full_text stringlengths 737 20.5k | score int64 0 5 |
|---|---|
In "The Challenge of Exploring Venes," the author suggests that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the danger's it presents because this days most of people are studying on Venus. they are trying to figure it out what is going on. there is lots of things that is very similar to Earth. Venus surface very hot. Mercury is closer to the sun but still Venus surface is hotter. "In Venus, the atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venes. Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere. On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet."
In Venus is more risk than Earth. "Beyond high pressure and heat, Venusian geology and weather present additional impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface. The Scientist are trying to figure out that Human can live in Venus. In the past Venus was mostly like Earth and still there are some features are same as earth like Mountains, Oceans, Rocky sediments. Scientist are also trying to make people travel around Venus. There is lots of planets near around us but the Venus is the most similar to Earth.
I think it is a good idea to study about Venus because the Scientist are saying that there are some chances that Human can live there and there is lots of things are similar like water and mountains. I've heard that Earth is going to explore soon so i think its a good idea to start studying about Venus so Human can Survive. I think if we try to figure it out we can live there. NASA are also studying on Venus to get more information.
People also want to know that can people live in Venus or other planets. "Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also because human curosity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors. Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts butb should be expended to meet the very edges of imagination and innvotion." The scientist are trying hard to get more details.
Firstly they are sending people to go to Venus and bring them back. How safe is it and how was the experience. They did many experiment like fly jet air plane and many others. they got some good and bad results to people survive and objects. "Just as our jet airplanes travel at a higher altitude to fly over many storms, a vechiles hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly ground conditions by staying up and of their way. At thirty-plus miles above the surface, temperatures would still be toasty at around 170 degrees Fahrenheit, but the air pressure would be close to that of sea level on Earth. Solar power would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth Levels. Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans." | 3 |
I dont think that the technology that shows peoples emotions should be for everyone.I think it should just be for scients to see more into human emotions and to see how it effects us. Letting anyone to have the ability to see emotions just from one simple picture could be harmful at times.
For example, someone could be very happy then a second later something sad popped into there head like their animal died and it makes them slightly sad, and then they send a picture to their friend and they might think that something really bad happened
but in reality nothing really did, but they keep on bugging them about it and it makes them get to get into a fight and ruins a friendship.
I am not saying that it wont be helpful but it could ruin something.There are different ways to see this, some people could see how it will help others, some see that its a threat or invasion of privacy.
But i think that it shouldnt come out yet because it could harm someone if it gets out of hand. | 2 |
Many people think or believe that they should get rid of the Electoral College vote for the president. Well in my opinion I believe they should not keep it because why do we even need them for? We have the people of the US. They can vote for a president, that's why the Constitution was written, to gives us the rights, freedom of speech, the right to vote. Why else would we have that if our vote won't really matter.
They should get rid of the Electoral College Vote because we already have many people voting for the president. We don't really need many people just to choose one man or woman to lead the country. They can just count how many citizens voted for a president and the one who has more voters is the winner. If it ends up as a tie, then just let the memebers of the House of Represenatives vote. Or at least let the popular vote decide who the president will be.
Having the Electoral College vote is useless, because they just vote for a for a slate of electors, who in turn will elect the president. It just adds more steps to elect the president. They should just get rid of it and keep the popular vote for the president of the United States. Let the qualified citizens vote who they want to be the president. It'd make more sense, because they just vote for someone who is not holding office, anyone. I say get rid of it so that we don't get a "disaster factor" anymore. That 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in the century. This electoral college vote is unfair , outdated, and irrational. its unfair because of the winner-take-all system.
However, many people may disagree. They belive that we should keep the electoral college vote. There's five reasons of why they think we should keep this type of method of choosing the President. The first reason is the certainty of outcome. A dispute over the outcome of the Electoral College vote is less likely to happen than a dispute over the popular vote. The second reason is everyone's president. It requires a presidential candidate to have trans-regional appeal and no region has enough electoral votes to elect for a president. The third reason is the swing states. The unfair method of winner-takes-all electoral votes induces the candidates and focuses on the voters in toss-up states whom more likely pay close attention to the campaign. The fourth reason is the big states. Electoral College restores some weight in the political balance by letting a large state get more attention from presidential candidates in a campaign than a small state does. And the fifth reason is to avoid run-off elections. It avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate recieves a majority of the votes cast.
So in conclusion they should get rid of the electoral college vote because its unfair to the small states. Knowing that their vote will not have any effect, they have no reason to pay attention to the campaign. They can just let the popular vote decide or the House of Representatives. Bob Dole was right. Lets get rid of the electoral college vote. Mostly get rid of it because its unfair to some states or people. Its is really an irrational way to settle on an agreement of who the president may be. And yes is may have less disputes over the outcome but it better to have some dispurtes over it so we elect the correct president and see what all their qualities may be. In my opinion I believe we should abolish the electoral college. | 2 |
Near the French and Swiss bordars a new district on the outskirts of Freiburg streetparking ,driveways,and home garges are fobidden . A person that would like a car would have to pay 40,000 for a parking space ,along with a home . 70 percent of Vauban's families do not own cars and 57 percent of them sold there car to move down here .
This could be a growing trend to seperate suburban life from auto use as a movement called "smart planning ". Which could help in the future .
Not driving can clean up the air for the global city and wont take to much pollution in Paris . In paris people with any kind of veichle that contains a motor with evan -numbered license plates had to levae their cars at home or have to deal with a 22-euro fine . It would apply the next day to the odd-number license plates too. Almost 4,000 drivers were fined . People would have their cars impounded for their reaction to the fine . Congestion was down 60 percent in Frence ,after five days of intensifying smog it started to trap car emissions .
In bogota they had a big hit with car-free day .It was three straight year when cars got banned. With only buses and taxis were premitted for the day without cars .
Recent studies show that Americans have been buying lesser cars driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by .
A study showed that less then 23 percent of youmg people decreased.
In conculsion these are my examples of advantages of limiting driving . | 1 |
I am for the development of these cars. There's lots of reasons why I am. It reduces less injuries or car wrecks. This new development really protects are environment and the way we use cars today. It helps for the habbit of texting and driving. I will explain more in the following paragraphs.
It reduces less injuries or wrecks. Many of family memeber have died from car accidents. Car accidents could be caused by texting and driving, falling asleep at the wheel, and many other reasons. I will explain more on why this new development protects our environment and the way we use cars today.
This new development protects our environment and the way we use cars today. With this new development, it sees the accident occuring before we do. It protects us very well from our car crashes and wrecks and us humans being hospitalize. "Google cofounder Sergery can remember a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore."
In conclusion this new development can protect our enviroment. Prevent lets injuries. It causes a better and safe life. It also sees the accidents before we do. So I am with this new development and the way it works with life and the future of us. | 1 |
The invention of the Electoral College has definitely altered the United States of America. According to past experiences and news broadcasts, it seems like the Electoral College is the right way to go. The Electoral College is elected to vote for the president that they plan to vote for, and it has a huge impact on the outcome of the election. Many do argue of course that the establishment of the Electoral College the population of America not have much say as oppose to the president that they wish to be in office for a full 4 years. Although the Electoral College causes minor problems, it is definitely the way to go and decide who the next man in charge of the nation will be.
According to Source 3: "In Defense of the Electoral College" written by Richard A. Posner, the author is for sure for the fact that the Electoral College is thw right way to vote for president. Richard gives some valid points throughout his essay and really did convince me to stay with the decision of keeping this system. One of them explains that voters in toss-up states are more likely to know what the campaign is really going towards and what the candidates believe could turn the nation around and make it a better one. They are the most thoughtful and have the most impact on the election for sure.
Futhermore, another reason why the Electoral College should stay as the primary system is because it is sure that it will decide the outcome of a presidential election. In 2012, Barack Obama has received 61.7 percent of all total votes according to the electors, which has decided the winner of the election. It is said that one vote can overturn the election if the voting is really close. In Source 1: "What Is the Electoral College?", each state is selected with a number of electoral voters each election and is responsible for the voting of their party. This is the way it should be, a group of voters of each state represent the state and cast an overall vote for the next president.
As many would say, "we dont have any say in the election", they are technically wrong. As the people of the state, citizens have the opportunity to elect for and decide on who should be the electors of the president. The people rely on the electors to vote for the president that they think should be in charge of the nation. Will this be the method of coosing the president in the next few decades or even centuries? Who knows? Maybe the government will establish a new form of voting that everyone will be glad about. | 2 |
Thaithor did a decent job in supporing his idea about studying Venus is the first paragraph is talking about how Venus is also known as the Evenin star he is one of the brightest points of light in the night sky . Is also sayig that Venus is in our solar system, one example from the text is that venus is the seconf planet from our sun .
another example is that venus could give you a lot of information about earth and it has proved a very challenging place to examine more closely .
Venus however is the closest planet ot earth in terms of dentisy and size the author is supporting he's ideas pretty good he's giving a lots of detail and he is also making them understant what his talking about. The author has a lot of information about venus and the author is giving detail in every single paragraph he wrote .
In the 3rd paragraph is talking about a thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blanket venus. The author is saying that on the planet's surface, temperature average over 800 degrees and the atmosphere pressure is 90 times grater than what we experience .
as a conclusion NASA is working on toehr aproaches to studying venus in my opinion he did a really great job because he is not only talking about venus he is also talking about how it can change the world and the authos is giving a lots of information . in every paragraph he talked about how venus can make a change in the world and how NASA was trying to do that . | 2 |
I say that making driverless cars would be great you would be able to talk in a car more efficiently, watch your kids, play games do all the things you've ever wanted to do in a car, done! Technically the technology has been out since the 1950s so why not let's move towards the new age!
