorinary device.
The car only uses half the amount of gas that a normal car will use. That saves the owner of the driverless car a gigantic amount of money. It is also safer for the environent. If only half the normal gas amount is being used, then it is a geat thing for the Earth. There will not be as much drilling and sucking out of the gas. That will give the Earth more time to get more gas and it will last much longer for us to use.
There are some negatives with the driverles car. If there is to much traffic, construction sight, or just something the automobile cannot handle then the driver will have to take over. That is a problem because why would you need to have a driver driver a driverless car? The cars still are noot fully ready and prepared to be used yet, so that gives the manufacturers more time to fix all of the flaws. There could be technical problems with the car, but that comes with anything there is that is new. There are most likely a couple years before these cars will be ready to sell, so that leaves a lot of time to fix all the problems and flaws.
These driverless cars seem to be very safe, easy to use, easy to maintain, very helpful, and good for the environment. These driverless cars will be a ginormous help for everybody that is on the road. They are definitely a positive product for the world. | 3 |
Venus is a very interesting planet .Venus sometimes called the Evening star is one of the most brightest light in the sky. Some people believe that Venus is a star but it is a planet in our solar system,Venus is also the second planet from the sun. Venus is the closest planet to earth in terms of density and size.
One resaon is becuase some Astronmers are fasanating by Venus. They also believe that Venus have been one of the earth like planet. They believe thast Venus had largely oceans and that there have had been life before that we don't know about.Another reason why NASA wants to go to venus is becuase they saw that venus had a surface of rocky sediment and it seem like valleys and mountains seem to be there.
This makes NASA even more interesting in going there. Going to Venus can be very dangerous in the excerpt it says that the
regular temperature of a planet is 800 degrees fahrenheit and Venus is 90 times greater. Thse conditions are far more extreme than anything humas encounter on earth but they are still willing to take risk.
The Astronmers are willing to take the risk of trying to go to Venus to find answers to there questions. This is a big challenge for NASA.Hopefully one day they would have the resources to go to Venus. | 1 |
Dear Mr or Ms Senator,
Presient Richard Nixon, and President Bill Clinton both have something in common; they won their presidencies with the Electoral College, not the popular vote. (According to "In Defense of the Electoral College: five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President. Paragraph 22) Richard and Bill only won 43% of the popular vote against their opponents while they were running for office. This is why the United States needs to keep the Electoral College instead of switching to the popular vote for the elections.
Now you're probably wondering, does high school students even know what the Electoral College is and what it's job? Yes, high school students do know what the Electoral College is and what it does. The Electoral College is made up of 538 electors. Your state amount equals one member from the House of Represenatives and two from the Senate. The electors are chosen from the candidate's political party. The Electoral College decides the president and vice president every four years every Tuesday ater the first Monday in the month of November.
Mr or Ms Senator, the Electoral College needs to stay instead of the popular vote because when you have the Electoral College you will get an outcome from it unlike the popular vote. Almost all states have the "winners take all" method which according to "What is te Electoral College" by the Office of the Federal Regisiter (Paragraph 7) this method is when all electors are awarded to the presidental candidate that is winning. Also the popular vote overrides the popular vote. In "In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President" by Richard A. Posner (Pararaph 18) the 2012 presidental campaign for example it was the battle between Mitt Romney who is a Republican against Barack Obama who is a Democrat. Obama received only 51.3 percent of the popular vote and Obama got 61.7 percent of the Electoral College. As you can see the Electoral College overrided the popular vote which ultimately made him president. Also in "In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the Presiden" (Paragraph 22)take Richard Nixon's and Bill Clinton's presidental campaign. Those two only won 43% of their popular votes but they won their elections with the Electoral College. Without the Electoral College all three of these presides wouldn't have become President of the United States.
To continue on, the Electoral College should stay instead of the popular vote since one region of the United States doesn't have enough power of the Electoral Votes to make a presidental candidate win. Look at "In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President" Mitt Romney doesn't campaign in the South part of the United States since he knows that he is popular in that region with the electors he doesn't bother camapigning there since he knows he will win their votes. But he has to campaign to other states and regions since he knows the South doesn't have enough power to make him president. And with that comes your swing states and the big states. Swing states listen to what the presidental candidates have to say since they are toss-up states. These swing states literally can "swing" the election. These are the states that are going to decide who the next president is. And that ties in with your big states; California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania are some of your big states since they have the most population out of the United States. These states can also be swing states since they have the most votes out of every state. With the power of the popular vote a presidental canidate can become president, and other regions will not have a say. But using the Electoral College that can't happen.
On the other hand, according to "The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong" (Parargraph 14) the Electoral is outdated, irrational, and unfair. In "The Inefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses are the system are wrong" by Bradford Plumer key names such as Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerece all want to get rid of the Electoral College and use the Popular Vote. Look at the presidency that was in 2000 with Al Gore against George W. Bush. Al Gore would have won the election if the election was based on the popular vote. He won the popular vote with over 60%! But unfortunately, he didn't win and lost to George W. Bush since Bush won the Electoral College votes. But some people don't really know what they are voting for in election which is why the Electoral College is the way to go. Also people complained with the "winners take all method" some candidates don't go to certain states and only focus on the swing states. In the 2000 campaign seventeen out of fifty states didn't see the candidates. But the candidates didn't go to those states since they knew they had no chance of winning those states and they needed to focus on the swing states to make sure they win the election. Many people do call the Electoral College an anachronism, but it doesn't need to stick in the past, it needs to be kept in the present and in the future.
Ultimately, Mr or Ms Senator, the United States needs to keep the Electoral College instead of the popular vote because you will always have an outcome and one region can't overpower another and make a candidate win the presidental campaign. Yes, as said before many people want to get rid of the Electoral College but it will stay with the United States and move forward with us people.
Sincerely,
A student | 4 |
Has there ever been a time where you're looking at your classwork or homework as if it were the worlds most difficult equation? This new technology "FACS'', is an amazing program that recognizes facial expressions and woild be more than helpful in our schools. I personally think that this technology is a bridge to better understanding. This new technology would help teachers know what students need help on, it would cause test scores and grades to rise, and it would be a great advancement in school technology.
First,there has been so many times where you don't understand a problem or a material and you don't say anything. Maybe it was because you were too shy or the teacher or instructor had already reviewed it many times. This technology could help students get the help they need. Teachers will know when students are having trouble and when they are ready to move on.
Second, if the students got the help they needed and started to understand more, grades and test scores would go up. Our education would start to advance more and more. Our graduates would be much more skilled and instructed. We would have so much more to offer our country and citizens. We would be recognized for our high test scores and good grades, we would be offering a much better education than any other country. Our students would actually understand the what is being presented to them.
Third, our technology in our schools would be much more advanced. The future is going to be full of technology, and we should know how to use and control it. Technology has its pros and cons, but it will be able to help us much more than it will hurt us. We will have access to easier and faster ways of learning. FACS is one of those easier and faster ways.
FACS would help us greatly by helping teachers know what students need help on, increasing test scores and grades, and advancing in our schools technology. I truly do believe this program should be in all schools becasue this will help educate the youth that will be building a better future for us. | 3 |
In 1976, NASA discovered a land formation that looks like a face and since then it has become a national icon. Conspiracy theorists think that we at NASA are hiding something. They think it was created by aliens. We know that it wasn't though because after all we're the experts here. If we were hiding something, why wouldn't we release it to make more money? We have technology and the smarts to prove people wrong that think it was created by an alien. The conspiracy theorists are wrong.
As better technology is developed and our images take on a higher resolution we have proof that the "Face on Mars" is just a land formation with an odd shadow. In 1976, we first discovered the "Face on Mars" using the Viking 1, but we couldnt really tell what it was because the resolution wasn't that good. Then in 1998, the technology developed over the span of 22 years, the resolution became better, and we could sort of tell what it was. Then in 2001, we really discovered what it was because the technology was way bettter and we could see a 3D image of it. As technology developed we could really start to tell that it was in fact a mesa. Proving that the people were wrong and that they don't have as advanced technology as we do.
The conspiracy theorists were once again wrong. They just look off of the images NASA puts out and think of the most bizzare theory and release it. When we had the MGS fly over Cydonia (where the "Face on Mars" is located) on April 5, 1998, he snapped pictures and really discovered it wasn't an alien formation. Then, many people disagreed with our logic again and said that since it was a cloudy time in April '98 on mars, that the alien markings were hidden by haze. We then went for a second run on April 8, 2001, "a cloudless summer day" and captured the photo using the the camera's maximum resolution, and still didn't see any alien markings. They were yet again wrong and this proves that it isn't an alien formation.
In the end, the picture really shows a Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa. These landforms are much like the ones we see on Earth. They're common on almost every planet. What Garvin says is completely true, "It reminds me most of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho. These formations are just another land formation. The people who thought they were alien markings are just trying to get attention.
After all, we at NASA have always had the best technology to look into space and at other planets. People have tried to prove us wrong and we always come out on top of things. We've proven them wrong with images, other formations on Earth that are equivalent to formations on Mars, and the knowledge that we have. The people shouldn't question it because if it really was an alien marking we'd share it with the public. These theories that it's an alien marking are wrong and we've proven this. | 3 |
Imagine a day where there will be no driver at the steering wheel of a car, problems would eventually arise, specially if there are accidents and people don't know who to blame. Driverless cars that exist today are not entirely driverless, they someone who can take comand if there are traffic problems or construction ahead. Everyday technology advances more and more, some companies believe that in the future there will be cars that opeate by themselves without the need of having someone there incase of a problem, some companies even have a prediction for when such cars will come out into the market. Driverless cars shouldn't be on the road.
First of all, Driverless cars shouldn't be be on the road because they will not be able to operate correctly if there is a problem in the raod. Driverless cars today still need someone there incase there are problems in the road that only humans can take care of, how will a car know what to do in this type of situation, they don't think like people. There are situations that could happen while a driverles car is on the road that sometimes can not be foreseen, therefore the car cannot be programed for such situation. Humans normally know what to do if there are roads constructions ahead or there is something on thee road, like a ditch to avoid, and in these situations how can a car 'see' what goes on in the road. Even if the cars were to have sensors for the outside, what about the inside, if there was a problem with the passanger the car wouldn't be able to tell what to do.
Additionally, driverless cars shouldn't be on the road because how would law apply to them. There are many accidents that happen in the road every day, law is applied in this situations to know who is to take the blame and what to do.
In the situation of a driverless car it would be dificult to pinpoint how law would apply to them, if an accident were to happen, would the manufacturer or the driver be the one to take the balme. There isn't even a driver in this car, and sometimes technology malfunctions occur, so no one could really take the blame. With time anything can malfunction, but if an accident that involves death is to occur how would the problem be managed if there is only a car, technology, to blame and take resposibility.
Most importantly, driverless cars shouldn't be on the road beacuse there will be too many expenses. If there would be driverless cars in the future, how much would you be charged for being taken somewhere by such a car. In today's world there is almost always a cost in order to get any type of service, the drverless car would, most likely, have a cost in order to be used, and at first that wouldn't be cheap. A driverless car would steal chaufers jobs, and sometimes those jobs are all that sustain some people, so this car would make many not have a way to get paid. At first when this cars are being constructed, how will they be paid for, each city would probably have to spend a vast amount of money to get this cars so they can start operating.
In conclusion, Driverless cars shouldn't be on the road. If these cars were on the road there will be too many expenses, how would law apply to them, and they won't be able to operate correctly if there is a problem on the road. There will be many problems with these cars, and conflicts will be harder to slove with them. If they are released into the market, a person should first think of all the things and conflicts that may arise just because of one car before using it. | 4 |
Technology is improving more and more as time goes by, each year that goes by the technology we use gets smarter and smarter. Soon we may be in a world where everything consist of technology and requires technology. The future will be nothing like now or the past and the future generations will be born in futuristic society.
This text talks about driverless cars becoming a thing that'll soon change the ways of drving and how driving is. If there starts being cars that can drive without someone driving, maybe that'll prevent less car accidents and cassualties. Perhaps if there is cars that can drive by themselves when a person goes on a roadtrip they wouldn't have to worry about stopping to sleep and it would make getting from point A to point B a lot faster. Driverless cars seems like a brilliant ideal but there could many flaws about it.
I am for driverless cars because I believe that'll beneifit a alot of people. People who have disablities or are disabled from the waist down could actually be able to drive. Driverless cars could also help teens with driving and prevent teen car crashes from happening. Less drunk driving accidents would happen if there were driverless cars because if the cars drove by themselves that means a drunk person wouldn't be in control and there would be less deaths. driverless cars has its benifits but it also has its flaws.
The flaws of having driverless cars are that if something bad happened as said in the text who would be in the wrong for the accident, the driver or the manufactuerer? If something bad was to happen with the car, would the person be able to sue the manufacturer or would it be all on the person in the vehicle? If the weather got bad and the driverless cars wasn't progammed to be ready for the situation that could havoc. The manufacturer of the car would have to ensure that the car is smart enough and capable enough of driving through harsh weather conditions. Also how many people would actually have the money for a driverless car, assuming that it'll be expenisve.