Google seems like the company leading in this technology so far. In 2009 their cars could already handle everything but pull in and out of driveways and navigate through roadwork or accidents. Originally many thought that self-driving cars would begin with smarter roads. Back in the 1950s General Motors (GM) made a concept car that drove on a track embedded with electrical cable that sent radio signals to a receiver on the front end of the car. Engineers at Berkeley thought magnets would be the answer, using alternating polarity. The car read the positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code. Both of these systems worked well (and I know you're thinking "then what was the problem) but they were way to expensive.
Now back to Google. Google has recently produced a modified Toyota Prius equipped with lots of sensors. One on the rear left wheel,one that rotates on the roof, an inertial motion sensor and four automotive radar sensors but the most important sensor is the one the spinning one on the roof named LIDAR. LIDAR uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of its surroundi | 1 |
To be in a Seagoing Cowboys program would be awesome to be apart of. Being apart of this program you could see cool things,see different cultures,and just think about what an opportunity this could be. You could have so much fun being apart of this journey.
I think being apart of this program would be a awesome opportunity because not alot of people could do this and be apart of a program. You also get to see really cool things like antique artifacts,really old buildings,and diffrent lifestyles. This would be so much fun because you can learn how other people live their lifes in different countries,and explore places you never thought you would even go to. You could also see different cultures and try their kind of food they eat every day,and see how people in different countries go about their everyday lifes.
I think this could be a life changing oppotunity for people. This is a awesome thing to do because it is not an everyday thing for most people to be apart of. | 1 |
In the article "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" the author explains that Venus is an extremly dangerous planet. The author also suggest that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. Due to the fact that Venus is extremely dangerous for human exploration it would be extremly unreasnable for humans to explore the planet.
The first reason why it would be unreasnable for humans to explore the planet is because the atmospere is extremly thick and tempatures are really hot. This is true because in paragraph 3 the author explains that the atmospere is "97 percent carbon dioxide. . .." In this paragraph the author also explains that the tempature is so high that it would not only kill any human on the planet, but it would also cook them! This is true because in paragraph 3 the author stated "On the planets surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit" which is almost double the temperature that you cook a turkey at!
Another reason why it would be unreasnable for humans to explore the planet is because some simplified electronics cannot last much longer than 3 weeks in Venus's conditions! This is true because in paragraph 7 the author states "some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simulating the chaos of Venus's surface and have lasted for three weeks in such conditions." This statement by the author basically proves that any human involvement on venus would be even more dangerous than previously thought because these custom made electronics are only lasting three weeks which makes the reader understand that a human in these conditions would only last an hour tops!
The last reason why it would be unreasnable for humans to explore the planet is because of the dangerous terrain of Venus. In paragraph 4 the author states that "The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes . . . features such as valleys, mountains, and craters." This shows the reader that not only is the atomasphere and temperature extremly dangerous but the terrain of the land is rough. This proves to the reader that human involvment at all on Venus is just far to risky!
The article "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" explains to the reader that exploration of Venus is nesacary but unreasnable for human involvement. The reasons why it is unreasnable for human involvment include; the atmospere is extremly thick and tempatures are really hot, some simplified electronics cannot last much longer than 3 weeks in Venus's conditions, and because of the dangerous terrain of Venus. allthough it would be unreasnable for human involvment the author did make it clear that we need to explore Venus one way or another. | 3 |
My argument is about how the landform is just a natural occurance. I may have proof to why it may just be another hoax N.A.S.A. may be involved in. If you look closely at the pictures took within the time period of 1976-2001 you can tell there has been a mistake because you look at the (Face on mars) and you think what!? is that true?. I do not think it is real because if you look at the pictures from 1976-2001 you can tell there has been a increase in technology such as photography. If you were to look at the pictures then you can easily tell its not a face because for one there is no face there anymore another reason is it looks like a mesa as one reporter said.
My personal opinion is that it was just something to get the community aroused and it did indeed. In the passage it said "It even haunted grocery lines for 25 years!" and also it played its part in movies and things like that. And only recently in 2010-2016 has there been ANY proof there has been any life or there may be any life there what so ever. The reason of that is they found a river or something I can't exactly remember. And also they (N.A.S.A.) don't believe that there could be any life there because the atmosphere is so hin and so hot they believe that it would be hard for something to grow and live on the planet mars. That is why I believe it was either a hoax or a mis-understanding. Thank you very much. | 1 |
She's 83 percent happy, 9 percent disgusted, 6 percent fearful, and 2 percent angry. Wait, anger and disgust is rising? Happiness is plummeting? What is happening? The answer is that this emotion reading technology, though interesting, could actually have a very negative effect on the people it is used on. Especially in a class room, one of the most influential places on a childs life. Sure, it is cool being able to read Mona Lisa's emotions, but on real students a facial action coding system would be impractical, invasive, and damaging.
Being able to detect other peoples emotions is a scary idea, but even before diving into the effects it could have on the mind, it's physical restraints are just as daunting. In paragraph seven, the article states "Your home PC can't handle the complex algorithms used to decode Mona Lisa's smile." Schools are already struggling to keep up with the cost of electronics for thousands of students, and having to get new laptops or computers to implemenet this technology would be extremely expensive and unwise. Especially when many schools have real problems that need to be addressed such as a larger special needs program, or more funding to the band who hasn't gotten new uniforms in twenty years. Then once all this money is invested, what if it does not work. This technology is clearly just starting to develop, and it runs solely on facial muscles. The article tells you how to raise your cheek muscles to show a real smile, surely students would find ways to exploit this and fake emotions, rendering the technology ineffective. Most importantly, schools are a fast paced environment, adding this technology and teaching the students how to use it would waste a lot of time that could have been devoted to learning. The other option would be to implement it and not tell them at all, but that would be a clear invasion of privacy and could get the school in legal and financial trouble.
All of this is assuming the school would even want the technology. It sounds very nifty at a glance, but the idea itself is actually extrememly invasive. Emotions are the secret to what's going on in our brain, all of our deepest thoughts and desires are secretly expressed in our emotions, sometimes very subtley. Kids are very secretive, and would almost certainly not take kindly to having there personal emotions, and by extension, what they are thinking about, out in the open. The author says that this technology in a class room would help recognize when a student becomes "confused or bored," but what about all the other emotions that would come with it: the sadness over a lost loved one, the love a teen is feeling towards their crush. These emotions are deeply personal, and if a child wanted to share them he would tell you. Stealing them away with technology is a clear invasion of privacy.
This type of invasion isn't just unkind, it could, instead of helping, actually damage a students emotional or mental well being. Emotions can be a rollercoaster. Everyone has their own way of handling them , and for some people getting them intensly analyzed is not the answer. In fact, this type of prying could cause students to retract into themself, and lower self confidence. For example, if a teen is always being reminded he is feeling sad, won't that just further his sadness? Then, if students don't want to share their emotions, they may start using their facial muscles to trick the machine into thinking they are feeling a certain way. One of the number one things all psychologists will tell their patients in dealing with emotions is not to cover them up and hide them behind other emotions. Constantly being in a state of hiding with emotions could cause students to snap in a bad way.
The last thing students of any age need is more problems to worry about. Emotions are a large, personal part of anyone's life, and to try and analyze them in a classroom setting would be impractical, invasive, and damaging. | 5 |
If people would stop using cars places would'nt be that dirty in the air it's polluting the air and it wouldn't be that dirty. An example would be in a german suburb people kind of stop using cars and started to walk and use bikes. People would be more healthy and active if cars didn't exist. For me I don't like cars in general. But yeah people praise cars just because they are lazy and like using cars to get places faster. Also people waist a lot of money for a car that would last along three years. Like it says in article 1,paragragh 3 "as a result, 70 percent of Vauban's families do not own cars...". Which means that those families do not own cars because they like to walk or use bikes.
Like in paris they banned using cars because the air was so polluted and dirty not even breathable for people. So they fined people that had their cars outside. So basically what they made people do is walk and use bikes. In article 2, paragragh 1 its says "paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city". What the author is saying is that people were using cars to much and the smoke would pollute the air. They almost held the record for the most polluted air so they partially banned using cars.
In conclusion, paris was making a good decision to ban cars or if not you'll get banned. | 1 |
It has finally come to this. We are reaching a pont in time where manufactors are creating cars that can dive on their own. manufactos have come up with a way to make driverless cars. While this is a very cool thing we have to focus on three main ideas. we have to focus on how the senses its surroundings, if the car is assisting the driver, and the laws for owning a driveless car.
First the sensors the car has. Goolge first modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the review mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an internal motion sensor. The technology the car has are the spinning roof sensors, the Dubbed LIDAR uses laser beams for a constant updating of the car surroundings.
Next driving and assisting. BMW announced the development of "Traffic Jam Assistant." This can handle driving functions such as speed up to 25 mph, but also special touch sensors makes sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. yet all of this new technologhy is incredible, the fact is that none of the cars that are being developed are completely drivless. The cars can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but they are still designed to notify the driver when they need to use the car. such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. Which will result in the driver to stay alert at all times. A really intresting thing about the car is that it can alert the diver when it needs human skills. the car can vibrate the drivers seat and announce when they should be prepared.
Finally are laws about owning a car like these. The driving laws focus on keepinf everyone in the car safe, and the lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. There are traffic laws that are written that the dirvers are the ones with the safe cars. Which means they are in control at all times. There are even some states that will not allow divers to have driverless cars. If there was an accidnet with one of the driverless cars then who is it to balme. The driver or the manufactors. Auto makers are still in the process of solving these problems.
As a result having these incredible cars can save time and money. And knowing that these cars have sesnors to help the driver stay alert is very handy. therefore there would not be a lot of car accidnets. And also knowing that the car is driving and assisting you as well is very helpful. Also knowing and understanding the Laws in having a car like this should be put under consideration. | 2 |
In movies and televison, driverless cars have been featured as an invetntion for the distant future. Automakers have begun to attempt the creation of driverless cars. There have been creations close to the driverless car but not exactly what people have been wanting to create. Driverless cars are a pointless invention idea and should not be developed any further.
Companies should not continue to pursue the driverless car idea any longer. Google has tried since 2009 to make driverless cars and they have been close to making one. The cars that Google has made can, "drive moe than half a milion miles wothout a crash, but so far, Google cars aren't fully driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents". The cars are not fully dirverless if they have to alert the driver to take over driving for a while through traffic. The driverless car should be independent and not need help from the driver on issues like traffic and pulling in and out of driveways. In 2013, BMW created a "Traffic Jam Assistant" but not a driverless car, which is the goal not a car that can only help with traffic. Smart cars have lots of sensors that can help guide divers through difficult jams or passage ways but those sensors cannot function without some help from the driver. The smart cars made by BMW, "steer, accelerate, and breake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires" . Their cars are close to the function of a driverless car but still need more work to be done in order to be able to drive without humans. Since the cars today still have not been developed like the driverless car it is pointless to continue to try. Even though driverless cars can be helpful there are laws that prevent some people from driving them. It is proven that, "in most states it is illegal even to test computer driven cars" . Most states will not allow the testing of let alone the driving of driverless cars. If driving one of those cars is not even allowed, then what is the point of developing the project further? The driverless cars should not be created since barely anyone is allowed to use them. Even if there was a change in traffic laws, "new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident". There need to be new laws covering the case of an accident about whether the blame is on the driver or the manufacturer. These new laws that would be set will take up time and could cause lawsuits. The technology in the car could fail and the someone could be injured and there would be the question of who is at fault. If someones safety is at stake then the car should not be made at all.
The idea of making a driverless car should not be continued. The car is a pointless idea that does not seem to actually work and would fail. There have already been multiple attempts at making this car and all have come close but failed. The project should be ended and automakers should stop wasting their time on this car and focus on the other cars they make. | 3 |
In the aricle "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" says that Venus is really good to study despite the dangers you might encounter. The article says that you may study it,imagen all the wonders you can find.
Also in paragrpah two it says that Venus and Earth are "twin". They say that planet Venus has the closest planet to Earth, but the density and size are some what close. It also say's that the speed of orbiting around the sun is close to Mars, and also Venus. Yet also Venus is very close to us that the humans have tried to send spacecraft to land on Venus numerous times. And yet each time was a fail since it only survived for a few hours.
Also in paragraph three it says that the atmosphere is very thick in Venus. That it has a 97 percent of carbon dioxide that covers Venus. Also the temperature is very extreme which is why we cannot live in Venus, even though Mercury is closest to the sun Venus is much hotter than Mercury.
Another reason is that Venus has a high pressure and also heat which states in paragraph three. Venusian geology says that Venus has erupting volcanoes, and very powerful erathquakes, it also has frequent lightning strikes that hits on the land.
Also in paragraph four it says Venus was probably coverd in largely oceans which can also supported the various forms of life. Yet also Venus does have some features of Earth, Venus has rocky sediment which includes valleys,mountains,and also craters. Also scientist say that to visit Venus it will take a long time frames of space travel, and also if you want to return form Venus it will be very hard.
Another reason on why Venus can be dangerous to study is that humans are having an idea on sending humans to Venus. Scientist are coming up with a solution have them float above the fray and not land. They are coming up with ideas of having a blimp like vehicle just hovering about 30 or more miles above the landscape. They may have a vehicle hovering over Venus so it could avoid the ground conditions for just staying off ground. The surface on Venus is around 170 degrees Fahrenheit, but the air pressure is close to the sea level on Earth which says on paragraph five.
In conclusion Venus is very dangerous, it has high temperatures and high pressure which the humans can not survive. Earth and Venus may have the same mountains and valleys, but Venus is to hot for us to survive. In conclusion Venus is dangerous to study. | 1 |
What is Venus? Some people called the "Evening Star," but not, Venus is actually a planet. It was nearby Earth but they have a safe distance between them. Venus had the hottest temperature of any planet, and human can't near the ground in Venus.
Venus had the hottest temperture of any planet in solar system, there had no any living things can survive. According to the article, "On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet...... Also notable, Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system," The temperature average of the suface of Venus is over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times more than Earth. Venus has the hottest surface temperture of the any
planet in the solar system.
Human cannot near the ground in Venus as the temperature and air pressure. According to the article, "NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray...... At thiry-plus miles above the suface, temperatures would still be toasty at around 170 degrees Fahrenheit, but the air pressure would be close that of sea level on Earth." As some possible solution to the hottest temperature surface of Venus, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration allow the scientists to foat above the ground...... On the 30 or more miles above the surface, the temperature still at around 170 degrees Fahrenheit like toasty, but the air pressure was close to the sea level on Earth. Those are not easy conditions, but survivable for humans.
Venus had the hottest temperature of any planet, and human can't near the ground in Venus. It has many hostile conditions for human to survivable. If the temperature of Venus is more lower, human may stay at the new planet. | 3 |
Teaching in a classroom setting is something that has been happening sucessfully for centuries now, dating way way back before technology was even being thought about. This goes to show technolgoy is not needed, but maybe sonetimes helpful. In a classroom setting peices of technology such has things like computers can be super helpful when doing things such as writing an essay, and acessing information online, however when taken too advancely it can become more of a joke, and a distraction to students. That's where the Facial Action Coding System comes into play. The Facial Action Coding System theoretically seems to be a good idea but in reality it's an expensive toy. There are many other proven effective ways to teach in a classroom, and somethings are boring to learn about but you still have to know them, so just sit still, relax, and learn.
The first thing you notice when walking into a classroom is usually the students who are choosing not to spend their time wisely rather than the students who are. This is because students who choose be off task are often distracted by technolgy and gaming which is a lot more noticable to the human eye. These students are taking advantage of technology provided and using it for bad. So why would we put the Facial Action Coding System in schools when it is expensive and would be used as a toy? That's right, we wouldnt. When used for other purposes we also risk crashing which is another thing that would take up more time rather than taking that time for the students to be taught.
Everybody learns in differnt ways for example take the idea of studying for a spelling test. Some kids learn by writing it down multiple times, some kids learn by hearing it being spelled, others learn best by repeating it. There are so many way for kids to learn so by adding the Facial Action Coding System into schools you're assessing kids on how much they enjoy what they are learning about, and not how much information they are actually gaining. Which bring me to my next point.
Not every kid is going to be excited about everything they learn. Yes, some books are boring, and who wants to learn about what cells are made of, and who cares who invented the lightbulb, but these are all things kids are going to learn anyways. Not everything is going to be fun. sometimes you just need the facts. Making kids excited about a topic all comes from the influences of other people being excited about a topic and feeling that positive energy around them. If a computer screen told you you were bored, it wouldn't make you less bored.
The Facial Action Coding System is not all bad. There are some good parts about it. In the pasage the author talks about how "A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored." To recognize when a student is confused is a powerful thing, because when more students are confused they don't always like to say it, however the Facial Action Coding System is an expesive way to tell if a student is confused. If a child is confused they should say something. This allows students to build up self-confidence. All in all the Facial Action Coding System has both pros and cons, however the cons over power the pros making this tool not valuable in a classroom setting. It is an expensive toy that should be used for other purposes. Not to say there is no good uses for the Facial Action Coding System, but it is just not valueable in a classroom setting. | 4 |
I agree that the Facial Action Coding System will be helpful in students and at schools. Because the system can detect a student's emotions, it can help a teacher learn more about that specific student. By knowing that a student is off guard or not paying attention to a certain lesson; the teacher can help that student on the lesson one-on-one. Not all students have the same emotions, so the students may not be getting taught well enough because of how the student might feel. The system can help a teacher realize that a kid might be mad and needs a certain activity to do before the class starts a lesson so the student can be content. Since more lessons will most likely be taught on computers, the teachers do not have to worry about wasting paper and money.
There is a downfall to all this greatness. More students will be on computers. That can cause damage in the eyes or brain. Some parents might not like the idea of their child being analyzed by a computer. Since the computer will use the camera to see the students face, the camera will have to be on. Parents might not like having their child exposed. Some teachers might not like the idea of having cameras on in their room for the same reason of being exposed.
Although there are more benifits than problems in the system. Students can be happier if the teachers notices that they are sad and actually do something about it. If the student is happy they will most likley be on topic on a lesson.
"Imagine a computer that knows when youre happy or sad"(D'Alto). The computer will be able to detect your mood and help you be happy if you are feeling sad. Teachers will get to know their students more. Because the comptuer can tell a students emotions, it can give information for the teacher. The teacher might use that information to see if that child needs to talk to someone in private.
Schools should get the Facial Action Coding System because it benifits students and their ways of learning. It also helps teachers get to know their students more and help them out if they need help on a certain lesson if they feel confused. Kids will be happier if teachers recieve information that a student is sad and need joy in the classroom. Students will be less bored if the teacher gets information that her class feels sad. The teacher can help the students not feel bored by making the lesson somewhat intersing. That's why I think the Facial Action Coding System is a good idea to have in schools and any learing facility. | 3 |
Dear Senator of Florida,
I strongly adivise you, hoping you will take this advise, to discard the Electoral Colledge and change it to whoever gets the most popular vote for the pesident of the United states. In Bradford Plumbers article he states "The electoral colledge is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The best arguments in favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality." The sad part about that is true. Yes, it was made hundreds of years ago and it worked but as time goes on and technology changes, the world changes, and some things just are not the same and dont fit anymore.
As some of the state of Florida coming together, the electoral college does consist of some advantages, for say to avoid run-off elections, as Richard A. Posner says, and "restore some of the weigh in the political balance"... but
IT'S NOT FAIR
.
As we vote, we vote for the state of electors. Not the president ourselves, they do it for us. If we are not allowed to vote on our own then why even let us vote anways. I feel we are being baby feed. If this is true why even give us any rights as a human being living in the United States all together? Can we not control who we vote for? Sooner or later we wont even watch the presidental elections or even vote and you all will be on your own!