In conclusion I do believe if maufacturers put in a lot of work and effort into driverless cars it'll be a success without a doubt. Driverless cars is a brilliant ideal and would actually benefit people. Driverless cars would be one of the first steps into a technology based world and society. The future will be here before we know it. | 2 |
In the article "making monq lisa Smile" itll describe many things on how the new technology can figure out the facial expressions of people. Like it said in the first paragraph in the article "She's 83 percent happy, 9 percent disgusted, 6 percent fearful and 2 percent angry."
I think that using this technology in a classroom would be valuable. i think it would because, when a student is acting up in a different way but doesnt really like to show his emotions the computer can detect it and the teacher can help him out through what he is suffering through.
Second, i think it would be a great thing because the facial action coding system could allow us to interact with one another and globalize each other around. i think this becuase their are times when students are mad and fired up and just do not want to be bothered so using this can help out a lot. This new technology can benefit the teachers too because they can know what his or hr students are feeling whether they're bored, about to fall asleep becuase then they can figure out another way to figure out a way to teach the class in a better sucessful way.
Third, the system can a smile to your face when you realize what the computer is capable of and not only will it detect that also the little facial expressions you make time to time such as confusement, boredum and ETc.
In conclusion i do think that the facial acting coding program is a good one and should be allowed in classrooms because it could help each other out and the teachers by makking the class a little better just by a different way of teaching. not only the education but also with being friends and your family because now you can check up on them. | 2 |
Technology that reads emotional expressions may actually be a good thing. The reason I say this is because this can be applied to just about anything in the near future. We may actually be able to get a better lie detecter result, or be able to understand people who don't show emotion. This technology can also be applied to robots which will be albe to read and understand emotions better.
This program can make thing easyer for people who perfer not doing hard work on the computer. The program will break down your facial expression into six catagory happy, sad, anger, disgust, fear, and surprise. Then it will decide to make things easyer or harder for you. It can even tell what a person is filling in a picture like it did to the Mona Lisa. It broke down Mona Lisa's smile into 83% happy, 9% disgusted, 6% fearful, and 2% angry.
There are a lot of uses for this technology. Some of them can make easyer for us, or make things less fun for us. There can be other uses for this that we don't even no about yet. Hopefuly all the uses are for good and not evil. Granted we wont no unless we give this technology a try. | 1 |
Many people believe that this face on Mars was made by an Ancient Alian Race that once lived on Mars. This Face was discivered 25 Years ago on a space Expedition. Most NASA scientisis believe that this Face on Mars is a natural land form but, some believe that it is not natural and was formed by Alians. Many Scientists also think against the thought of the formation on Mars being made by an ancient civilization that lived on Mars. Scientists that are against the theory of the face being formed by Alians argue that there are formations on Earth that are also formed how the one on Mars was and that this is natural.
Many Scientisis believe that this is a natural landform because it is like some of the other landforms in the Western United States like the Butte in the Snake River Plain of Ohio. Scientists believe that both of these landforms were created by lava domes because the two formations are around the exact same height and are therefore believed to be created in the same and natural way.
Scientisis have been researching the Face on Mars for years abd have come up with a reasonal explination for why the Face on Mars was not created by Alians and is a natural land formation that is created the same way as some formations in the Western United States. Though Scientists would like to have proof that there was a race of martians that lived thousands of years ago there is logical information prooving that this was a natural formation that is also experienced on Western Regions of the United States. | 1 |
Why drive when you can use many other alternatives ! There are many reasons why the citizens in my town and all across the world should limit car use. Three really good reasons are, to limit pollution, to lower stress, healthier life style.
My first reason for thinking that we should limit are car usage because it is a very big cause of pollution. In the article written by Elisabeth Rosenthal she states "Passenger cars are resposible for up to 50 percent in some car-intensive areas in the United States" Pollution is a very serious is that could easily be stop or reduced. Its also can be as simple as walking to your destination, car pooling, or even taking the bus. In the citie of Paris in France to help to reduce the smog and pollution they banned driving even numbered license plates from driving on one day and banned odd numbers on the next, Alternating every other day. Enough smog and pollution cleared one of the following days that the lifted the ban on odd numbered plates they were allowed to drive. These all always very easy ways to help stop pollution.
The second the reason why I thinking that we should limit our car use is if were to use them less it could lower our stress levels. The citie of Bogota, Colombia have day in which no one use a car for the whole day unless its public transportation or a taxis. One citizen claimed during car free day that "It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution" Another citizen who lives in a community where the streets are completly "car-free" says "When i had a car i was always tense. I'm much happier this way,". If the citizens of the world were to cut down on the use of air polluting vechiles it could also not only less polluted place but also more calm and less stressed out people.
My final reason for agreeing with idea of limiting car usage is if we drive less we could all lead healthier lifestyles. Imagine how many calories you can burn by walking to corner store or taking a bike to your nearest walmart. The health benefits are endless. If you think about it sitting in the car barley moving to do anything you dont loose any calories at all. So why not walk, run, or jog instead.
In conclusion i think it would be best for all us to cut down the use of driving. My three reason are, to limit pollution, to lower stress, healthier life style. This would benefit not only us but to future generations of the world. | 3 |
Dear Mr. Senator,
I believe that America should keep the Electoral College to elect the president of the United States. I believe this because the Electoral College makes a guarenteed outcome, it gives proper representation to big states, and the president has to have a trans-regional appeal.
The Electoral College has more of a certainty of outcome for an election. For example, in the 2012 election, Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral votes (a very convincing number) but only 51.3% of the popular vote (not as convincing). The Electoral College also avoids the problem of a tie in the votes. Even though the Electoral College has 538 votes, which would make it possible for a tie, it is very unlikely that there is a tie in the Electoral College. For example, Richard Nixon in 1968 only received 43% of the popular votes, but won 301-237 in the Electoral College. Bill Clinton in 1992 had only 43% of the popular vote, but also won 370-168. The pressure of a run-off election is reduced with the Electoral College.
The Electoral College gives the big states more representation than the smaller states. For example, Florida has 29 Electoral votes, while a state like Maine only has 4. In 2012, the popular vote was really close in Florida, but Obama won and got 29 electoral votes. If the same thing happened in Maine, the winner would only receive 3 Electoral votes. If America used the popular vote to decide who won, the win by a few votes would mean almost nothing, and the big states would have the same representation as the small states.
The president can't win the election by just winning one region of states. The Electoral College has made it that the candidate would have to have a trans-regional appeal. This is desirable for most people because a president that is only popular in one region, and not everywhere will not be a good prsident. This is why candidates don't campaign in places that they know they will win, and branch out to the swing states. These swing states basically decide the election. They are the states that do not favor either the democratic or republican candidate, so they have important votes. If swing states go one way, so will the election. This is why many candidates campaign in these Swing States.
As you can see Mr. Senator, the Electoral College is the best way to go for electing a new president. It has a more certain and guaranteed outcome than the popular vote, it gives more representation to the bigger states, and requires appeal from people all over America, not just people in one region. | 3 |
Because Venus is sometimes right around the corner in space terms humans have sents nuemerous spacecraft to land on this cloud draped world. Each previus mission was unmanned, and for good reason , since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours. Maybe this issue explains why not a single spaceship has touched down on venus in more than three decades. A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. On the planet's surface, temperature average over 800 degrees fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure in 90 times greater than anything humans encouter on Earth such an Environment would crush even a submarime accustomed to diving to the deepends parts of our oceans and would liquefy many metals. If our sister planet is so inhospitable, why are scientists even disscusing further visits to its surface Astronomers are facinated by Venus because it may well once have been the most Earth like planet in our solar system. Today venus still has some features that are analougs to those on the Earth. | 0 |
"Welcome" says a screen once you get in the car. The driveless cars are coming and we have to get ready for them. Some people might not like the ideal but i here do. I would like to get in the car without putting my foot on the gas to get to my destination. I wouldn't have to worry if im going to fast or to slow. driveless cars are going to be the next big thing. They are going to attract lots of people. Driveless cars are going to help you get to you destination with out you worrying about being tired of driving, They can help you stay at one speed so you won' t worry about if your going to fast or to slow, and they are also are going to attract lots of people to them.
The driveless cars are going to help you to get to your destination without you simply being worry. They are going to help you so you won't be tired of driving to get to place and for you not to enjoy the place because of tireness from all that driving. They can get to destination faster than they can because of the GPS they have located them. They are a great help if you have children because the car can be moving and you won't have to worry about keeping your eyes on the road while your kids can be fighting in the back seat.
Driveless cars can also be a great help for they people who tend to go over limit. The car can stay at the limit you tell them to go or if you press the gas. It's an easy project for people to love. You can now go on trips and you won't have to worry about the police stopping you for going over the limit. you can also be on the highway and you won't have to worry about keeping your speed at a certain speed.
The dirveless car is going to attract many people when they come out. Many people from around the world are going to buy them. I know many people are going to say its a bad idea to have one because there are going to be situations when teenagers drive the car without a license. Other than that there is not a thing that anyone would like to have one. The driveless cars are going to be a worldwide sensational.
So like i was saying the driveless cars are going to be phenomenal when they are out. There are somethings the car wont be a good idea. For example the kids who are only 12 they are going to be around they city driving. other than that the car itself is a great idea. They are going to help you get your destination faster and you won't be tired. They are going to help you stay out of trouble from the police. They will help you stay at one speed rate and you wont have to worry about getting ticket while on vacation, They will also attract many people to get one. These cars are going to be a worldwide sensational when they come out. Many people will still have doubt on the car when it comes out but when them everywhere they are going to want one. So whats your opinon about driveless cars? | 2 |
We all plan to get cars when we get our licenses right? Wrong! The relationship between people and cars throughout the Earth is changing with fewer people buying cars and governments supporting the use of more eco-friendly methods of transportation. Two advantages of this change that I would like to point out is first the improvement in health, and second the fact green house gasses have gone down. These may seem like great ideas, but you may be asking yourself are such advantages possible?
Begining with the lack of pollution, cars can produce Carbon dioxide which causes problems in the atmosphere. The gas traps sunlight creating greenhouse gasses which is responsible for global warming. This would cause problems for future generations with an increase in flooding and other factors that can destroy areas of living, not to mention the fact breathing in the fumes is bad for health. The scary part about the relationship between green house gasses and cars is that twelve percent of green house gasses caused by cars are in Europe. This may no frighten you, but when you take into account fifty percent of green house gasses lie in the U.S., you realize how seroius and frightenning the situation really is.
Another benefit of the lack of car usage is the improvement of public health. It's known by many scientist and psycohlogist that an increase in stress is bad for health and can lower a person's life expentancy. In Vaubun Germany a mother's words about their Vaubun progam was "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way," meanwhile in Bogota, Columbia a bussiness man said "It's a good oppurtunity to take away stress and lower air pollution," during Bogota's car-free day program. Aside from the stress, people are getting far more fit as they walk or take a bike to their destionations, even in large cities like New York where you'll see people joining bike programs. Bicycle lanes are increasing greatley and in Bogota, 118 miles have already been built.
In conclusion, I would like to point out that out our world is improving. The awareness of government and the people has lead into the creation of bicycle lanes, a lowering in the stress level of the people, and a decrease in green house gasses. This will in turn provide a better future for countless generations of people throughout the entire planet. It's as Bill Ford, executive of the Ford Motor company stated "pedestria, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety." | 3 |
Have you ever heard about a face on Mars? Do you believe it or not? Well some say that a picture was captured on Mars claiming that it is was a face created by Aliens. But on the other hand some say it is just a natural landform on Mars. But in this article I will be proving that the face is just a natural landform.
The face on Mars is just a natural landform because scientist figured out that it was just another martian mesa. Only a shadow that made it look like an Egyptian Pharaoh. After they dicovered that, a few days later NASA put the 1976 picture out to the public also saying "huge rock formation... which resembles as a human head... formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose, and a mouth." On April 5, 1998 team snapped pictures ten times better then the first one but the camera had to peer through wispy clouds to see the face. On April 8, 2001 they tried again on a cloudless summer day. The team captured an extraodinary photo using the camera's absolute maximum resolution. What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a butter messa, landforms common around the American West. So there you have it the mask on Mars was just a natural landform.
So have you ever heard of the face on Mars? Do you belive it? The face on Mars was jsut a natural landform proven by NASA. | 1 |
In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus," the author suggest that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. He supports this idea by explaining why Venus is a good planet to study and the things that make it challenging to study the planet Venus.
The author explained why Venus is a good place to study by stating many reasons why it should be studied. For example, Venus is called the Earth twin becuase of the size, shape, e.t.c. In paragraph 2, the author said, "Often reffered to as Earth's 'twin,' Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size, and occasionally the closest in distance too,"
also, in paragraph 4, the author said, "If our sister planet is inhospitable, why are scientist even
disccussing further visit to its surface? Astronomers are fascinated by venus because it may well once have been the most Earth-like planent in our solar system." Striving to meet the challenge presented by venus has valu, not only because of the insght to be gained on the planet itself but also because human curiosity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors.
This explains why the author, In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus," suggest that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents and how the author supports this idea by explaining why Venus is a good planet to study and the things that make it challenging to study the planet Venus. | 1 |
There have been many debates on whether or not driverless cars should be a thing. Yes, there are ups and downs of these cars, but you're always going to have those no matter the case. I believe with our technology advancing that we need to start working on some way of cars controling themselves.
One reason why I believe we should keep developing these cars is Google has had these sort of cars since 2009. If our society has been using them one way or another and if our technology keeps advancing, in 10 or so years we can find a way to make them safer. We don't have to release them any time soon, but wait till they are safer and have been tested and proved their way into pursuading people they are safe.
This can either be a pro or a con. The drivers have to stay alert and take over when the car needs it. They aren't made to know how to go around traffic and roadwork, so when the car sends an alert the driver can take over. I take this as a pro because it seems safer than leting your car try to work its way through roadwork on its own. When you have control you feel safer, but this can also be a con. When you hear "Driverless cars"
you think that you won't have to do anything when thats not the case, yet.
In conclusion, driverlass cars still have a way to come, but with our technology advancing more and more every year these cars will be safe and driverless in just 10 years. The cars we do have that may be released aren't driverless, but they have a safe way of letting the driver know when to take over. Our society will be changing in more ways than we can imagine in just a decade. | 2 |
Have you ever been curious to visit any other planet than Earth? Have you ever actually took your time out of your day to think about it? What If I were to tell you that it could be become true but in order to know how you have to read my story.
The author is saying if Us as humans can be sure Venus is for sure safe itll be game changing and claming its worth figuring out because a number of new material and items. As us humans alll know earth Is our home but cant forever be our home and as the author has said "The thought of having humans at another planet is a scary thought but it could forsure work if having studies correct.
The more we know about the planets around us the more safier well feel knowing we have options If anything were to ever happen to planet earth. Us humuns figuring out Mars had water on it made everybody curious and want to go there just inmagine Venus. Yes it is the hottest planet but if we can cool the surface down and do something to make the weather there a little more cooler than who knows what could happen. | 0 |
Dear Senator,
The Electoral College is the best proven method for electing the president and produces great results, so it should be kept. It does have its mistakes, and faults, but who or what in the world does not? Many people do not favor this method of election, and argue that:"The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational.",these people may be right, but for the many past presidents that it has successfully elected, either for the good or bad, we the people are the main power for it. The electoral college does not just elect the president by itself, it works on what the people elect.
The reason that many people do not favor the electoral college is that they feel insecure knowing that they aren't voting for the president directly, just for electors who are voting for their chosen presidential candidate. It is all a phsycological insecurity for those who haven't gotten used to the fact that they don't have a direct power over what they want for the well-being of the government and the citizens. Also the fact that their are flaws in this method of election gets people nervous about a disaster happening, mainly because a mistake has happened before. "In 2000 U.S. presidential race, Al Gore recieved more individual votes than George W. Bush nationwide, but Bush won the election, recieving 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266." Bradford Plumer is very against the electoral college because of its past misgivings, or mistakes, and does not trust what it might do in the future.
The electoral college may possess many past mistakes and close runs, but it works unlike any other system of election that has been thought of. It produces very certain outcomes and results, the college selects all of the votes,sorts them, and releases the correct amount of votes for the president voted for. It is the least stressful, clearest, and fairest procedure for electing the president while at the same time being fair to all of the average people voting for their desired president. Because of all of the benefits that it promises, and the outcome for every voter, this fantastic method of election should be continued at least until a better method for choosing the president of the United States is discovered, and confirmed to be superior to our current system now. | 2 |
Studying Venus is important for scientists and so is knowing the dangers of the planet. The author states that people should know more about Venus and the risks it will take of doing so as it is dangerous. The article states, "Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation." (P8). Humans will evetually be curious about many things including trying to figure out more details about our neighboring planet Venus. No matter what the dangers are people will come up with many types of solutions to face the problems or difficulties that are stopping them from going further. The author gave a great idea and much detail about what people are trying to do to explore more about Venus, and also how risky and dangerous it is to explore Venus.Therefore, the authors idea about pursuing Venus despite the dangers will eventually happen at some point in time. | 1 |
Dear state senator,
I beleive that we should get rid of the electoral college. It is unfair to many voters. Because of the winner tak-all system in each state candidats dont spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focsing only on the tight races in the "swing" states. During the 2000 campaign seventeen states did not seee the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Caronlina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markes did not see a single campaign ad. we should also get rid of the electoral college because of the electoral college they lost 60 percent of the voters who would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now.
The electoral college avoids the problem of elections in which no candidtate receives majority of the votes casted. For example Nixon in 1968 and cliton in 1992 both had only a 43percent purality of the popular votes, While winning a majority in the Electoral College 301 and 370 ecetoral votes, there is pressure for run-off when no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast.
But back to electoral college votes being unfair a lot of the states like wyoming north and south dakota knowing they only get three votes that count some people dont even bother voting, I mean I would not want to if i knew that my vote really was not going to make a diffrence.
so yes electoral college votes are good like how obama recived 61.7 percents of the votes out of the 51.3 percents that Romney got, because all states award the winner take-all system. But I think that we should go back to a direct election to make the voting fare to evryone to keep everyone voting and make them feel like we are still one country. | 2 |
In the article "Driverless Cars Are Coming" I disagree that driverless cars should be invented. Having those types of cars could put everyone in danger on the road.
Under "Sensing the World" it states that the cars would have many sensors around them and a GPS receiver. The sensors could stop working one day and the driver would not even know it. Most of the time GPS would stop working, lose your location, or have a glitch in them and take a wrong turn. Why would you trust something like that with taking you where you need to be. The sensors on the car could sense something small in the road like a stick and curve off to the side of the road, or come to a complete stop causing other cars to stop immediately.
In the passage "Driving or Assisting" it implies that "Traffic Jam Assistant" helps with traffic and only goes 25 mph. In paragraph 7 it says, "They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves." If I were in one of those cars I would not trust them with my life. The car could accelerate and the car in front could immediately stop then my car could bump the back of theirs. In paragraph 8 is states, "Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays." I believe the driver should always have their eyes on the road ready for anything that is coming their way. Looking away for a quick second is even dangerous because another car can come from a different direction and hit you.
In the passage "Waiting on the Law" it believes that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. I agree with that statement one-hundred percent. I would rather drive myself somewhere then to have a computerized car take me somewhere.
In conclusion, I believe having driverless cars are not safe. There are a lot of unsafe drivers out in the world but having a computerized car is even worse. Computers always mess up or glitch in any way. I would rather stick to the old-fashioned human way of driving. | 3 |
This article is about an author explaining why studying Venus is a worthy puraauit despite the dangers that come with it. Although studying Venus is a big thing for NASA, their are still many risk and things to know before making such a discovery.
In this acticle it says that Venus may have been another copy of Earth thousands of years ago. This may be true but some scientist are still not sure. But they have prove, in pictures of Venus it is shown tha this plant has mountains and other features earth has. We all know earth is mosly covered in water, but many scientist thing that Venus may have had water like earth thousands of years ago. In the article it say "venus is somtimes referred as earth's twin', and many scientist think that is true since both plants have some of the same features. But scientist still want to have a closer look deeper into venus so see if they are really twins or they are completly the oppsite of each other.
Next the paragraph talks about how many scientist have already sent various objects to venus but really didnt last that long cause of the density and tempature of venus. And since no spaceship has survived landing for more than a few hours, this explains why scientist are working reslly hard to get on venus. The author alson states that "spaceship have not touch venus in over three decades" which is a really long time. That saying that the author said is really powerful casue it shows how much time it has been and probaly how much time NASA has been working on this project.
lastly in the article it says that scientist have reveled one of their projects that they have an impact in this discovery. NASA has reveled that they have been working on a computer that as they say" can take the heat and the denisty of venus", which they say can becasue it was tested ina stimulation of venus. Scientist have also said that this device can last up to three weeks in this weather which is a hige impact and accomplishment. The awesome thing about it is the device makes caluation from the gears and levers. And the aouther alsosaid that they used this type of technology in WWII which is very hard to think to have such high technology at such time.
The author did an amazing job explaining why scintist should expolore venus more. He/she also did a good job explaing the details and facts about venus. He/she also did a good job showing the simlar and different features earth and venus had. But the important part part is how he/she supported their answer. After reading this article many people will agree with the descoveries that should be made in venus. | 2 |
my point of lukes avendture
I am here to talk about why we should agree that being a seagoing cowboy is a really good idea so hang on tight and just listen, hope u enjoy .
Some good reasons to be a seagoing cowgirl/boy is you get to help animals while your traveling over sea. Also its a good experience and you might want to learn about the ocean, thats a good reason to be a seagoing cow girl or boy and you might want to try it out .There might be some big waves but your with animals traveling and helping out thtas important to do .Its also a beautiful ,wonwerful,aventure to explore .
I support Luke becuase he says thats its an one one life oppertunity. It was he got to travel over seas to Europe ,he went pass Greece . He also traveled over the Pacific Ocean twice,and the Artic Ocean 16 times .Its a good aventure and you should try it one day .
So he got to do alot of things that were totally awsome! I want to know do you think you should try it one day yes or no ? And please right about why you whould and who inspired you ? | 1 |
Lukes Point of Veiw
If you join the Cattle-boat you could have the time of your life you could see thinges you
never seen before you could go in caslies and see so much stuff I had a great time everyone is nice they all work together and have a good time.
If we get avery thing done we could play some board games. Or when we take the animals where we need to we could play baseball, volleyball, games, table-tennis tourments, fencing, boxing, reading,whittling, and games also help pass the time. You could also hang out with me more. We could see animals we never seen before.
We could go to China and go cross the Atlantic Ocean from the eastern coast of the United States whole careing animals and having a good time. We could see at night if the animals are ok and have a good time. If one of us are about to fall off the ship one of us could catch one another.
So that is why I think that we could have a good time when we are working and we could have a lot of fun. Made you will come but it is up to you. | 2 |
When you vote for president you want to vote for who you choose. Thats not how it always works though. We you vote for president you are actually voting for a canadiate who will then go aand vote for president. Is that really fair? Many people dont think so. The electoral college should be abolished because it isnt always fair, who cant be sure if your voting right and it is not democracy.
When you vote for a canadiate you trust they will vote for who they say they will. but is it always true? what is the canidate feels like they dont agree with that person any more and vote for a diffrent one? You and evrybody else who voted for that canadaite are now voting for an opposing canadiate. is that fair to who ever voted for that canadiate now?
You can never be sure if you are voting right. what if that canadiate dose not vote like they are suppoed too. "Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always." says Plumer about the chance a canadiate will vote for someone else. You can never really trust someone you have never met. Humans are very dispitefully creatures, we all lie snd decive. how can you trust a random canadite just because he says he or she will vote for who you want to vote for? wouldnt you rrather vote yourself?
Democracy is giving people the rigth to help govern thre own countray. Isnt the electoral collage taking that right away? Even though this is in the Constitution it is unconstutional. "At the most basic level, the electoral college is ufair to all voters." says Plumer. He is corect about the electoral college and its unfairness to US citizens.
The electoral colleage may have had a good reasson for existing when they made the constution but that was about a 100 years ago... Dont you think we have chaged since then? The anwser is we have and so should they way our goverment works. If we keep the same goverment into the future where everything will change we will be in for a load of trouble. | 3 |
For starters, the power to read someones emotion is too much, what if the person dose not want to be read and would like some privacy. Facial recognition is already a thing and the reading emotions is a useless waste of tax dollars for more reason than one.
if this is a goverment funded project, then, one why, and two, what for. in the case that you are wasting money for things more immportant, like fixing the hunger epidemic, or stopping corupt people from oppressing others, you have decided to make a technology that reads faces, there are uses for this tech, but is it what we need or is it something that can wait untill everyone is happy and healthy. Understaning that there are uses for tech like this, what other uses does it have, the only thing for it is the "makeing school lessons less boring".
In another case, people not wanting to be read like a book and having it done anyway, dose not sound like fun. Creating a socity where everyone knows how everyone else feels, there are flaws that will devistate populations, perhaps someone dose not want to talk about somthing and the compter or cellphone with this new tech dose not know this, then offends the persson by telling a dark secret or spilling the beans about your emotions to some blabermouth that spits the info to the internet for example "to an expert, faces dont lie; these muscle clues are sometimes used to spot when a smiling polititinn or celebrity isn't being truthful." not only dose this tech give people the power to see through fake smiles, but it is also a hudge invasion of privacy and should be frowed upon, then again when has a polititian ever been truthful to begin with.
The main point is, with this tech taking away the ability to hold a secret, it makes our socity seem like robots and always wanting to be read like a book and have our emotions described as "numbers on a spread sheet" or words on a screen. The entire reason we are human is because we can read emotions without the use of a machiene telling us how we feel, insted of our friends asking us "are you okay" a computer program says "you are feeling sad" after some trgic event. Also the program has only basic emotions and feelings progamed into it, nothing as complex as a state of deep depretion.
However this program could be useful for diegosing depression and stats that doctors still have trouble finding. Imagine if insted of reading feeling and telling you how you feel, the program could, for say; recomend a way to feel better if you are sad, or help relive anger stress with some soothing music, and even help make sure everyone is happy with out the big buck spending for therpy of a phycologist.