To go along with, I feel that if the electoral college was abolished, then it would be easier on everyone, expecially the senate. Again in Bradford Plumbers articile, "Because of the winner-take-all system in each state, candidates do not spend time in states they know have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the swing states." If we are not in a swing state then what are our chances of seeing the candidtes or even a campaign. That siduation would be more hard on you all in the senate then us, the people of Florida, we just wont vote!
We hope you make your decision wisely,
Florida | 2 |
In the passage "Driverless Cars are Coming", cars are shown to be "futuristic cars" , that can run, drive, steer, and basically do everything a normal car would be able to do, except, it is "driven" by a computer. Arguments have been shown as some say it is dangerous, and as others say it is a good thing. These cars are, i believe, a bad thing, becuase cars are not safe at all to be automatically driven by themsleves. A human, is the safest and most effective way possible, to drive a car, not driven by a computer created so it makes driving "fun" or "safer". In fact, this is a very dangerous act, that should not be invented.
Evidence and details from the passage, in paragraph 9, it states that "most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers.", and this is saying, that, basically, a computer, or automatic self controlled car is not safe to drive, and that the safest way to drive a car is to have an alert human behind the wheel driving. I highly agree with this, becuase driving a car is much more safer and effective towards pedestrians, passengers, the driver of the vehicle, and other drivers, unlike an automatic- computer self controlled car, which is not safe or effective at all, and it is actually very dangerous. It also says that the car will be able to detect when it is too close, going too fast, or is about to wreck . As stated in paragraph 7, it states that "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.", also, "they can steeer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to noltify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents.", etc....
Futuristic cars ARE NOT SAFE TO DRIVE. at all. simply, becuase, more accidents could occur, drivers are not contolling the car at all, it is all the computer controlling it, even though the car has cameras inside it, watching the driver, making sure they are focused on the road, paragraph 7. This is not only safe and somewhat dangerous in a wya, but is also creepy. Imagine you were inside a computer controlled car that has cameras inside watching you.
Based on the evidence and details from story, it is proven that these cars are both safe and dangerous to drive. So, should we drive these cars, or no? I believe the answer is no, myself. Because, yes these cars are somewhat safe to drive, but they are also very dangerous to drive as well. All of this depends on how the driver and the car respondto certain things while driving thopugh, in way, but is still dangerous and they should not be created or permited fro a driver to drive. | 3 |
LIVING CAR-LESSLY
There's a revolution that stands before us in the form of a new lifestyle: Car-free living. Taking the globe by storm this global phenomenon presents us with a more efficient enviornment, a huge drop in car accident tragedies, and a more functionable lifestyle.
First and foremost, the given: a better enviornment. Air pollution is a global issue that has become very previlant in our society today. In places such as Paris, France, extremes as far as fines for those who drive around in cars are enforced as a way to fight it's overly dense smog. Also, the president of the United States, Barrack Obama, has set a goal to curb the greenhouse gas emissions in the country. When government iniative are set to such its obvious that it's becoming an issue. If everyone begins to enforce a car free lifesyle then the world will reach a tremendous turning point and will be able to preserve our planet for the future generations.
Furthermore, it is known that car accidents are a common occuring issue whether it be small or deadly. Intoxicated or sober accidents can be just as bad. There will be no more bikers or pedestrians being hit and need to hitch hike will no longer be an issue as well. If we remove cars form our lives then we get the advantage of putting our society in a more safe way to transport.
Finally, car free lving will make us a more functionable lifestyle. The need of having to go so far for simple things will no longer be an issue due to the fact that everything that would be essential would be easier and closer to assess. People would begin walking more which would very much so decrease the obesity rates in many places. Also the expanison of public transportation will mean that people are more likely to have a more direct stop near the places they go.
In sumation, living car-lessly is a life lived less carelessly. It brings a coupious amount of advantages which means that everyone will have a safer, more funcitonable, and efficient lifestyle. | 2 |
25 years ago NASA discovered a face on Cydonia, Mars. It was extrodinary looking like an egyptian face! Many people think it was a human face that aliens created, but surely enough it isn't. As a scientist from NASA I know for sure it is definitely not. NASA went into further detail with this "Face". We looked further into the face just to show people that this is not a face created by aliens.
Further more we found it was just another Martian mesa, common in Cydonia. Since the face was becoming popular, being in movies, magazines, radio shows, and books we had to prove that we are right. As a result in 2001 NASA took a even closer and more clear picture of this face on Cydonia. It showed that it was just illusions making the mesa look like it has eyes, a mouth, and a nose. Making this mesa look like a face. This revealed to all people that this face is just a natural landform.
In conclusion NASA knows more than just typical average day people. NASA has proved us wrong from thinking it is a face created by aliens. This is just an illusional face as I would say. As a scientist I do wish that there is alien life on Mars, but as far as we know there is none. So the face on Mars is not a real face but just an illusion by natural land formation! | 2 |
Although we would all love to find out that we are not the only ones living in the vast empty space that is our galaxy, but we just haven't come close to finding out that we are.
The pictures of the giant 2-mile long face taken on Mars sparked a lot of attention.
Especially conspiracy theorists.
Causing all kinds of accusations against NASA and if the face found on Mars was alien or not.
There are plenty of reasons why this land formation is natural. Such as, the image, taken plenty of times, revealed no alien artifacts or marking that would seem unusual to NASA's Mars Global Survey team.
The land form is called a mesa, which is found commonly in the American West.
Also, saying that NASA is hiding the real alien information would make no sense, it could benefit them exponentially.
The landform, when first captured on photo, triggered skeptics. Saying the image should be retaken due to the low quality. When retaken, they were, of course, not satisfied. When the final image was taken, it revealed no artifacts. A disappointment to not only those conspiracy theorists, but to NASA too.
The name of the landform, was uncommonly known, as a mesa.
A mesa is a naturally occuring landform that resembles the characeristics of a face. They form from collapsed lava domes or my the simple means of erosion. They are commonly found in the American West. One famous one that resembles the Face on Mars, as said by Jim Garvin, chief scientist on the Mars Exploration Program, is Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho. It is an odditiy to see.
When faced with all the vidence, people began questioning if NASA was hiding the evidence. NASA has made clear that they did not hide anything. NASA supporters have also brought up the simple fact that proving alien life is real could benefit NASA. They would have no reason to hide it and the government could not benefit from hiding this information either. The discovery could get them funding for future expeditions and further discoveries.
The evidence is plain and simple. Alien life on Mars is not there. WHIle many still believe and argue more. The famous face is a landform, discovered through muliple images and NASA has said they have no reason to hide anything from the public. We have the right to know everything. | 3 |
have you ever wondered whats lives beyond earth if we are able to explore beyond this planet we would know whats to come and could prepare for the moment this information gets broken to us.
Even though it might be dangerous it might not be such a bad idea to study it more if we learn more about this planet and gather enough information we might be able to make or gather the equipment to even explore this planet and who know what we can find we might find new minerals,materials,or even a different species.
It might be a bad idea to explore these planets that we haven't explore yet, but there are probably stuff that are on these planets that can help worldwide problems like cure diseases make better material or better technology, they may be our key to advancing but if we don't try to advance we might be stuck here facing worlwide problems.
Last,the author might not have a bad idea but it might be dangerous but its a risk we might have to take exploring these undiscovered planets that might be harmful but these planet might have the needs we are looking for to advance forward, to help us with our problems that are occuring today. | 1 |
In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" the author explains that studying Venus is a worthy approach despite the dangers. The author impressively supports that the mission to Venus is worth it despite the dangers that might come with it. In the article he provides examples, uses a credible source, and also views the other side. By doing these things it made his point credible and also stronger to the reader.
In the article he provides the example of a floating car above venus to show that a vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the conditions but it would provide little sight. He uses to example to illustrate what it would be like to avoid the conditionsby showing this is what the would have to do. He also provides examples to an alternative by saying that there could be electronics to avoid the risks. By providing both of these examples it gives the reader some relateable examples to get an insight into his point.
NASA is a world wide administration that has credibility over the course of its govern. By providing examples of what NASA is doing to show that it should be done, then if NASA is working on it then it makes his point credible. He quotes NASA'S approches on studying Venus so that it can avoid the risks to show that it is possible to explore Venus without the risks. A NASA solution would be that a person could float above the fray. They also have considered sending electronices so it is possible. He saying that it might be difficult but it is attainable. This supports the claim that he supports his claim impresively because he uses sources.
In most arguments the person views the other side so that they can provide an alternative to what they are saying. He uses cons such as no mission has had a man, 97% of carbon dioxide blankets Venus, the temperature is 90 times greater than Earth, and that it could crash a submarine. But then he says that Venus has benefits to that out way the dangers. The benfits include: it is the brightest point, it is close to Earth compared to other space travels, long ago it could support life, and it will expand the edges of imagination and innovation. He provides benefits to out weigh the cons of exploring Venus. He does a great job of explaining why exploring Venus has value and can provides insight to other counter arguments that might rise from others opionions. This is why he does an impressive job supporting his argument.
In conclusion, the author provided points in the argument to make the opinion more credible and also stronger to the reader. In the article the author provided examples, a wide known credible source, and viewed the other side. He impressively supported his opinon that the mission to Venus is a worthy persuit despite the dangers. Without his evidence to suppport his opinion the article would have not had such an impact on the reader. This is why he did an impressive job supporting his idea. | 4 |
Using this technology to read students' emotional expressions is a vaule. It will help the students' that start to feel bored or confused. Once it detacts those emotions it can change the lesson.
The FACS (Facial Action Coding System) as the protential to help students, and teachers in the classroom. FACS can read the students faces and tell wither they understand the lesson. It will then change the lesson to something that will help the students better understand. The FACS can also detecte when a students is getting bored of a lesson, and will change it to a more pleasing one. It will change to better acommidate the student's needs.