In conclution there are both good and bad things this program can do, but with all that power come a lot of risk and exposure. Read somthing wrong and disaster wil stike. Leave something unchecked and things get out of hand, but worst of all if the program gliches or the machiene malfunctions and someone pays the price with their life. But, remember just because its smarter than a human, dose not mean it cant fall victem to human error. | 2 |
Is it good to limit car usage?
If the usage of cars are limited their would be less greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gasses are responsible for global warning and the melting of the polar ice caps. If you limit the amount of car usage their would be less cars on the road and it would by a lot quieter at night. In some parts of the United States 50% of the greenhouse gas emissions are from passender cars. thats a sign that we need to stop relying on cars so much. The fact is that if were our passenger cars are giving off that much greenhouse gasses, than our cars are giving off the most greenhouse gasses and its time to make a change.
If you want to help cut back on the greenhouse gas emission than only use your car if your giong a far distance. you dont need to use your car to go down the street, or around the block. You should use your car to go anywhere in your neighborhood thats walking distance. So next time your about to get in your car think about if you really need to take your car. | 1 |
The new technology of being able to identify a persons emotions by their smile could be very useful for many different sorts of things. If teachers everywhere were to have this computer technology to tell the emotions of their students they could find new, better improved ways of teaching their students. Wheather it be a college professor trying to find what their students emotions are to a middle school teacher it would help all around. The new technology can help everyone all around the world in different ways to find different kinds of information about a person. Like their peronality based off of wheather or not they are angry, sad, or just happy. I believe that you would be able to tell alot about a person based off of their emotions.
In the text the author talks about how Mona Lisa's emotions were very different when Davinci had made his master piece of her. It is said that her emotions were 83 percent happy, 9 percent disgusted, 6 percent fearful, and 2 percent angry. The reason I think the new technology would be able to tell alot about a person by their emotions is because the advanced computer can pick up 4 different emotions altogether. One of those emotions are going to have a bigger percentage om the person than others depending on how they are feeling.
I think that the new technology can come to a conclusion of helping eveyone improve the society we live in today. Because every one has different feelings and thoughts about many different things that are going on. If the technology was used to find out how people are feeling about those different things that are going on then they could help to give ideas to make those changes. Then everyone would be able to use their voice and stand for something they think should happen. | 2 |
As time goes on technology improves day by day, we live in a world where technology plays a big role in our lives. Whoever woud have known that technology would get so advanced that even computers can read our emotions. Yeah that's right, a new software called Facial Action Coding System is able to detect our emotions by creating a 3D model of our face and recording our 44 muscle movements. This type of software should be allowed in schools to help teachers identify students who struggle in their classes.
The Facial Action Coding System has promising results and was able to detect Mono Lisa's emotions, "She's 83 perecent happy, 9 perecent disgusted, 6 percent fearful, and 2 percent angry" (D'Alto 1). This was a test conducted by Prof. Thomas Huang and Prof. Nicu Sebe. These are two professers that develop better ways for human and computers to comminicate. With the help of these professors the software FACS can detect "happiness, surprise, anger, disgust, fear, and sadness" (D'Alto 3). In other words it can detect emotions and that could be very useful in classrooms.
Another point why I believe this software is valuale in a classroom is because in paragraph 6 Dr. Huang said " a classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored" (D'Alto 6). This is a very helpful tool because students are very shy, scared, and nervous when it comes to speaking up or asking questions, Dr. Haung pointed out that "most human communication is nonverbal, including emotional communucation" (D'Alto 6). What is being said is that people do not comminicate verbaly or emotionaly and they want computers to know that. With FACS software's in classrooms it can help identefy and improve students education.
Last but not least in paragraph 8 it was said that "faces don't lie; these muscle clues are sometimes used to spot when a smiling politician or celebrity isn't being truthful" (D'Alto 8). What this is saying is that their facial recognition software never fails to detect when someone is lying and that faces do not lie. This could be used to identify if a student is being honest or is lying about what they have done.
In conclusion there are many benifits allowing Facial Action Coding System in classrooms. This software can detect students emotions, when teachers can not. FACS can also notice when someone is not being honest and this could be used to test students to see if they are trustworthy or not. I see nothing but positive outcomes of this software and I look forward to seeing this in future classrooms. | 3 |
Do you think driverless are a thing of the future or just plain science fiction? I think that they are a thing of the furure. They can get great gas miles, are completely useful, and they are almost completely accadent free.
Driverless cars can get way better gas miles becuse they run off of computers and can tell what way is the best course. The author says in the passage that "The
cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today's taxis,". As time passes we get smarter and can create a more fuel efficant car the can become the first driverless car.
These cars are already being used and have features to make sure the driver is aware when condions are bad and when there is traffic it can help. In the passage it says that " 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." This shows how close we are to having completely driverless cars.
These cars will need a whole lot of sensors to be completely driverless but they all will eventualy be completely accident free. the author stats that, "Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own." In the future the cars will be completely accident free and safer to drive.
Driverless cars will be a thing of the future and everyone will have one and be completely safe. They can get great gas miles, are completely useful, and they are almost completely accadent free. | 2 |
The human face on Mars was not created by aliens. I know that because it changes over time. And the aliens wouldn't know what humans looked like they would have had to guess what we looked like. And another reasons is that if they did make it someone probably would have seen them create it. They would have to be like invisible for us not to catch them making it or doing somthing eles. That is why it couldn't have been aliens who made it
If aliens were real they would have to know what we look like and in order to see us they would need to get close to earth. If they did get close to earth we would probably see or notice them. Or they could have seen us on the moon but in order to do that they would either have to be able to see through the glass or they would need to go in the spaceship. But they are probably more scared of us than we are of it so why in the world would they have made a sculpure of us if they are more scared of us than we are of it.
Even if aliens did make the face on the moon they would have to have a way of making it and they probably aren't like you see on the tv or somthing. We probably would have seen them if they did make it bacause thay would have had to frist have the tool and it would have tacken a long time. It shows in the pictures that they are still modifing it so they would have to be like invisible to dodge all of our space crafts and rovers and stuff. Even if they still made it then they are probably more scared of us than we are of them. So if they were so scared of us than why in the world would they make a sculture of someone they fear ,and that they know wold hurt them.
Now you know that aliens could have in no way made that face on mars. the reasons that aliens couldn't have made them are, they would have been seen they are too scared, they are still modifing it, they dont know what we look like, and they may have seen us but through a spacesuit. | 1 |
During our day and age vehicals are extremely common every where you look there is a vehical. Vehicals are the second largest producer of carbon emissions in America, right behind power plants From what the artical "The End of Car Culture".
Personal vehicals are not a nesesity there are many ways you can find your self going back and forth between locations even if it comes down to riding a bike. This world is all we got so why not treat it the best way we can and conserve it, you only get to live here once so make a differnce even if it is as small as picking a day out of the week to ride a bike to work or school. I personaly think the goverment should bput a ban on cars for certain days of the week and if people fail to follow that law their should be punishment not a small one either earth is the mother of all life she protects us she nurishes us and takes care of us but yet we treat her like she is worthless. I know i wouldnt want anyone slapping my moher in the face and treating her like she is worthless so dont treat our mother like she is not something worth saving!
Their are also other ways to ensure that we reduce carbon emmisons relased by tailpipes of cars for one cities could build cities closer together so when people want to travel the dont have to spend hundreds of dollars in gas that is slowly but surely distroying our home. People could use car polling or even turn their gas powered cars in for an hybrid that uses electricity to power the engine. | 1 |
Having a driveless car seem cool and everything, but what about the aftermath? People don't really think about the aftermath of their thoughs and plans, which can cause problems in the future. Making driverless cars is a really awesome idea, and it would be wonderful if we could have those cars in the future. Although they seem awesome, there could be many things wrong while making it and after making it. I am against the development of driverless cars because it would be challenging, there will be money problem, and laws would have to be changed or added.
First of all, making a driverless car would be very challenging. Makers would need to learn many things about cars. They wouldn't be able to make mistakes because if they did, the whole car won't work. Also, the car need to be really smart, and they would need a whole lot of sensors. "The combination of all of this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of human at the wheel." If the car doesn't have all that, we don't know what could go wrong. It will also take a long time to make it, and it will just be time wasting.
Furthermore, if people were to make driverless car, it would cost los of money. "'There was no way, before 2000, to make something interesting. The sensors weren't there, the computers weren't there, and the mapping wasn't there. Radar was a device on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack.' So just how driverless will the cars be in the near future?" Two hundred million dollars? Why should we waste money on some car? I don't think it is even worth it. We should just be fine with the cars we have right now. We should feel blessed that we can even drive our cars right now because there are millions of people out there that doesn't even have a car. There are many things that we could do with that money like making our environment cleaner and better, so makers shouldn't waste money on some car.
In addition, if there are driverless cars, the laws would have to change. "Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident." If there is an accident, we won't know who to blame because there are no drivers. It is just the car driving itself. "If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault- the driver or the manufacturer?" Changing laws would also be difficult because it would take time to come up with new laws and write them down on the law paper.
From the difficuly of making driverless cars to the new laws that would be necessary, it is better just keep things the way they are today. People shouldn't waste their time, energy, and money to make some car just because it seems cool or awesome. It is an awesome idea,but I think it should just be kept in our imagination because I don't think many people would want to spend their time on tring to make one car. There are more to the world than that. So because of the difficulty of making it, the money that is needed, and the necessary change of laws, I am against the development of driverless cars. | 2 |
Cars. Everyone has cars. On the street, in their driveways, in parking lots. You think everyone uses car. Well your wrong. Not everyone has cars or uses cars for that matter.
In Vauban, Germany residents given up their cars to walk the streets. Where we generally park in like parking lots, parking garages, street parking, home driveways, and home garages are all forbidden. In Vauban their streets are completely car-free. They do allowed cars there but some people just want to walk to safe their community. But if you have are car you can only park in two places. Those two places are your house, and large garages at the edge of the development. I would never give up my car to live in Vauban, Germany. In matter of fact 57% of people have sold their cars to live there. To believe or not 70% of Vaubans families do not own cars. To me its hard to think that people actually walk everywhere they go.
Paris bans driving to clean the air of the global city because of pollution. Due to the ban of driving people who are caught driving will be fined 22-euro which is $31 in america. France has a tax policy that favors diesel over gasoline. Its hard to believe that diesels make up 67% of France, compared to 53.3% of average diesel engines in the rest of Western Europe. The smog cleared enough that French part rescind to ban odd numbered plates on Tuesday.
Today Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less, and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by. President Obama's ambitious goals to curb the United States' greenhouse gas emissions. This thing has left people like researchers woundering a fundamental question " Has America pass peak driving?" As of April 2013, the number of miles driven per person was neraly 9% below the peak and equal to where the country was in January 1995.
Its carzy how some countries have no cars allowed policy. Some countries baned cars, dont allow them on the streets. People would go carzy if they didnt have their cars and had to walk everywhere they want to go. | 0 |
Driverless cars have both pros and cons. However, more cons. I strongly believe that driverless cars are not safe and should not be driven. Driverless cars pose a great danger when there is not a driver in the it. Firstly, accdients will most likely occur more often therefore damaging the car and anyone in the car. Secondly, the roads could be different and cause the car to not follow certain directions or the road could be under maintenence. Thirdly, driverless technolgy mistakes could happen anytime and cause a major risk to anyone in the car. All of these reasons should make people not want to driver driverless cars.
To start off, driverless most likely cause more accidents. If there is no one in the car to take control of the car if a road is blocked off the car could end up being completely damaged. Also this could cause even more distracted driving. It is already a big deal with normal cars. If someone is texting and notice that the dirverless car is about to hit something it could cause more acidents just like normal driving. Accidents will hapeen no matter what;if there is a driver in the car and if there is no driver in the car. I strongly believe with no driver in that car accidents will definitely go up. If there are more driverless cars on the road than normal cars whcih could possibly mean no dirvers the risk for an accident to occur is much more likely.
Next, roads and driverless cars. You're driving down the sreet and you see part of the road is cut off so you just change lanes even though the lane you were in is usually fine. Lets say a driverless car did the same thing. How would it know not to drive in any lane that is uner maintenence? Driverless cars would not know and that is the problem. If there were construction workers on sight and a driverless car went through that. It would cause damage and possibly even kill the innocent construction workers. Another possibility is that someone is crossing the street and the driverless car can't sense that. The person crossing the street could get hit. Whose fault is that? Driverless cars cannot always sense what is on the road ahead of them unlike normal drivers that can see the road of them. Not knowing what lies on the road ahead of you is very dangerous and that is exactly what driverless cars do.
Finally, the technology that is in the driverless cars. There could easily be a mistake with driverless cars. Regular drivers make mistakes also however it is probably more common in driverless cars. If the car accidentally runs over something thinking it got into an accident and releases the airbags of the car damaging the car and anyone in the car. Or if the car brakes suddenly or
pushes the gas. The price to fix all of this could be very high, higher than the price for a normal car. When you are not in control of your car it opens a lot more risks than when you are not in control of your car. Like any other technolgy things happen that cause it to fail. Since the technolgy is not immune to failure and could even require a driver to be in it, a regular car is a good option. Overall, technolgy always has its flaws and you don't want to be in car that ends up losing control.
In conclusion, driverless cars are not a good idea. They cause people to constantly worry about whether or not their own car will get in an accident or not. Accidents will occur most likely, the car could not see roads are closed and drive in them anyways thefore damaging the car. Lastly, technology could malfunction also. All of these problems could put anyone in a driverless car at risk for an accident. These cars will be expensive and you do not want to end up getting the car detroyed even if it is not your fault. The only car you have complete control over is the one that you can drive. | 3 |
There are positive consequences as well as negative consequences for the development of these Driveless Cars. It's good that thechnology is advancing and the world is in a better place because of these things. It's not bad that things are starting to change including our daily use cars. It's good to be able to create new things that are interesting and enjoy the things that are being produced. I oppose to this new invension of cars however.
People might be excited hearing these advance technology such as the Driveless Cars that are being introduced. However, I'm against these Driveless Cars that are about to be sold. You might think that cars being controled by itself without the drivers would be facinating and cool for you, but there is also danger ahead of us. Of course, it's the job for the companies to sell out to you and try to earn whatever amount of money they could, it's not their responsibility of driving for us after buying it. The cars are not even fully recommanded by the producers yet; they are finding ways to improve it. However, it's not fully guarantee that we will be safe as long as we are in the car.
It's our choice whether we want to get this new car or not, but know that in your mind there will at least a consequences. These cars are cool and looks awesome in our eyes, nor is a bless to own one. Even so, we should know that these cars are not a hundred percent safe. The text state, " This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. " This shows that we also have to ready to take over when something doesn't seem right. It's not like the Driverless Cars will take care of us.
Imagine you are texting while in these Driverless Cars going to your work. You just let the car control when suddenly a road ahead of you is being constrcted, at that moment, you probably might not be alert or anything. The car then had an accident and the one to blame is you, the driver. What I meant to say is that these cars aren't that safe as we think it is. We also have to take the responsible of beingon alert or else something might happen. The text said that if the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault- the driver or the manufacturer? This tells us that it's not guarantee that the manufacturer will take full responsibility of us when somehting bad happens. We have to take care of ourselves.
These Driveless Cars might be convenient in some ways, but always know that it's not always safe. What's the use of always staying on alert when you bought the car thinking it can drive itself without the need of the driver. Even thought it's a fancy thing that the car could drive by itself, it still needs the help of the driver. If something is about to happen in the middle of the highway, what are you going to do? It's really dangerous just thinking about it. Our life really determine on our own actions when driving this Drivelss Cars. Some people might find the cars a good thing, but for me, I really am against it. | 3 |
The reason you should join the Seagoing Cowboys program is because its an opportuntiy of a life time,as said by Luke. There isn't just one reason why you should join the Seagoing Cowboys program there are thousands of reasons. The main things are the locations,the people, and the experiences.
To start my reasoning, you could help thousands of people. You could also have fun on your adventures sailing to all these different contries and states. As you grow you will learn more about what you are doing. You could get really cool things when your traveling too. You could even help take care of animals.
Secondly, you could do really cool things on board. You could get to watch animals, play baseball,volleyball,table-tennis touraments, fencing,boxing,reading,whitting,and games that could pass the time. All of those things Luke did on board. You can do all of those things in empty holds.
In addition, for Luke it was much more than an adventure. You have someone to look off of and to see a ture experienceof being a Seagoing Cowboy. Now you should see why Luke said it was an opportunity of a lifetime.
In concusion,I see why its so great to be a Seagoing Cowboys. The places you travel to,the people who you travel with, and the adventures. Just think of all the fun you could have on that very special boat just wondering what lies on the other side of that island and what you could learn the points are endles. So join the Seagoing Cowboys and then you could get in for sure. How you will react when you take that first step onto the next part of your life
Some of the parts to make this possible are ,''Luke could't say no. He knew it was an opportiunity of a lifetime. Paragraph 7 tells you that he lives with his aunt Katie and paragraph 8 is where i got how many things he did while he was on board and why they thought theose activities were fun. The end about how it was more than just an adventure , I got that from paragaph 9. | 2 |
Senator of Florida, the electoral college should continue and not change. The electoral college has helped America vote evenly on politics. This helps avoid any conflicts with candidates. Without the electoral college, we would have to try and use a new method. Using a new method is not only time consuming but, nobody is sure it can have a certain outcome.
The electoral college dismisses the problem of run-off elections. Candidates wouldn't have to worry about not receiving a majority vote. "For example, Nixon in 1968 and Cliton in 1992 both had only a 43 percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the Electoral College (301 and 370 electoral votes, respectively)." (Posner, 22)
Using the electoral college will give you certanity of the outcome. Since most states go off a certain basis, it is very likely that the state will have a win based on their electoral votes. "In [2012's] election, for example, Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral votes compared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and Romney.... Because almost all states award electoral votes on a winner-take all basis, even a very slight plurality in a state creates a landslide electoral-vote victory in that state." (Posner, 18)
Conversly, it can lead to another disaster. People do have the possibility of rearranging votes so a certain candidate wins. "Back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy. (So that a popular vote for Kennedy would not have actually gone to Kennedy.)" (Plumer, 11)
Although there were problems and disasters in the past, we have grown from them. Electoral College gives us certainty. This avoids run-off elections as well. Keeping the electoral college would maintain the political balance in America. | 2 |
Let's talk about Venus! It doesn't really get talked about ; However, Venus is the second planet from the Sun. That also means it's a extremley hot planet.
Venus is sometimes called the "Evening Star" because of how bright it shines at night. It is also states in paragraph 2 first sentence, "Often referred to as Earth's "twin". Venus is called the Earth's twin sometimes because Venus is the closest plant in density and size. However, depending on the speed Earth's going along with how fast Venus goes. There might be a quick chance that those two planets will run past each other.
No spacecraft has been able to land safetly on Venus just for a few hours they can't survive. Maybe this explains why spaceship's haven't made it to Venus in more than 3 decades. Venus is covered in 97% of carbon dioxide blankets, Also; what's more challenging is the clouds of highly corrsive sulfuric acid in venus's atmosphere. Therefore the temperatures on the planet is an average of 800 degrees fahernheit. | 0 |
The face on Cydonia isn't made by aliens because there is no life on Cydonia, the Jet Propulsion Lap were happy, and the face is equivalent tolandformin the American West.
Cydonia has no life living there. It became main priority to NASA in September of 1997. This Red planet became the priority because they have captured a photo of what looked like a face. Although int he passage scientist state that they thought it was just anouther Martian mesa.
Back at the controllers Jet Propulsion Lab the passage says that the face apeared on there monitors. It was a sensationto the lap and the scientist even thought it was shortly lived. Common around Cydonia they thought it was just anouther Martian mesa. After afewdays NASA unveiled the image of the face to the puplics eye.
The picture of the face on Cydonia shows that it was/is equivalent to a buttle or mesa. Jim Garvin said " It reminds me most of Middle Buttle in the Snake River Plain of Idaho."At one point Garvin also said the dome takes the form of an isolated mesa, almost the same height as the face. If there was aliens on the Red planet you could see them. A picture taken was able to be as clear as possble.
I see where people would think the face was made by aliens. Yes, we don't know if there really is life on Mars. Some scientist belive the face was an alien artifact. Skepticals said perhaps alien markings were hiddenby a haze. But, there will not be life on Mars until NASA says so.
There isnt life on Mars. If you have proof then show NASA if they belive it then isuppose there is life being lived on Mars. | 2 |
The author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. Although he presents boths aspects. I feel like he leans more towrds the idea that we are ready to try out and create driverless cars. I feel that people are still getting used to electronics and cars. So rushing into the idea of driverless cars is not a god idea. Maybe towards the future we can create and build on the idea but right now I feel as if that idea can wait. In the text it says "In most states it's illegal even to test computer driven-cars." This proves that the world is not quite ready for driverless cars.
It also states in paragraph 9 that, " If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault--- he driver or the manufacturer?" If the technology fails people are bound to blame and sue the manufacturer. The will state that the technology fails and you aren't doing anything or they will say I want my money back. Who could blame them? If the technology fails then it is definitely the manufacturers fault. Not the driver. Human driven cars are safer because humans have control over the cars but if computers were to driver then they would not know the traffic laws. They will not know what to do at a construction site. There is no promise that the computer knows these things. They maybe little issues but if something were to go wrong. It could end up being a big issue over the littlest thing.
Even though Sergey Brin believes that the world is ready for this next step and that he can envision it. I think he needs to look at the little isses and problems that may occur. Apple is send out new technology every year. Also every year people have to get used to the new technology and the idea behind it. So you send out a completely new idea on cars. How will people react? If these new cars get into more accidents who are the people going to blame? I think driverless cars should be an idea towards the future. So my position on driverless cars is that the idea can wait and that the idea is more an idea towards the future of human kind. I'll admit I love technology but even I think that driverless cars is a bit much. Let's focus on the problems right now. | 3 |
The years go on and knew inventions keep comming out. The facial Action Coding System is a new technology that has scientists have came up with. The tool is used to messure your state of emotions wheather you're happy, sad, worried, or even surprised this tool will say it all. This could be used for many things and i think its a good idea.
This technology can be used in school to show the emotions of students while they are in class. This could help school directors know wheather a teacher is a good teacher or, well not such good teacher. While calculating the expressions of students in the class students should have a excited and calm expression. Of course there will be that 2% bored out of their mind. But i think many kids should be relaxed at school. This will show the teacher that they understand the lesson and they dont need to reteach it. Lets say that almost more than half the kids are stressing and are showing a worried or bored expression on their face this could mean that the teacher is just not doing enough to help teach the kids. The teacher could also ask if the kids understand and most of them stay quite when confused with the lesson because they are scared of being judged. But now the teacher can know to reteach the lesson or move on with the next.
Another way this technology could be used is to show the expression when adds pop up, as the article states when an add that someone doesnt like pops up the next one could be an add that is related to one that is in their interests. in that form you wont see any dumb or just adds you dont need to see. Today in this scociety we use fake emotions just to be nice or so we dont get in trouble but with this technology we can truly understand and know how we humans feel. Many people lie when it comes to crimes this could help cops with their investigation go alot smoother by seeing peoples ex[pression and they could tell if the person is lieing or trying to hide things. It could possibble help end crimes.
I believe this technology can be very helpful in society today. This technology could help kids around the world accomplish many things. It could also help people opinions get out there therefor we could have better things on earth and less bad things. With this invention many things could be done without even saying a word just by your face muscles. who would have thought! | 2 |
The face is a natrual landscape. NASA claimed there was something the first time, but the next time, and time after that there was no face. The photograph was taken in later years with better technology, so thats evedince that there was nothing on the planet.
In paragraph seven sentence one it states that " Michael Malin and his Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) team snapped a picture ten times sharper than the original Viking photos." In paragraph seven sentence two it also states " Thousands of anxious web surfers were waiting when the image first appeared on a JPL web site, revealing . . . a natrual landform."
In conclusion there really is no face on Mars. In paragraph seven it also states " There was no alien monument after all." In paragraph twelve it states " That's a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars." That is proof there is no Face on Mars. | 1 |
Have you ever wondered about the Face on Mars? You probably told yourself it wasn't real, or you're one of those people who have done their research and love the idea of it being real. Well, I'm here today to tell you how it's not created by aliens. Aliens don't exist to our knowledge yet, so therefore we cannot assume that it was made by them.
First, as we refer back to the 2001 picture, it looks cracked and it looks like it was covered. In the 1998 picture, it looked like it was somewhat burning. In the 1976 Viking 1 picture towards the middle of the article, it shows the shadows, making it look like a human face. The eye was caused because of a hole, so it was dark. The nose was caused by the shadow on the right half of the face.
Then, NASA knew it was going to get popular very fast, and it did. It was a pop icon all over the world. For example, "It had starred in a Hollywood film, appeared in books, magazines, radio talk shows, even haunted grocery store checkout lines for 25 years!" (5). That goes to show NASA was in it for more fame, because who doesn't want to see a face on Mars?
Finally, it's just a natural landform! As the article states, "Thousands of anxious web surfers were waiting when the image appeared first on a JPL web site, revealing . . . a natural landform" (7). You shouldn't always believe what you hear. It wasn't (an) alien(s) who made it. It was a natural landform with a few shadows on it, that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
The Face on Mars wasn't made by aliens. The pictures show it. NASA also just wanted to get popular off of it, because they know how us people are. We'd die to believe anything is true. It's also just a natural landform. Why would you believe what other people say? Why would you let others make you believe soemthing, why don't you just believe what you want to? | 3 |
Should our way of voting in the United States be changed? The way we vote today is through the electoral college. Each president get a certain number of electoral votes and that is how we vote on specific leaders. The Electoral College process was established in our Constitution as a compromise. This way we could elect our president by a vote in Congress and election of our president by citizens who qualify. Is it not time for a change in the Electoral College?