FACS can also help the teachers better understand their own students more. Since the FACS system can read the six basic emotions; happiness, surprise, anger, disgust, fear, and sadness. It will help the teacher know what their students are feeling. Teachers will know more about their students, and will be able to form a closer bond with them. The FACS system will help the teacher understand what the student need more help with, and what they are more intrrested in.
The FACS system can read the facial muscles, and this is how it can detacte the emotions of people. It can even identify when someone has mixed emotions, and compares each expression with a neutral face. This is how it can regoinze when students are feeling bored, confused, or any other emotion. The inventor of the FACS system, Dr. Paul Eckman, is the one to classify the six basic emotions. He also was the one that asscociated each with characteristic movemetns of the facial muscles. Like when your frontalis pars lateralis raises your eyebrows when you are suprised, and you orbicularis oris tightens your lips when your angry. All this can help the system tell when the students in the classroom need a change in the lesson.
The FACS system can be very helpful to the students and the teachers in everyday classrooms. It will change the lesson to better accomidate the students that start to fell bored or confused. This is the reason why the FACS system is a vaule. | 2 |
In the artical,"Unmasking the Face on Mars," it appears to show that there is a face on Mars.
There is a scientist that I work with that thinks that it was made by aliens, but I don't think so. I don't think so because there has never been any real sightings of aliens and there is not enough research to prove that it was made by aliens. Here's why.
First off, there has never been any sightings of real aliens. People have been trying to see if there are actually is any and other life forms in our solar system. People have claimed that they've seen aliens, but there hasn't been any evidence that makes that true. I think that it is a natural landform because there has been many other objects on other planets that look like they had to be made from aliens, but they soon found out that it was not.
Second, there is really not enough research covering this specific topic. Yes, NASA has taken pictures of it through out many years, but thats all they've done. No human has ever stepped foot on Mars so no one really knows if it is really made by aliens. Though the pictures that NASA took looks like a face and people think thats there's no way a person could do, that makes me beleive that if humans can't do it, then neither could aliens.
As time goes by and NASA takes more pictures of this object, they will soon realise that this "face" is just an object that is on Mars, and that it is not created by any aliens. | 1 |
Dear State Senator,
The Electoral College is not a good thing. The people should be able to determine who their president is. Not the stupid electors. It's called the people's nation for a reason. Majority rules. So whenever we have an election, which ever president gets more votes from the citizens of the United States of America, should become the president. Say if two people were running for president and one got more electoral votes and one got more citizen votes. The one with the more electoral votes would automatically win! Now, isn't this unfair? The people's voice needs to be heard and reconized!
According to source 2, the electoral college electors defy the will of the people. I don't disagree one bit that this is undoubtfully true. Millions of people live in the United States. Only 538 people are in the electoral college. We leave the hope of our nation into the hands of 538 people. What if one of the electors is crazy? What if they mess up on their ballot on accident? It's all up to them! We need to make sure that our voices are heard in the next election!
Some people think that the the electoral college is good because the electors know what they are doing. Well I say they don't! Millions of people do know what they are doing though and that's the very upmost important asspect of this whole essay.
Why are you reading this you may ask? Beacuse you have a voice that needs to be heard! We want our votes to count for something in our bleepin lives! Let's do this! Yeah! FOR THE PEOPLE!! | 2 |
Today my fellow college showed me a picture of mars that was taking back in 1976. He said "it was created by aliens" but I didnt belve him because they are not real . So therefore I asked him what is the picture and he replied to me "a face of god" and I simply laughed at him, because there are not aliens so they could not of made that, and I laughed at him again because god is not real so they wouldnt know what he looks like . Then I left because I had plans tonight and I needed to get ready. A week goes by and he calls me and says that I need to come down to he lab asap. When I got there the picture of gods face was on the screen and he told me NASA had went out to mars and got a better picutre of the face with better pixels . I said " that can not be the same picture and face 25 years ago . But I was wrong it was a different picture but the same face . NASA went out and got a whole new picture .I thought to my self well how can that be , mars has 100's of storms a day, how has it not been destroyed. Well I came to relize that my friend was right , that was a picture of mars with gods face on it . But when i called nasa they said that its classified so i couldnt have any info on it . So I dug deeper into it and NASA thinks that it is a egyptian pyramid. but i still dont belive thats its from aliens
. But as the years go by , maybe something else will pop up and I might belive in aliens | 0 |
I found this article very informative on the production of "driverless cars" but despite all the hard evidence and statistics there are, i dont agree with all of it. Personally, i dont think we need these cars. All they are good for is making life more easy for us but would you rather have life be more easy, or their being a bigger risk factor for harming a pedestrian or even yourself? I do not think this is a good idea and i would like for our drivers to be at full alert and have their eyes on the road instead of them being half awake in their car and only doing anything manual when their chair vibrates or lights start flashing on their HUD.
You would think that if something was so simple and harmless everybody would go along with it right? Wrong, matter of fact California, Nevada, Florida, and D.C. have made it illegal in their states to even test computer-driven cars. So you might be thinking, "if these states arent allowing these sorts of cars then why are others allowing them", and that reason would be none other than money. All the companies care about is money, and if you really think about it, there is no good reason to make cars that drive themselves when our cars and road systems are working fine. The sad part about it is that the companies already know that people are going to buy something like this because America is lazy. We all want life to be as easy as possible and have no complications and we will pay top dollar to make it that way when in reality, life is full of complications and you just have to deal with them and you cant solve every first world problem by buying something to do it for you.
But i may even be wrong, maybe someday near 2020 everybody will be driving autonomous cars and they will flow harmonious with the world with no complications. Maybe pur country can even make some money off of it to help pay our debts but until then, i dont really see it happening. | 2 |
Dear state senator,
We should definitely strive in keeping the electoral college for so many reasons. We need to keep the electoral college because it serves so many purposes in the united states. It hepls us decide who our president and vice presidents will be and it is a big help on our state workers.
And most of the reason that people want to stop it is because they think that some of the nominees arent getting what they deserve. We do understand that they put a lot of work in trying to become president but not everyone can win. And to be fair, after the presidential election is over, our govenor prepares a "Certificate of Ascertainment" listing all of the candiates who ran for president in our state along with the names of their respective electors.
The presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. You help choose your states electors when you vote for president because when you vote for your candidate you are usually voting for your candidates electors.
Each candidate running for president in your state has his or her own group of electors. The electors are generally chosen by the candidates political party, but state laws vary on how the elecotrs are selected and what their responsibilities are.
The advocates of this position are correct in arguing that the Electoral College method is not democratic in a modern sense...it is the electors who elect the president, not the people. So when you vote for your president your acually voting for the slate of electors.
Having this Electoral College is so much help to our state workers. They dont actually have to do everything now...thanks to the Electoral College.
So please strive to help keep the Electoral College.
sincerely,
PROPER_NAME | 1 |
France, Germany , United States, Colombia and other countries are taking actions of the problems that the cars are making. It is true that cars are helpful and make the life easier to some persons but lately the concer of how this machines affect the ecosystem have being increasing. That is why countries have come with different projects to try to limit the amount of cars they are around their cities. If we see from a different perpestictive the limiting of cars can be a good thing and produce result that are favorable to everyone.
Through the years they have been several projects of reductiond of car circulation and it is visible that the population have apadted to the type of living that cities have imposed.
One example of this is Vauban, Germany were 70 percent of the families do not have a car and 57 percent sold a car to move there. with that example we can see that people can get used to a live where cars are not necesary to have. "When I had a car I was always tense. I am uch happier this way," these are the word of one of the resident of that city that get used to a lifestyle without a car. In that city people get used to walk which is more healty and do not produce any harm to the ecosystem.
Other cities like Paris have made laws to control the amount of pollution cars produce since , this capital have more smog than other European capitals making this a awful fact. With the actions they have made of baning even-numbered license plate on Mondays they have reduced the amount of smog which is good. Another example is what is happening in Bogota, Colombia where you can see car-free days, where people any other mean of transportations except for personal cars. When the actions of both cities atre taken it is visible the cahnge on the enviroment. This great ideas help the crouded cities to reduce their levels of pollition and icentive people on use the car less.
United State that is a country that produces a lot of pollution have seen good changes in the tendenci of the people of using car. Studies have prove that the amount of new cars buied have decrease in the last years. Also there have been a drop of the amount of people getting a license. This show that is a county support public transportation and make programs that will make people use less the cars they will have a positive result.
Walking and using a bike is good for the personal healt. The less using of the cars help the fight against pollution and avoid the rise of temperature in the earth. Obesiti and pollution are a big problen in the last decades but they both share something in common, they can be fought by using less a car and walking, being this the perfect statement that prove why limiting the car usage will be an adventage. | 2 |
No, you cannot "calulate" on a person's feelings, In my opinon I think we should'nt have "FACS" because you don't need to know what percentage a person's feelings is, you don't know what a person is going thorgh and there are not ready to talk about it yet. Some people may ask "what's wrong?" or they they just put on a fake smile and say "everything is okay/fine", but When a person is not really okay/fine, A real friend will know whats going on with you, they can see it in your face, mood , they way you act or when you build a wall torwrds everyone. Some people are really good at hiding there feelings, but what if they don't trust anybody with there feelings or it's hard to talk about it. People are eventually are going to show there feelings, they can't keep hiding it forever, It's better to let it out, then just keeping it away from people. People can get through the day by listen to there music depends on they're mood is. People will rather hide it instead of talking to ther people about it, You'll never know what people can say about another person's feelings when they tell them, they might think its a joke or they just might not care. | 1 |
In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus"
I have a couple of reasons why it is worthy pursuit and a few reasons why it isn't a worth pursuit, but I will stick to the reaons why it is a worthy pursuit. There are many reasons and challenges of leaving our own planet to go visit and explore another planet, but with the right midset and will power anything is possible.
A couple of reasons why it would be a worthy pursuit to go to Venus is because it could show us what Earth will look like if we keep abusing our planet. The reason I say this is because in paragraph 3 it states that the atmosphere is 97% carbon dioxide. This really popped out to me because people on Earth are saying global warming and the main reason of that is carbon dioxide from cars. Another reason this would be a worthy pursuit is that scientist can study the planet with their own eyes. The reason that would bepossible is that because NASA had an idea that we have a blimp like object be about 30 miles or so above the ground and scientist would be able to study what a planet like our own cold end up like.
In conclusion, if this decision was up to me I would find a way to send scientist to Venus to study it. I also feel like this would help make a change in the way we live our lives to help prevent something like this to happen to our own planet. | 2 |
Exploring Venus is a worthy puruit despite the danger it presents because
"Astronomers are fascinated by Venus because it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system."
This quote is important because there most likely would have been ways Venus could sustain some sort of life. If Venus really had oceans and ways of supporting life we can study Venus and maybe find out what happened to it to prevent it from happening to Earth. If we find a way to get to another planet and study it why wouldn't we?
In the third paragraph of the article it explains the harsh environment of Venus which should all be taken into consideration when thinking about Exploring Venus, and in five and seven it explains possible ways to safely explore and study Venus. Paragraph six explains how we cannot simply just orbit around Venus to study it because the gas and chaotic nature of the planet it too thick for cameras and any video to be taken so we would have to go to the surface and to do so we can use mechanical computers which can survive the harsh environment since it doesn't rely on electronics.
In conclusion Venus is the only planet in our solar system that is almost identical to us it could have had the ability to sustain life many years ago but now it's environment is extremely dangerous and any kind of research would be hard to do. There is a new idea to get to the surface of venus for more than a few hours and that is mechanical technology because of it's mechanical nature it can last longer than electronics on the surface which would give researchers a chance to study venus. Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents because before it was a chaotic planet with a dangerous environment it could have been just like Earth. Venus might have had oceans and because of the craters we have seen it could have also had mountains and different types of scenery. | 2 |
Technology Getting Smarter
As humans, some of us may not realize how smart technology is really getting. The Facial Action Coding System enables computers to identify different types human emotions. Think about how this new kind of technology could change the world. This Facial Action Coding System could be incredibly valuable by reading the emotional expressions of students in a classroom.
In the article D'Alto states, "A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored, then it could modify the lesson.." With this technology students may be able to understand lessons more quickly and easily. This coding system could also help more troubling students excel in the classroom while saving the teachers time. By modifying the lesson, the Facial Coding System would also keep the attention of learners. This could train students to become exception learners as they grow.
In paragraph eight of "Making Mona Lisa Smile" the author describes how the muscles in the face change according to your mood. It also states "But in a false smile, the mouth is stretched sideways using the zygomatic major muscle..and the risorius." This tells the reader that this facial coding system is accurate on its reading by reading every single muscle on the face and correlating it to different moods. Because this technology is accurate, there may be little to no mistakes in reading a student's face in the classroom.
The Facial Action Coding System could change how students would learn. This technology would help students excel and grow to become more intelligent individuals. This could help the following generations behind us smarter and more understanding. This facial coding system can help students achieve their learning goals in the classroom. This new technology would be valuable in the classroom for students. | 3 |
So, you want to tell me that the rock and craters on Mars are aliens? Myself belive it is not myself and fellow scientist find this to be true. Back in 1976 I got my first glipse at the figure on the surface it made me think it was alien until the Mars Rover proved it could not possibly be made by aliens.
When we first released the piture it set the world on fire as much talk about the face on Mars it made us look like we made the discovery of a life times work we all shared the cridit for finding the face. Nasa became the biggest hit around some took advantage to that some did not others did.
Allthough we proved it to be a natullary formed crater by using the Mars rover. Even after this a group of them left because they belived aliens were real and belived aliens created this monumentail artfact which would change space to how we know it to be today.
Mars did look like it had small shacks which they thought was house arfound the massive rock. Mars has a very rocky layer on its top it gives Mars the ability to have craters which from a distance look like shacks.
The one thing the told me is what I can't explain it to this day I have no respouce to it they said do you see the crocked grim on its face every time we look at this figure it has a differt face which is hard to explain.
I'll tell you what I told him though is that you can never underesitmate the force of gravity. Gravity pull masses on to that face of Mars shaping differantly every time.
As conclusion the belivers in aliens started a foundation. The foundation was called alien were here. They could not prove that they were right so they foundation had to swith to make more sense to have an resonable idea the new foundation also died off. The new foundation has The Brithish were here which everone new so they had no purpose they ended up giving up on any chance of company. Well as you can see I'm doing well and listing to aliens are not here dot net people the chance was silm, but it is a cool artifact. Still to this day in time when people first see that piture they think aliens are amoungest which they could be right, but they are wrong has a better chance of happing around here in the USA. | 1 |
The use of the facial software in class rooms could be a vital aspect in stopping and preventing tragedies such as school shootings,bullying,and possibly fights.
In todays society is a key element on being able to read people's emotion to be able to determine how to approach the said person. Many people are able to tell when a peer is angry pr sad but some people just have a blank face. The use of the software could help teachers understand their students,which in turn can help elaborate people's triggers and can lead to a better day."In fact, we humans perform this same impressive calculation every day.
For instance, you can probably tell how a friend is feeling simply by the look on her face.
Of course, most of us would have trouble actually describing each facial trait that conveys happy, worried, etc. Yet Dr. Huang observes that artists such as da Vinci studied human anatomy to help them paint facial muscles precisely enough to convey specific emotions.
His new computer software stores similar anatomical information as electronic code. Perhaps Dr. Huangs emotion algorithms are a different sort of Da Vinci Code)"
A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored, Dr. Huang predicts. Then it could modify the lesson, like an effective human instructor. The same technology can make computer-animated faces more expressivefor video games or video surgery. Most human communication is nonverbal, including emotional communication, notes Dr. Huang. So computers need to understand that, too.Eckman has classified six basic emotionshappiness, surprise, anger, disgust, fear, and sadnessand then associated each with characteristic movements of the facial muscles. For example, your frontalis pars lateralis muscle (above your eyes) raises your eyebrows when youre surprised; your orbicularis oris (around your mouth) tightens your lips to show anger.
In conclusion the software should be implemented in todays classrooms .Althoughyour home PC cant handle the complex algorithms used to decode Mona Lisas smile. | 1 |
In the article "Driverless Cars Are Coming," the author explains both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. The author talks about from what the driverless cars have in store from the areas the driverless cars need help on. In the end, I am more than sure I am against driverless cars.
One reason why I am against the making of these cars are that the word "driverless" in the word driverless car, isn't true. The car is not one hundred percent driverless. The car will alert the driver when needed assistance. Such as heavy traffic, construction zones, and accident scenes. The narrator states, "In fact, none of these cars developed so far are completely driverless." As you can see, the car doesn't live up to it's name.
Another reason why I wouldn't approve driverless cars are that they aren't as safe to a human being in control of wheel. Technolgy is not that advanced to where it doesn't have glitches and issues. It still do. Not saying us humans don't, but wouldn't you rather be in control insteading of trusting a certain thing that is not one hundred percent accurate? Even traffic laws stated that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times.
In conclusion, driverless cars are not what the claim to be. Their not guarnteed driverless and they aren't safe. From not even being real to their name to having issues. I hope I won't see a driverless car on the road anytime to see. | 2 |
Driverless Cars are coming" Here near the future we will be having more Driverless cars in the streets. It would be a good idea to have them for many reasons. "A driverless car is not truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when your in a complicatd traffic iusses" it would keep us away from a lot of wrecks, benifit the older people, and much more. "in 2013, BMW annoucedthe development of" "Trafic Jam. They can steer,ccelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the drivr when the road ahead requiers human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents" In other words the driver would have to be aware of taking over the sterring weel when the situation requiers. "as a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars. california, nevada, florida, and the District of culumbia have led the coutry in allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars." 'even if trafic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liabilty in the case of an accident; if the technology fails and someone is injured who would the blame go against- the driver or the manuacturer?" this would be a great change for the world and would save more life's, they would also have to make it fun to. "some amnufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertaiment systems tat use heads-up displays. such dispays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over- something not available to drivers tryig to text ith a ell phone. in this way, the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concer." | 1 |
Travel, exploration, and new destinations are all things that have lead to mankind creating new ways to get from where they were to where they wanted to be. We have made some fantastic tecnologies in our desire to move more quickly and extensively. Not many could have dreampt of a day when mankind could ship large cargo from Mexico to Greece, fly large planes full of people across the atlantic, or even what seems so common today, drive in comfort from state to state in short ammounts of time. We enjoy the ability to drive so easily from place to place that almost every single American family owns at least one car, but there in lies a problem.
Seince the big boom of industrial car manufacturing in the early twenteith century America's use of the vehicle has spread from transportation of the high class, to a tool of public transportation, construction, delivery, and overall everyday use. This relationship between man and machine has been a part of our scociety for so long it is practically a part of our lives, but this relationship has taken a toll on the world it was brought into in the form of polution. The basic way an automobile functions is by putting fuel into the system to run the engine and then emmiting that fuel as a gas biproduct, and with such the wide spread use we have of these machines, the ammount of gas biproduct has realy built up. Harmful chemicals in these gas emissions from our automobiles have provided the second largest source of our emissions with only power plants contributing more to the polution of the environment.
There are however some easy ways we could help fix this problem. In other parts of the world this effect is being felt, such as Beijing, China, which is facing a huge problem with polution smog, and certian places have decided to make a change by limiting car use. This limitation of car use can be done in many different ways, and has helped curb a smog problem that arose in Paris. Other places have done this by means of car-free neighborhoods in Germany, or a car-free day in Columbia, and the reaction has been most positive.