First off, the Electoral College is a specified process. This process consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is manditory to elect the President. The way this works is every state has a certain number of electoral votes, mostly due to population. For example, a larger state with a large population will have more electoral votes than a smaller state. Also, each candidate running for president in your state has their own group of elector. These electors are chosen based opon the candidate's political party, but state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are. There is a presidential electon held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday of the month of November. When you vote, you are helping choose your state's electors. When you vote for President because when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candiate's elecotrs. After your presidential election, your governor prepares a "Certificate of Ascertainment" showing all the candidates who ran for President in your state and with the names of their respective electors. This also shows which electors will be representing your state at the meeting of the electors in December of the election year.
In addition, the pocess of the Electoral College should be changed. The are even a number of Presidents that tried to abolish the Electoral College. Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, adn the AFL-CIO all agreed on abolishing it. It is proven that 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now. Most voters today are significantly uninformed. Some do not even know what or whom they are voting for. Some of these people are not even U.S. citizens. Yes, some states do require to so identification, although others do not. A direct election would be more specified and easier for people to choose and use. Some people overlook these detail while others enjoy the system because of the power it provides them. There are multiple errors in the voting process. There are certain people that do not even posess a high school degree, let alone a college degree, that vote just because they want to. The is a massive suply of ignorance and pride that fall into play with the Electoral College.
Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president they choose, but for a slate of electors, who in turn, elect the president. For instance, if you wanted to vote for a specific person you would vote for a slate of electors pledged to that person. This method of voting is curupt and should be abolished. The people in American should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the largest election crisis in a century; the system could have lead to much worse than that. Consider that state legislatures are technically responsible for choosing electors, adn that those electors could alwyas defy the will of the people.
In conclusion, why is the Electoral college unhealthy? This system of voting is outdated and has many flaws throughout its system. Without this system being changed is could have a tremendous affect in the future of the United States. This irrational system lacks a basis in reality. The arguments against direct elections are spurious at best. It is difficult to say but the Electoral College in general was a mistake. | 2 |
In this article Making Mona Lisa Smile, the author was talking about how the process a computer with a 3-D computer that can model your face and how all 44 major muscles i the model must move like a human. Dr. Huang relies on the work muscles is psyhologists auch as Dr. Paul Eckman, creator of FACS whaich stands for ( Facial Action Coding System ).
Dr. Huang had some observations and looking back into the article here is one of the things her said. "Even through individuals often show varing degrees of exression" (Like not smiling as boradly).
Making this was perfect right at first because after weighting some different units of the software could even mix up emotions.
Now of course, most of us would have trouble actually describing each facial conveys happyor worried. Throught out more they were coming p with many different ways for the software. Seeingg the Mona Lisa would indeed bring a smile your face. Dr. Huang predicts, " Then it would modify the lesson, like an effective human instructor. | 0 |
In the month of May, 2001 something strange and quite funny happened on the red planet, Mars. As NASA's Viking 1 spacecraft was circling the red planet, they snapped a picture of something that had the "likeness of a human face." Some people think the "Face on Mars" was created by aliens, but research has been showing, the face is only a natural landform.
On April 5, 1998, the Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia for the first time to see if they could get another shot of the "Face". Sure enough one man snapped a picture ten times sharper than the original photos from the Vikings. When the image appeared on a JPL website many were shocked to find it was only a natural landform, there was no alien monument after all.
After all the searching for more information on the "Face on Mars" scientists yet again in April of the year of 2001 drew close enough for another look! Michael Malin and his team captured an amazing, unbelievable photo using a camera with maximum resolution. When examining the photo, they found that the picture actually shows it is "the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa--landforms common around the American West."
In conclusion, the "Face on Mars" is only a natural landform and most certainly did not come from aliens. Thanks to the new and improved technology today, scientists were able to find out that the "Face" was only a landform which is even common on Earth. | 2 |
There's a bunch of controversy over the driverless cars. Some people hink that they are a good idea and some people don't. Many people have their opinions on this topic. Now it's time for me to tell you mine.
In my opinion I think that driverless cars would be a good idea. Driverless cars would help out a lot. Like in the first paragraph in the passage it said that the cars would use half the fuel that taxis use, and it would offer more flexibility then a bus. Just imagine having a car like that. Yeah the car would have its flaws, but that would be an amazing thing to have. Also imagine having a car with no driver. Yeah it sounds scary, but it would be cool. The only major bad thing about having one would be having to worry about serious accidents that might happen.
That's why I think that driverless cars would be cool to have. There are good and bad things about having driverless cars, but I mean there's good and bad things about everything, You have to have an open mind to new things. Driverless cars could help out with so many things. Don't just focus on the negative things. You have to look at the poditive side of this. | 1 |
Dear senator,
Many people argue that the electoral system is unfair to the voters but it's actually the opposite of that. I mean for starters most voters are easily manipulated and indecicive, If we choose the vote by popularity method it'll cause more of a problem then what we have now, and lastly not many people actually care for voting.
"The mob is stupid". This is what my 7th grade civics people told everyone. People are easily tricked. Just got a nazi germany for example. People belived in his philosophy and led to Germanys down fall. Anybody could appeal to anybodys needs. All you have to say is what the people want to hear. How you conduct yourself and how you talk is all you need to make some one on your side or to catch a vote. The electoral system is basically a back up defense in this type of a situation.
In addition, a "popular vote wins" election it'll cause' way more chaos than you could imagine. Like during the 2012 election obama only recieved 51.3% of votes. Can you belive that? Just 1.3% short was the opponent and you actually belive not only the people but Mitt Romney would accept his loss? He'd obviously demand for a recount and possibly even be calling so and so for being corrupt and it would be a wild two months if not four years .
Lastly, many people do not care for voting which not only decreases the number to manipulate makes it harder for an election to be one sided. About half of americas population actually vote on elections which actually increases the odds of tight races.
To wrap this up i belive the electoral system should be kept not only does it safeguard against the manipulation of the people it also helps keep elections smooth and run properly and prevents chaos. | 2 |
The technology that is being deveolped is valuable because in situations wehn someone doesnt want to talk or refuse to in a crisis they can read ther emotions and seek a better way of talking with them. also a lot of schools do a horrible almost a illegal jobs and reading kids emotions and helping there students so if this technology was used in schools teachers might actually have a chance at doing there jobs which they need to get better soon. this topic is useful in a lot of ways hostage situations interagations helping disabled people in schools which we all know need help this program could do wonders for people but if they use it to much and make it to logical we could lose sight of how to properly use it to many rules treating to many people the same would destory it because everyones different even if they feel the same way as other people some have a chip on ther shoulder and others own the world to many differences to make this system properly work and functio in a way we all wish it could but it would be to complex and overcompilcated might be a fun app on your phone but not for statewide adminastraion use it would be corrupt and wrong it would only be used to hurt not help | 1 |
Having cars without drivers are a big deal because according to "Google cofounder Sergey Brin Can. He envisions a future with a public transportation system where fleets of driverless cars form a public-transport taxi sytem". (Paragraph 1). Instead of having drivers in every car, whose drivers are teens, parents, elderly, disabled, drunk who are driving everyday, having a car without them driving would make their lives easier which would reduce the deadly automobile accidents that are reported everyday. I am not against the development of these cars, but in fact I am in support of the development because instead of having different drivers in different cars who are driving everyday, having driverless cars would provide more organized styems and more cautious sensors in the cars, which would lead to a safer environment whether inside the car or outside the car, while making a transprtation.
In the second paragraph it states "Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash" (Paragraph 2). It explains that the cars has driven a million miles without any crashes. Having driverless cars also would only use half the fuel of today's taxis. I believe if the companies put more researches on the cars especially when dealing with traffic issues, and if government allows them to test the cars more often, it would lead to another better, and successful step to allow driverless cars in the future world.
In conclusion, I am for the development of the driverless cars because they are more safe and they would offer less complelxion for the drivers. Just like there are robots being invented, the cars would also be able to drive without drivers. | 2 |
When sitting in class do you ever feel like you can read someones emotion, well now you can. With the new program Facial Action Coding System you can make a 3-D model of someone and scan the face mucsles to tell you what emotions they are feeling. You have six basic emotions that this program can detect just by your mucsles in your face. When they scanned Mona Lisa's face she was 83 percent happy, 9 percent disgusted, 6 percent fearful, 2 percent angry.
Now if people start turnning towards this method of telling how people feel instead of asking them to make them feel better then you are shutting yourself off from society and that's not okay. If you want to now how someone feels don't make a 3-D model of their face to have a computer tell you just go up and ask them how they feel and what will make them feel better. It amazes you when you find out how many people turn towards technology instead of face to face converstations.
Fianally if you scan someones face to see if you can make them feel better than you are doing it all wrong. You need to walk up to that person and say "Are you okay, what do you need to help you". Also when you do scan someones face they can put on whats called a "Fake Smile" and trick the computer into thinking it's a actual smile, so it will say they are happy when in reality you are mad or upset. Put down the elctronics and focus on what's important in life. | 1 |
The author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars but the negative aspects are more compelling. Driverless cars require many sensors, they would still require the help of the human driver and there is always the possibility of the technology failing and cause injury.
The driverless cars that are being tested require many sensors that are needed in order to allow the car to perform the duties of drivering. As it says in the article " For starters, they needed a whole alot of sensors." It rises questions like, What if they fail? What would be the cost of replacing broken ones? It a sound too expensive to maintain. Is there an alert system to warn humans a sensor is going out? As driverless cars need sensors they still need the help of the human drivers.
They claim to be driverless cars and yet they arent completely driverless; they still need the asistance of the human drivers. In the article is says " In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless." and "... but all are designed to nofity the driver when the road ahead requires human skills..." In how many situations would the so called driveless cars need the human skills to operate and prevent accidents? There is still the need for human judgement.
With automatives there has always been the risk of injury and death which is present in the driverless cars. But who would be at fault as the article says, "... new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accidents. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault-- the driver or the manufacturer?" Car manufacturers have been in fault for car defects that have resulted in injury or death. With driverless cars the risk could go up with failures in the car.
Even though the thought of having driverless cars is appealing to many, there is many negative aspects to the idea of having them. As driverless cars require many sensors, they would still require
help of the human driver and is always the possibility of the technology failing and cause injury or death. We are still far from the day where people will see driverless cars as an everyday thing. | 2 |
Technology has it now to where it can take an image and define how much and what kinds of expressions are being made. Some say that this can help in the classroom, but will it really? I do not believe it will because yes, it is a neat feature and all and it can help but it will be too expensive, standard computers will not be able to handle this feature, and ultimately, it will not aid the students in reading comprehention.
I really like the idea behind this Facial Action Coding System, or FACS, but I truly believe that it will cost far too much money. How will the poorer schools be able to pay for technology that uses this feature? They will not be able to just pay for the programming, but all new computers instead. From what this is sounding like, it will not be cheap either.
With its "complex algorithms," your computer that you use at home for your everyday use cannot maintain this programming. Even with today's super high-tech equipment, you still will not be able to do it. I do, however, believe that one day as our technology improves more and more, that it just might be possible to run this FACS program on your everyday PCs. Until that day comes though, you will most likely have to spend a fortune just to have this feature.
All English teachers teach their students about proper grammar and teach them about improving reading comprehention. If all of these schools transfer over to these computers with the FACS system, it will not help. This program has a contant running video camera that can tell when you are appearing confused or bored. As Dr Huang predicts, "A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored. Then it could modify the lesson, like an effective human instructor." When you express these emotions, it will take the level of the lesson down to make it easier to understand. With doing this, you can just appear like that all the time so that way you do not have to read at the level in which you are supposed to be reading at.
It is appearant that I am against having the Facial Action Coding System to be brought into our schools because it is too expensive, your standard computers cannot hold the programming, and it will not aid in students' reading comprehention. For these reasons solely, that is why I am against this programming. | 3 |
I am all for the development of such cars. Cars like these, can save many lives. Who wouldn't want a driverless car when you are too lazy to drive on your own. You wouldn't have to pay for a driver or a taxi ever again. These driverless cars will make lives easyier, save time, and will be much safer.
I still believe that drivers should still be able retain control of the car, when need be. Technology, even at its finest can sometimes act up, but if a problem were to happen there will probably be a fail safe. Just like phones, cars like these will probably be updated constantly, to make sure there are no bugs in the software.
With all the sensors added in on these cars, these cars will soon be able to detect more then us, things we wouldnt see.
These cars will save countless lives, reduce traffic, and make roads safer.
Driverless cars are still being worked on and they still have a lot of work to do before they are even considered to be realeased to the public. These cars would be able to find the fastest route, get out of dangerous situations, make quick decisions, Things we couldn't do. The development of these cars should be allowed and accepted, making our lives safer and a little more easyier. | 2 |
Technology is a big part of today's society. I feel that technology is over used. People today are finding ways to have technology do simple tasks for us. For example, instead of using a book, a student looks at a screen all day. Now the idea of autnomous cars has been around for a few years. I am not for autonmous cars because texting while driving will increase, jobs at gas stations will decrease, and it will cause people of the future to become less active than they already are.
In today's society, texting and driving is another issue we have. If a person is in an autonomous car and are only needed when the car cannot navigate through certain driving conditions, the driver could text much more leading to wrecks caused by drivers texting. Therefore, the autonomous care being unsafe for the roads.