These ideas of change for a clean future are helping communities in different parts of the world, so whose to say we can't do it too? We should contribute to the healing of our environment before its too late for the choise. This oppurtunity for change is not one we should let slip by, and it could be a refreshing, enjoyable change. Lets not sit down and watch as our environment becomes a smog-ridden disaster, lets get up, walk around, and help heal the world. | 3 |
Electoral College method should not be kept because it gives larger states a bigger adventege and is unfair to voters. Even though it can be argued that the Electoral College method should be kept due to avioding problems of a run-off in a election.
The Electoral College consits of electoral votes that each states recieves due to the population of the state. This gives larger states like California having 55 electoral votes to have a bigger say in the election. Meanwhile states with a less population rate like Alaska only have 3 electoral votes. This turns off voters because they know that their state isn't a big deal in a election. Candidates go for the electoral votes of the bigger states with the most population to win the election.
The Electoral College is a method that is unfair to voters. The winner take all system in each states makes candidates or even voters not want to spend their time on current states they know will not have a impact in the election. It ends up being the electors who elect the president, and not the people. The Electoral College method is not democratic in that perspective.
The Electoral College is a lack of democratic pedigree and unfair to voters, it is impacting votes due to electoral votes being in power over the people. Due to the Electoral College method turning off voters it should not be kept. | 2 |
My position on driverless cars, is that we most definitely do not need them. Their are a lot of different disadvantages to having driverless cars. So why try out a driverless car that's going to give you problems in the future? Just because it says that the car is driverless doesn't necassarily means that it's all that great like they to make it sound. Because you never know, their could be a lot of problems and malfunctions, and technical difficulties in having a driverless car in the future.
The disadvantages on having driverless cars in the future is that, in the passage to the left in paragraph number 3 under the title that says "Sensing the World", it states that many futurists believed the key to developing self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as smarter roads. They also used an example as well to back up what they were saying. "In the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track." So I'm guessing that means that they to make to make sure that the cars work on the road first before making them in the first place.
If I were you, I wouldn't even waste my time on getting a driverless car if they don't even know if the cars work on the road or not. And I know it said that it was inthe 1950s, but still. If they had to do that back then, just imagine what they will have to do make sure that they work in the future. You have to think about stuff like that ahead of time. | 2 |
"Honey, could you go to the CVS and get me some nyquil.
I'm dying here," mom says.
"Yeah, I'll be back in a bit."
I grab my keys from my pocket and head outside. I unlock my new driveless car and climb in. "Take me to the CVS," I tell the car. It roars to life and backs out of the parking lot. It's been not even two miles and this thing is starting to glitch. "You will be taking possesion of this car in five minutes, ma'am," the car commands. I panic and take hold of the violently shaking steering wheel. Traffics harsh tonight meaning there's some kind of party out in town. The driveless car just unexpectedly starts going in the wrong direction, making me go in shock.
Before I do a full turn I see a lady talking to her baby inside the car. I try to brake, but it just won't budge. I pray that I won't do any harm to them. Unfortunetly it does. I run smack into the front rear, making me black out. They say that before you die, your life flashes back through your eyes. But mine didn't.
I instintly think of mom, dying there in her room, waiting for me to come back. But I won't and this is all because of this driveless car. As you can see driveless cars are not safe because it can harm people, it's new technology is very unfamiliar, and it is not as driveless as you think.
Millions of people will die if you provide them with these cars. If you think harm is done only to you, then you are wrong. You can injure lots of people with only one lifeless car. A car with a mind that could turn into your enemy. It might seem a great idea to most of all over social media, but once they buy them then you will harm then. Not only will they sue the company, but have a bad record on there shoulders.
As you can see, new technology can be very unpredictable.
You won't know what is in this bizzare car that is being monitored with itself. And as the article says, it will also monitor you.
I think that this is not just crazy but scary too. And with this new technology you won't learn to handle a car by yourself, and I would want to.
These driveless cars you've been hearing about aren't always true.
It will say that it drives itself. It will eventually come to some point where the car can't handle the heavy traffic and pass it on to you. Yep that's right, you get to control a car that does not want to be handled.
A driveless car is a facade for hidding the real truth. Because that's what it's doing.
Hiding the truth.
These driveless cars I've been telling you about won't make this world any better.
Imagine Earth being invaded by robots. That's right, the new apacolypse. You see these can be extremely dangerous to the environment and the people inside the car. This new technology can't be acurate. There can be some huge change in it that you won't see it coming from two inches away.
And this driveless car being controlled but not by its driver is a false fact. You will eventually drive it too. But this new experiment may be the cause of not returning to your home and giving your mom that nyquil that she wanted so badly because she was dying.
Do you want that? | 2 |
I disagree with driverless cars. Driverless cars are not a very smart idea, just becuase Google has made driverless cars since 2009 they have drove over half million miles without a crash, but Google cars are not driverless they alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of a driveway or dealing with something bad happing near them. The Google driverless cars are not so driverless.
My thoughts about the driverless cars is what happens if the car crashes whos fault is it the person in the car or the manufacturer? What if we get driverless cars what is going to happen to insurance for cars insurance people will lose money and if the car did crash its more money out of your pocket to fix it insted the insurance people having to deal with some payment. Car manufactures like BMW, Audi, ext. have made more of there cars safe for people and I do not think making them driverless would be safe. What if the car goes nuts and the driver has no control?
I feel that if we get driverless cars more people will lose there life then without them. We can not always relie on driverless cars or the technology becuase one day we will not have it. So I think we need to just drop the whole driverless cars and work more on safety. | 1 |
Families all over the world use cars on a daily basis. Cars help us get to places faster and in a more convinient way. Using cars eventually comes to a point were the enviroment can no longer take much of the diesel fuel, therefore car usage should be limited because its releases toxic gas to the enviroment, more excercise would be done, and more bicycles would be put to use. Limiting car usage would not only help people, but it would help the enviroment too.
First of all, toxic gas is released into the enviroment due to the burning fuels released by the exhaust pipe in a car. According to Robert Duffer, "paris typically has more smog than other European capitals...[last] week Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter (pm) per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in london, Reuters found" this shows how cars produce so much smog it harms the human beings lungs when inhaled(source 2). Also as stated by Elisabeth Rosenthal, "passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emission in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some car-intensive areas in the United States"(souce 1). This represents how much burned diesel gas we are brething in instead of oxygen. There is a 1 in 2 chance that you will breathe in diesel fuels instead of oxygen, in the areas of high concentrated cars.
Therefore, more excercise would be done by people who limit their car time. Scince more bikes would be used the entire body is in motion ion other to get from one destination to another. Usage of bikes would also help prevent the leading cause of death in America, obessity. "New York's new bike-sharing program and its skyrocketing bridge and tunnel tolls reflect those new priorities, as do a proliferation of car-sharing programs across the nation" these new inventions keep the United States busy and keep them from using cars, a busy city such a New York, would benefit more from the usage of bikes, trains, skateboards and skates because if not it could end up like Paris, a city full of smog(source 4). Bicycles are a great way to get around easily, "parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city; uneven, pitted sidewaalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks; rush-hour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic; and new restaurants and upscale shopping districs have cropped out", this excerpt explains how society has improved the conditions for bicyclist and skaters. The fixing of sidewalks helps bikers stay on a safe and smooth path to their destination. The excercises produced will help the body stay in shape and healthy.
To conclude, limiting car usage is something all people should be aware of. If we limit car usage, the enviroment would not be as harmed by burned fuels, people would excercise more, be more active and stay healthy, and finally more bikes would be put into a good use. Limiting car usage is a great idea and would bring more reasources and needed thinbgs to the community. | 4 |
th author supports this idea by giving me information on how close venus is and how the dangers on the planet is. the author also goives me the conditions on venus. the author also lets me know the terrain on venus and how its our nearest option for a planetary visit.
Venus is also known as the eaving star even tho that description is miss leading to scientists. the evidence i have is that venus is not habitable at all. venus is not habitable for many reasons. Venus is a very dangerous planet for us humans. Venus has a high level of carbon dioxide. Venus atmosphere is just a thick layer of carbon dioxide wich makes it hard
for humans to actully get through. As an example, every space craft thats been hasnt survived as long as just a couple hours. the pressure is also 90x srtonger than what we experience here on earth.
The only safe way to actully see and study venus is to hover over the planet just to keep scientists safe. Venus's is so much of a dangerous planet, scientists arent even able to get samples or rocks or gas. | 1 |
The Electoral College is a process in which each person running for President has his/her own group of electors who are chosen by their political party. In my opinion I believe that the Electoral College should not be kept because,it's not fair that the citizens only get to choose who is their president and who his party choose as Congress, they should be able to choose who helps the president run the country. The President basically just signs the papers that can pass a law but the Congress helps say if the law should pass or not.
People should be able also to choose who they want in Congress beacuse, people want a Congress that they know and trust to help our country turn into a better place. Sometimes the Congress only do what they want and feel is right. The Congress that the party choose may also be people that they like and believe will follow how they feel which may not be how the citizen feel. I know 538 pepole are alot to vote for and add the president, mayors,and commisioners etc., but atleast we'd have the freedom to pick who we want to help run country and we'd also know they'd try and help make our country amazing. Even if it's part of the Constitution they can change it a little like they alot of other things in it.
In conclusion people should be able to vote because then we'd be able to choose,so they could feel better about knowing who is passing laws and fixing their country. I may be under age but, I know if I were allowed to vote I'd want to vote for who runs my country and who helps run it. | 0 |
You're keeping your eyes on the road, making sure nothing goes wrong, but isn't that what your fancy car is supposed to do for you? You feel as though you're being watched. That's because you are. You're sitting doing nothing bored out of your mind when you could be cruising down the road, feeling the wind in your hair, feeling completely in control. But you're not. At this point in time, driverless cars are more trouble than they are worth. They are also taking away the comfort and safety that drivers today have become accustomed to.
Throughout the years, there have been many attempts and advances made toward the production of driverless cars. These attempt have not been successful thus far. The driverless cars that have been made are not even truly driverless. They still require the attention of a human. One great idea these car manufacturers had was to make smarter roads, but that is something that would take many years and a lot of money that people just don't have. In paragraph 9 of the article, it describes how there would have to be laws written and passed for this all to work out and lawmakers "know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers." This shows that lawmakers are not particularly eager to make this happen and without them it won't happen.