If autonomous cars begin to get popular, jobs at gas stations will begin to decrease. In the article "Driverless Cars Are Coming", it states "The cars he, Sergey Brin, foresees would use half the fuel of today's taxis..." This statement indicates that there will be less gas needed to put into this autonomous car which will lead to gas stations around cities will lessen. Some may say that is a plus because they don't have do pay twenty dollars to put in gas every week; however, I believe that if these autonomous cars come about, the need for gas will be less and jobs will be lost. Without people needing a whole lot of gas, what's the point in multiple gas stations around town?
People in today's society are already inactive as it is with all the technology that is available. For example, there is shopping online so they don't have to leave home and cellular phones and computers to connect with people without leaving home. The companies trying to manufature the autonomous car will be another advanced technology that will make today's people even more inactive. It seems today with all of these technology, the world will soon be over ran by all of these techonologies. Therefore, the manufacturers should not continue making devices such as the autonomous car.
In conclusion, I am not for autonomous cars because texting while driving will increase, jobs at gas stations will decrease, and people in the future will become less active than they already are. | 3 |
Imagine this, you're driving, but your hands aren't on the steering wheel. Cars have always been a main focal point to what the future will look like, most picturing them flying. Even though this possible new breed of cars will remain on the ground, they still are innovative and can help further the world of technology and how we use it. Development of this car should continue because it is safe and could possibly be helpful to new drivers.
Safety is one of the big issues people have with the car, most thinking that driver will no longer have power of the car. Driving takes insticts and observation, if a car is suddenly swerving the driver will respond accordingly.
The BMW has created the "Traffic Jam Assistant", which contains special touch sensors to insure that the driver keeps hold of the wheel.
At anytime while in that car, the driver can take over, if the situation calls for it.
New drivers will always be somewhat of a hazard, possible talks of raising the age requirement for getting a license, afraid that at the current one teenagers remain immature. If we were to have the driverless car, those issues would decrease, seeing as it will feel as though a parent is always on the road with them. These cars are never really driverless, the driver can still steer, accelerate, and brake if need be. GM has ever created a way for the seats to vibrate when the vehicle is in danger, keeping the driver alert to their surroundings.This car will decrease the amount of accidents created by teens, due to the car being able to see things that maybe they can't.
In conclusion, driverless cars are a good and safe invention. They will be able to drive correctly and safely. The driver of the vehicle will always be in charge, never losing the control they once had. New drivers will always have a backup, but still continuing to drive themselves. Cars will still require a knowing of how to drive, seeing as it can't do everything, one has to while traveling. The world is constantly evolving, and that includes technology. Driverless cars will just add on to the constantly multiplying number of things we have created. We still have a long way to go when it come to this invention, the question is, when the time comes, what car will you be driving? | 2 |
Dear, State sentaor
Juding by this artical "Does the Electoral College Work?", readers would agree that electoral colleges should be changed. This artical explains what electoral colleges are, how they help voting, and how they are bad. These three things give the reader the opion about this artical.
Source one "What is the Electoral College Work? " by the Office of the Federal Register explains what an electoral college is " The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the president by vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens". The founding fathers intended to help with elections but later people want it to go away so their votes matter.
Since electoral colleges have been formed they have been disliked because they are thought of as "an anachronism, and a non-democratic method of selecting a president". Another is "The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational". In most of the passage it talks about how the readers demise the electoral college.
To sum up this passage the readers would agree electoral colleges are unwanted, and not need. This is supported by many quotes in all of the sources. The best quote to prove this point is " Electoral College method is not democratic in a modern sense ... it is the electors who elect the president, not the people. | 2 |
Keeping or changing the Electoral College would be something to carefully process out. Since the Electoral College is "regarded on a non-democratic method of selecting a president that to be overruled by declaring the candidate who receives the most popular votes the winner"(10), then there should be a change made towards it. If there is ever a presidential election then there should be a fast process to organize each votings. As Americans have the freedom to choose, there shouldn't have to be a problem going on. To keep any confusion from starting, whoever's encharge of declaring each voting method has to keep the rights of each voter. "Voters in presidential elections are people who want to express a politicial preference rather than people who think that a single vote may decide an election" (23).
Making decisions can't be easy most of the time. People have to cautiously think about which will best benefit. Everyone goes through that stage when they are stuck on a decision. It's normal. We all know that the most powerful people are stumped on any decision too. Freedom of speech, freedom of mind. Sometimes, each state will have different opinions on voting; everyone is different. What people have to remember is that America is a land of freedom and that they have to choose wisely on certain things or else the country will go downhill fast.
"The Electoral College is unfair, outdated, and irrational"(14). It's not allowing the voters to actually "listen" to what each candidate is saying. People should have the right to vote based of what they think. It's almost like the feeling where someone is forcing somebody to do somthing that they don't want to do. As if they have no other choice. It will be best if the decision-makers start thinking about other people's thoughts. Not everything is based off of one certain process. The Electoral College sounds like it lacks the unison of people's rights that every voter will need. Certain people have to start thinking about changing certain things. | 2 |
The author supports his idea
very well. Why? Well let's get into this shall we. The author has already suggested that Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. Yes it is dangerous to study Venus but it is a good planet to study their is so much information that is unknown to us until we have been knowledged by it.
The dangerous of studying Venus and exploring it is how close it is to the sun. How close it? It is the second closet plant to the sun yes venus is a planet in our solar system as we know part of a galaxy. Venus is like a twin to Earth. Why? Well in paragraph two it states that " Often
referred to Earth's " twin". Venus is the closet planet to earth in terms of density and size, occasionally the closest in distance. Venus is a interesting planet to study because it is one of the brightest point in the sky at night.
" Earth, Venus, and Mars, our other planetary neighbor, orbit the sun at different speeds". Sometimes we can end up being closer to one planet then another. What is crazy is that there is people that have been up to Venus and landed on it with spacecrafts. Exploring Venus like landing on it etc. On the other hand is not the best idea. Why? However it is good to observe and study from a telescope the not so good idea would be to try and land on it because of the dangerous it has actually brought to scientists. " No space craft survived the landing for more than a few hours". " Maybe this issue explains why not a single spaceship has touched down on Venus in more than three decades!"
Venus is a worthy place of studying but on the other hand it comes with a small or large price. Venus is dangerous and should be kept at a distance to study. There is harsh chemicals in the atmosphere like sulfuric acid. Aswell as Venus is so hot that the tempatures average is just over 800 degrees Fahrenheit so think of when it's not on average. " Venus has the hottest surface tempature of any plant in our solar system ". Scientist have been discussing further visits to the surface but is that a good idea? No! Well because how many space crafts have made it back not as many as there should've been all the spacecrafts should've returned but did not. So that ends up telling me why would you wanna risk it all to go see a planet that is highly dangerous, because I know I wouldn't put myself in that postion.
At the end of all this and my reasoning for why I think the author thinks that Venus is a worthy idea of studying is because it is as long as you keep your distance from it. The author still suggests that there are people wanting to go up there is wild because of the dangerous that it can cause. Venus is an extrordinary place to explore but isn't the safest no one can outstand being on something at 800 degress Fahrenheit but if you want to explore Venus then go for it because there is always hope and chance that you can make it back now there is new, faster, safer technology that can help you out for going on a trip to Venus. You could be able to study Venus at a distance like hovering over it or flying over it. " A vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendy ground conditions by staying up and out of their way. So at this point in time yes the author is right that " studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents". | 3 |
You ask how a new technology called the Facial Action Coding System enable computers to identify human emotions. Here's my explanation of why I think it's a good creation.
I think that this is a good creation because if you dont know how someone if feeling in a picture you can figure out by this machine. I aslo think this a good creation beacuse its taking technology to a new level. You might ask how is it taking technology to a new level. Its taking it to a new level because there actually building a machine that tells how someone if feeling. Thats just amazing! Thats one reason why I like this machine.
People might wonder how do they know how someone is feeling through a picture. Or people might think maybe there's just putting something to make it seem real just make us think. Cause it's not possibly to show someone feeliing from a picture because you don't how that person is feeling inside. So thats why this machine can be bad.
I personally think thats this is a bad creation becuase its a waste of time to me. Why would anybody want to know how someone is feeling through a picture. When there reaction shows how they are feelings. Thats why I dont like this machine. This machine is pointless!
Thats my reasons why I think thats this machine is going to be a fail. And there's other people that might like this creation. To me though I dont like it. | 1 |
The invention of driverless cars has many intriguing ideas in cluding the reduction of the use of gas, sensors to alert the driver when to take over the wheel, and a new entertainment system. But, without a driver in control of the vehicle, a driverless car may somehow malfunction and go out of control causing danger to the "driver", passengers, and other people on the road. Also, without an ability to drive, drivers will feel very bored because they would have nothing to do. Therefore, I believe that driverless cars should not be made because of the safety hazards that it could cause and because of the lack of entertainment value.
Driverless cars should not be created for two main reasons. First, without the attention of the so-called "driver", the car may suddenly break down causing accidents and injuries to pedestrians or oassengers in the car. Though cars, like the BMW' s stated in this article have special touch sensors, the driver, who may not be paying attention to the road, might not have time to react to the situation. With driverless cars, the driver may underestimate what could happen if the car suddenly malfunctioned. Therefore, driverless cars should not be created.
Driverless cars would not keep the "driver" aware of his surroundings. The driver would basically be another passenger in the car. As a result, people in the car might start to get very bored. On long trips, like traveling down to Florida, a driver would not get bored because the new roads would keep his or her eyes occupied on the road, and the driver would get to drive on unfamiliar roads, making the drive a little less boring for the drivers. But without the ability to drive, there would be nothing to do on these long trips. This article even admits that the psychological aspects of self driving cars are a challenge becuase the driver might go insane just sitting in a car for a prolonged period of time. As a result, driverless cars should not be created.
Driverless cars should not be mad because of the psychological effects on a person and safety hazards that it could cause. Without the attention of a driver, the car could go out of control without the driver even noticing. A driver would also be very bored just sitting in a car for a long period of time, and therefore, he or she would not like these kinds of cars. We should stick with non-autonomous cars because the keep the attention of the driver on the road and it provides at least some entertainment value for the driver. | 3 |
The author describes that they a computer that can tell then you are mad or sad i dont think that thas a good think cuz then u going to see everyone how they really feel and i dont like people knowing how i feel and what i be doing so if this was me and we had that think that can telll ourfeelings i would not like it bause like i saide i dont like people knowing hoe i feel only my family. and i would tell if you happy or not the man that tryed to do this was really created to do this but theres alot of peple that dont like to tell people how they feel and whats going onin there houses and they just mead something that can tell how you are feeling your home PC cant handle complex algorithms used to decode mona lisas smaile but e can write down some simple instructions that encode fifferent emotiond so the firts people ir picture was the picture if the mona lisa to see if shewas really smaling in the picture or no. and they said that they seen her eyes and in the picture they saw that she was trying to smailing and inthe camara 3D they seen that she was trying to smaill and to me mona lisa she looks like she was trying to sonreir but she didnt show it alot. this is what i think in the picture of mona lisa . | 1 |
I know for sure that in my opioion I know that the face on mars was not made by aliens in doing so. The text explain so artifical evidence that the face on mars was surely to be believe to be created by aliens.In the text it states that the face on mars was possibly made by the land formation that they had on mars. In the text it states that it is the Martian equivalence of a butte or even a messa that are landforms common around the west. In the text it also states that there are lots of different things in earth that have no explantaion on what has to be done like differen things in the earth that may seem weird to us humans. If the text were to explain the theme with aliens then I would be on track with you
however you are. Many people believe many different things wheather its a religion or etc but this article doesn't have enough proof that its a
alien artifact. It would be best if they could explain why the couldn't dig it out and examine and compare the artifacts and see if they have anything in comon.
I am with the author that it is more likely to be a landform error than for it to be n alien artifact. These are some examples on how I know that this thing on the moon is not a alien artifact but a landfrom error. I strongly suggest that you don't believe that it is a alien artifact because it does not prove enough evidence in the text. | 1 |
THE PASSAGE IS INFORMING FELLOW CITIZENS ABOUT THE ADVANTAGES OF LIMIT CAR USAGE IN A WAY THAT, CAR OWNERSHIP IS ALLOWED,BUT THERE ARE ONLY TWO PLACES TO PARK LARGE GARAGES AT THE EDGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT, WHERE A CAR OWNER BUYS A SPACE FOR $40,000, ALONG WITH A HOME. AND UP TO 50 PERCENT IN SOME CAR- INTENSIVE AREAS IN THE UNITED STATES'' HOW MUCH YOU DRIVE IS AS IMPORTANNT AS WHETHER YOU HAVE HYBRID. WHERE EMISSIONS FROM AN INCREASING NUMBER OF PRIVATE CARS OWNED BY THE BURGEONING MIDDLE CLASS ARE CHOKING CITIES, IN THE UNITED STATES THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY IS PROMOTING ''CAR REDUCED'' COMMUNITIES, AND LEGISLATORS ARE STARTING TO ACT IF CAUTIOUSLY.
MANY EXPERTS EXPECT PUBLIC TRANSPORT SERVING SUBURBS TO PLAY A MUCH LARGER ROLE IN A NEW SIX YEAR/MR.GOLDBERG SAID.IN PREVIOUS BILLS,80 PERCENT OF APPROPRIATIONS HAVE LAW GONE TO HIGHWAYS AND ONLY 20 PERCENT TO OTHER TRANSPORT.BUT IT'S BASIC PERCEPTS ARE BEING ADOPTED AROUND THE WORLD IN ATTEMPTS TO MAKE SUBURBS MORE ACCESSIBLE TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.PARIS ENFORCED A PARTIAL DRIVING BAN TO CLEAR THE AIR OF GLOBAL CITY CONGESTION WAS DOWN 60 PERCENT IN THE CAPITAL OF FRANCE, AFTER FIVE-DAYS OF INTENSIFYING SMOG DELIVERY COMPANIES COMPLAINED OF LOST REVENUE, WHILE EXCEPTIONS WERE MADE FOR PLUG-IN CARS, HYBRIDS,AND CARS CARRYING THREE OR MORE PASSENGERS.
PUBLIC TRANSIT WAS FREE OF CHARGE FROM FRIDAY TO MANDAY, ACCORDING TO BBC.STREET PARKING,DRIVEWAYS AND HOME GARAGES ARE GENERALLY FORBIDDEN IN THIS EXPERIMENTAL NEW DISTRICT ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF FREIBURG,NEAR THE FRENCH AND SWISS BORDERS.VAUBAN'S STREETS ARE COMPLETLY CAR-FREE'' EXCEPT THE TRAM TO DOWNTOWN FREIBURG RUNS AND A FEW STREETS ON ONE EDGE OF THE COMMUNITY. | 0 |
In the world, there are people who believe in aliens or supernatural beings, while some do not. The face on Mars is an example of an occurance that causes people to believe in aliens or supernatural beings. Even though this is true, there are still many people who think the landform is a natural occurance. There are ways to prove that this theory for the landform is true. Reasons such as the landform being compared to natural, earth landforms and it has similar characteristics as earth lanforms help prove this is true.
The landform was compared to a butte or a messa. This means it is quite similar to earthly landforms and may have occured due to something that happened on Mars. The face on Mars is comapared one main earth landform that was mentioned. The landform is Middle Butte, which is located in the Snake River Plain of Idaho. It was a lava dome that took the form of an isolated mesa.
The face on Mars had the same look and height as a Earth landform, a mesa. It is true that there is an unusual shape to the face on Mars, there are similar occurances that happen on Earth. Though this happens on Earth, people don't say that these Earth landforms were made by aliens.
This landform is just like other occurances on seperate planets that resemble Earth landforms. Even though the landform resembles a human face, it doesn't mean the landform is an alien's doing. Just like landforms on Earth, there are more ways than one to prove the reason or the starting place of a landform. | 2 |
The author supports the idea that Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it represents because the amazin venus has that is different from out planet and why venus is an important part of our solar system and important information and details about venus that is good to know.
The reason why this planet is important even know all the danger this planet have like erupting volcanoes,powerful earthquakes, and frequent ligjhtning strikes this planet is helps make up our solar system to. The temperatue on this planet is different from our other planets and the conditions on venus that is far more extreme and harder to live on and the enviorment around venus. Venus has some many resources and details that is intelligent to learn about and how venus became apart of our solar system and became a planet.Also scientist are trying to find away to send humans to venus to find more details and important artifacts to learn even more about our planet venus so we can gain more knowledge about it.
This passage "The challenge of Exploring Venus gives us details on how the planet can be dangerous but this passage also gives us details to how much this planet has to offer and the reason why this passage is so important and all the things we found out about venus from the passage to help us gain more knowledge and important information about venus. | 1 |
I think the use of techology than can read the emotional expressions of students in classroom is valuable. Technology would be able to make see and predict more student's emotions. Knowing the emotions of students would allow changes to be made in the teaching of individual students. With technology, classrooms would be more effiecient, have better test scores and grades and would allow for a better development in education.
Using technology would help teachers see what method of teaching would be best for their classroom, based on feedback given from technology. If teachers would use technology in the classroom, they could make changes in the way they teach their students, allowing better efficiency in the classroom. With better efficiency less time could be spent learning and more strengthening of what students know.
Technology would also help classrooms have better grades and do better on tests. This would be possible by seeing the students that are bored or confused. With students that are learning better and understanding more, their grades are sure to increase, as well as their test scores.
Technology would also help better develop education. With feedback from technology and a change in teaching styles, education as a whole could be changed. The change would consist of a better ability to teach students in the time they get with the teacher. And a better understanding in students of what they learned.
Technology to read emotional expressions in classrooms would be valuable. Classrooms would have better grades and test scores, be more efficient and allow for a development in education. Technology used in classrooms could also help scientists better develop uses for technology in other parts of life. Classrooms would better as a whole. | 2 |
The use of this technology to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is valuable because in the passage it states "Eckman has classified six basic emotions happiness, surprise, anger ,disgust, fear and sadness" based off this piece of evidence the computer that he has designed to detect your emotion will determine how the student is feeling like for example : the sudent is smiling but the smile she has might have a little sadness in her) so the computer can detect that it was a fake smile. Another piece of evidence from the article is "she's 83 percent happy, 9 percent disgusted, 6 percent fearful, and 2 percent angry." based off that statement you can already tell that the technique Dr.Huang created works.
Finally in the passage it states "if you smile when a Web ad appears on your screen, a smiliar ad might follow. But if you frown, the next ad will be different." based on that statement if you smile while your lookig into the computer the next ad will be something about happiness but, if you frown while your looking into the computer then the next ad will be something about sadness.
In conclusion, Dr.Huang's studies and experiment's has been a success because it worked on telling how Mona Lisa was feeling and her emotions. It would be valuable to the students in a classroom. | 1 |
The Electoral College is not perfect and it may be called broken by some people, but in all truth it isn't. Nothing is perfect. The Electoral College is a good way to make sure that a election won't end in a tie (95+% of the time). It also makes sure that certain regions, or states, don't control the vote with their population. The Electoral College can be edited if it needs to though.
The Electoral College is very good at insuring one winner. It has this ability, because to be a tie both canidates have to have 269 votes which is highly unlikly. To have a President chossen majority has to vote one way (270). Now with a "winner-takes-all" system that his country, USA, has, there are only so many combinations of states' votes for one party that there would be a tie. Since the beggening of the Electoral College there has only been two ties. The Electoral College does make it easier for there not to be a tie, because more people voting into selected individuals then having them vote makes it easier for less mess ups and faster counting of votes.
The Electoral College also makes sure one part of the country does not get favored and make the others feel like their votes did not count. If one canidate is favored in a area and if it has a lot of people then that candidate would win with a direct vote. The bigger cities with more people would get every political ad and the canidates would be more focused there instead of getting everyone's opinion. The other places would feel left out and would be less likely to vote meaning not a true meaning of who majority wants as President.
Nothing is the world is ever made perfect forever. The Electoral College was clearly a great idea when it was made or it would never be put into action. The Electoral College does have slight problems that rarely happen. The best thing about it though is that people could vote and change details about it if it was that big of a deal. As "Under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution," people wanted/ thought it would be fair to count the District of Columbia as a "state." So people took a vote to make the change, thats why it is the the 23rd Amendment. When the USA gets more population, for a short time, there will be a odd amount of electoral votes, that means no ties. Until the popluation grows or decreases enough to make a even number of votes again.
There is pleanty of things wrong in this world, but one thing that is pretty good right now is the Electoral College. More times than not it has one winner and one loser, and rarely a tie. It makes sure that nobody is a favorite or feels like it. Also it shows things can change if something is a problem or needs fixing. The Electoral College is not perfect, but is not broken. Thank you for reading my letter, I hope you take it into concideration when deciding to keep it or not. | 3 |
In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" The author suggests that Venus is worth studying despite the dangers it presents. Firstly, The author supports the idea of why we sould go to Venus and explore venus and as stated in the article "Venus is the closest planet to earth in terms of denisty and size". On paragraph 5 the author sayed that, "not easy conditions, but survivable for humans" He said this because on paragraph 5 he explained the conidtions of Venus and came to
conclusion of saying we can survive with rough conditions he said "thirty plus miles above the surface, tempatures would
still be toasty at around 170 degrees Farenheit, but the air pressure would be close to that of sea level of earth" we can survive Venus but we will have to be in very rough living conditions this is why it is worth to pursuit Venus ever with these rough conditions. Firstly, NASA for example on paragraph 7, "Nasa has been working on other approaches to studying Venus. For example, some simplfied electronics made out of silicon carbide have been tested inside a chamber simulating the chaos of Venus's surface". If we can perfect the atomosphere of Venus and perfect the technolgy to explore Venus we can send drones and people to see how Venus truly is on the surface. Secondly, If we can be able to use Solar power on Venus 30 miles above the ground we will be able to survive with those rough conditions. Lastly,
stated on paragraph 6, "Many other researchers are working on inovations that would allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to or knowledge of Venus". I believe that we are capable to go to Venus and be able to survive the weather and storms that can be caused if we where in Venus if we can just get our technolgy advanced enough we will be able to just move to Venus and live there it will be hard gettig to Venus i know we will be able to acomplish this in the near future and finally be able to colonize outside of earth. This is why I agree with the author of "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" | 2 |
I claim that the author explained well about studying Venus is a worthy pursuit even though it's dangerous.
The author explained a lot about why scientists should study the Venus despite the dangers. In paragraph 3, author talked about the challenges in Venus while exploring; "Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere. On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahenheit, and the atomospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our planet." The author talked about the condition and why it's a dangerous because of the condition there.
In opposite of that, the author talked more about why it is a challenge to study the Venus in details with giving examples rather than just saying to the readers it's dangerous but it's worthy studying and explain it's okay to exploring the Venus because it's worthy pursuit. He/she explained about why it is dangerous to study the Venus. In paragraph 5, author talked about the NASA, that they have idea for the way to sending human to the Venus because they found out that it might be possible for scientists to floating in Venus so they can explore there to study. In the text it stated,"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has on 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. Imaging a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape." The author explained well about NASA's idea by giving examples with the reasons. Also in paragraph 7, the author also talked about the NASA's other approaches to studying Venus. In the text it says, "NASA is working on other approaches to study Venus." It's showing that there are several ways to go to the Venus, study and exploring, it's survivalable.
In conclusion, many people might say it is really a challenge and a dangerous for humans to go to the Venus, but after reading this passage, they would change their mind or at least think about these possibilities. As the author explaining why it's a challenge for exploring the Venus, he/she talked about that in detail. Also, the title of this article "The Challange of Exploring Venus" can give interests to all the people, whether they support exploring Venus despite of danger or not. | 2 |
The Electoral College is a process which is between a election of the president by a vote in congress and election of the popular vote of qualified citizens. Why do we need the Electoral College? We need the Electoral College to see what the people want in their opinion. Also, we need it for the problems the Electoral College avoids us from, such as each candidate doesn't recieve a majority of the votes cast.
The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have trans-regional appeal. No region has enough electoral votes to elect a president, that wouldn't be fair. The people of the smaller states fell that their votes do not count, that the new president will have no sense of caring for their interests,like he really isn't their president. The bigger states, such as Texas, restores some of the weight in the political balance that larger states lose. So, as we can see a larger state gets more attention from presidential candidates in a campaign than a smaller state would.
Next, the Electoral College avoids us from things in many ways. For example, Nixon in 68' and Clinton in 92' both had a 43 percent chance plurality of popular votes, while winning a majority of the Electoral College. The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate recieves a majority of the votes cast. Which means that pressure, which would greatly confuse the presidential election process, is reduced by the Electoral College, which clearly states the winner. It can be argued that the Electoral College method of selecting the president could turn off potential voters that has no hope for carrying their state. So the Electoral College greatly avoids run-off elections.
Therefore, we shall keep the Electoral College in favor for why we need to have it, and how it helps us avoid big situations. So please, let us keep the Electoral College as it helps our country throough political situations and for how it helps us. | 2 |
The Electoral College. The electoral college is ,to the office of federal register, "Is a process, not a place", which, in reality, it is. The electoral college is something that the founding fathers established for a choice of voting. You can either vote your election in congress or by a vote of the citizens. In my opinion, I don't really think that this is a good idea. No one really knows who's voting for who. And most of the time, voters don't always control who they get to vote for. But this can be a good thing sometimes because it helps keep everything in order.
First of all, the electoral college is a bad thing because nobody really knows who's voting for who. Most of the time, soem voters get confused about the whole thing and end up voting for the wrong person. During the election, most people get, as I said before, confused. These people get confused because there's too much going on. theres one side voting for one person, the other side voting for the other, then out of nowhere here comes like, 3 more people that are racing, and no one even knew whos these people were because everyone is too caught up with the states votes being all over the place to focus on anything else.
Secondly, I really think that the electoral college is not that good of an idea because most people that are voting don't even get a choice on who they want to vote for. The legislative branch is technically suppossed to choose the electors of the state. The electors are the people who allow peoples votes to go through. They pretty much just sit there and say if your vote counts. And sometimes it doesn't count. If it doesn't, they just give you to the other candidate. So you really don't have a choice to as to which candidate you vote for or not.
However, this could be a good thing. | 2 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.