Another reason why the project of creating driverless cars should not be continued is that it would be taking away the comfort and safety that drives today are used to. Even though drivers would not be in complete control of the cars they still "must remain alert and ready to take over when the situation requires." What is the point of having a driverless car if people are still forced to make sure the car is safe? This might even cause fear among drivers because sometimes people feel safest when they are completely control and they know others are as well, but with driverless cars they would not have that security. Sometimes it's even a comfort to people to be able to cruise down the road knowing they can take themselves anywhere they want to go. Even if they weren't afraid they would at least be bored out of their minds like everyone is on road trips. The article also describes how "the car watches the driver." Horror movies and tv shows all have illustrated how much people dislike feeling like they are being watched. Not to mention, there are people out there who can hack the cameras in cars and people would never really be sure that the people watching them have their best interests. In paragraph 9 the article also proposes the issue of possible conflicts arising if someone if injured in said driverless cars. Who would be at fault? This would be yet another issue courts would have to deal with when they already have so much on their plates.
Although there are many reasons why driverless cars should not be produced, there are many positive things that could possibly occur if they did exist. Sergey Brin forsees that half of the fuel used in cars today would be used for these cars and there would be more flexibility than buses, but there is no solid proof. It is very possible that instead of roads being full of buses the roads are cramped with cars and traffic would be unbearable. Also, buses typically use less fuel because they are carrying around people that would have used more fuel in seperate cars. Driverless cars have also been proven to go a million miles without crashing, but did these cars have destinations in highly populated areas with many other driverless cars around them? It's impossible to know for sure that this fact means anything without have the proper conditions accounted for. The article also says that the cars could have built in entertainment systems, but wouldn't that just distract the driver from the road? They are supposed to be "alert and ready to take over" at all times.
Overall, the continued research and production of driverless cars would be so much work and money used when there is already a safe system in place. Without driverless cars people won't have to worry about things changing or fear for their safety. They can just contiue to live their lives as they have for years. The article says that safety is the most important thing. If that is true, the world is better off without driverless cars. | 4 |
In this article, the author uses claims and evidence to prove Venus is a worthy pursuit, despite the dangers that may come on the way.
He starts his article by stating the position of Venus being the second planet from the sun. Since Venus is closer to the sun, this would mean that the Venusian landscape is dangerously hot. Having temperatures of 800 degrees fahrenheit. In the article, he states, "Each previous mission was unmanned, and for good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours." He's using this information to prove that NASA has attempted to explore Venusian landscape bu due to the harsh conditions, they didn't last very long. The auhor refers to Venus as Earth's "twin". This is because Venus has similar density and size, Venus was also fully covered with large oceans but now have mountains, valleys, and craters. NASA is working on many different ways to approach the harsh lands of Venus.
In conclusion, this article shows the reader that NASA is fully determined to explore Venus. Out of curiousity and they also hope they could discover an outbreak in the space environment. They are striving to find something that could change the way, our scientists and astronauts look at space life. | 1 |
Not to long ago driving a car was considered a dream to kids that were not able to drive. Driving a car was like a step towards adult hood and indelpendencs. I was one of thosde kids and now that I am able to drive I am loveing every minute of it, but as of lately companies have been designing and testing driverless cars. The idea is to drive the auto motive indeustry on showing people that there is a way that they can recieve transpotation and not have to do any work at driving the car. Personally I think of it as annother way for someone to be lazy.
I love driving and I do not want a company that created a web site making a driverless car that will take over America's roads. At the begining of this article it says, "Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore?" I don't want to immagine that because I want the future generations to feel the sense of accomplishment that I felt when I first started driving my car, also there are so many different cars that it would be hard to make a driverless car that can replace all of them. How would a self driving car ever replace the adrenalin pumping speed of a car like a Corvette Z06 or Chellenger HellCat. The purpose of cars like these is to go as fast as you want when you want to. How would a driverless driving car give that is disigned to go the speed limit give you them type of enjoyment as the cars that I just listed.
Then there are the offroading cars like the Jeep and the Ford Raptor. I would like to see Google explaine to me and the rest of the people that agree with me that they can build a driverless car that can some how be a better car for offroading than these. I think that there is nor possibe way that they can achive that kind of goal. Not only that but the cars that they have disigned cant even handle a traffick jam. The test says in paragraph 7, " They can steer, accelerate, and break themsleves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents." Why in the world would they make a partially driverless car! They don't even have the skill to make a car that is able to slow dow in a work zone or go arround an acident why even trust this car at all when you can trust your self instead.
In conclusoin Driverless cars are a bad idea because you can't get the excitement that you get form driving different tipes of cars. Also, kids wont feel the sense of accomplishment that we got driving a car for the fist time because that car will drive it slef. But most implortantly how can we trust the technology in the car when it can't even navigate itslef arround a car crash or slow down when passing through a work zone. So, in my oppinion lets not make a car that can encourage people to be lazy in a whole different way. | 3 |
When Dr. paul Eckman decied to create a sofware that can tell you emotions called the Facial Action Coding System it identifys human emotions. It has to have a human structure to apear emotion. The use of the technology is intruding into people personal emotion such as getting on the computer the computer shows your emotion on the screen. In some cases the new sofware can save lifes such as kids that are very depress that just want someone to talk to. There surent tails people have to tell a emotion some picture show emotion very differently then others how can a computer jusfiy the emotion on human that feels all types of emotion more effectly then the next human sitting next him/her. It states in the article "Your frontails pars lateralis ,uscle ( Above your eye)." The saying just making everybody look like they have the same muscle shape when it comes to emotion, majority of the people don't have a normal face structer. The use of technology should not be allowed to be used at all it will be intruding into peopel bussiness and thoughts. If the human society want to show there emotional then the new technology shoul wait until the humans want to allow them to look at there emotions. In the last paragraphs they was talking about the acing crew of acting a serent emotion to the show the muscle movement in the face. Then had them reproduce it on stage, the new technolgy is very smart but yet they only lookin at it as good day they not looking at it in everybody eyes people could feel like they are test subjects based on emotion, that was told to them through a devis that looked at there facial muscle. | 1 |
Cars are magnificent machines. They allows to travel in much quicker ways than just walking or taking the bus, but have you ever thought about what these machines are doing to our environment? Although you may not think of it, cars create alot of smog, daily. "Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some car-intensive areas in the Unted States" (source 1: paragraph 5). While this may not seem like a big deal, smog can actually kill you if too much is inhaled. So what do we do to prevent this?
Vauban, Germany, A place you've probably never heard of before. It's a place for more upscale residents. The great thing about it is that they have given up cars for good. "70 percent of Vauban's familes do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here." (source 1: paragraph 3). Paris has also decided to jump on this bandwagon, but in a way a little different than Germany's. They have accumulated so much smog that they started giving out fines for those driving on certain days in order to let the environment naturally clear out all the smog. "On monday 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." (source 2: paragraph 11). Along with Paris and Germany, Columbia has created a day deticated to no driving. It is called the "Day Without Cars" and citizens of this area are not aloud to drive on this day(source 3: paragraph 21). This event spread throughout Columbia and is now spreading throughout the world.
So why is all this happening and how are people taking the step to prevent smog? "A study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009...." (source 4: paragraph 41). What are possible factors of this? "The Internet makes telecommuting possible and allows people to feel more connected without driving to meet friends. The renewal of center cities has made the suburbs less appealing and has drawn empty nesters back in. Likewise the rise in cellphones and car-pooling apps has facilitated more flexible commuting arrangements, including the evolution of shared van serices for getting to work." (source 4: paragraph 35). As The End of Car Culture tells us, alot more young people are becoming less and less interested in cars due to cellphones. Also it is shown us that the denser the area is with cars, the more people have chosen to take bicycles to work or even just walk because they don't want to deal with the traffic.
Many people have taken the step to encourage a healthier environment without cars. Some banned driving for good, some created a holiday dedicated to no driving for a day, and some just stopped it for a while by handing out fines. There are many alternate ways of transportation such as walking and biking, but are you willing take the step, to give up cars, and to change you lifestyle for the better, or will you continue to hurt the environment by driving and contributing to the smog? Will you join the few that have made the change or continue following everyone else? A world without cars is a better one. One with less smog and less aggrevation. A happier place, more peaceful and relaxing. Your choice, your life, pick a side, and choose wisely. | 2 |
Driveless cars is not a smart idea. Its a posiablity that the so called "Smart Car" could malfuncition while someone is in it and cause a crash or even death to the passangers.
Yes, its true that there are cars now that can break one their own, warn the driver if something is in close contact and more. How ever, the entire time there is a driver in control at ALL TIMES. There is not a moment where the car alone is moving. Another reason driveless cars is not a wise desision is that its illegal to even test drive one in many places. For exsample; Califorina, Nevada Florida, and the District of Colimbia. Alose, law makers know that saftey is best achived with alert drivers.
Smart cars are not so smart. They in danger lives with un-foced drivers, and are not even ligel everywhere. Humans are not ready for such an advanced way of transpertation quite yet. Possiably in the future, but as of right now that would be a no to smart car techonolgy. | 1 |
Did you know that there are plenty of advantages of limiting car u sage? Well your in luck im here to tell you that there are many good outcomes of not using a car.
You don't have to pay "car fees",because when do you have a car you have to park the car in a certain area and some of the places you decide to leave the car ask that you pay them to park in the space you had picked or selected.
Experts have notice that when you don't use your motor vehicle that it is a huge reduce of greenhouse gas emissions. Passenger cars are responsible for 12% of the greehouse gas emissions in Europe, but 50% is from United States car-intensive.
People claim that they wanna try to make the "World" a better place, but some are not even tring to help. While some people on the suburn lifestyle actually have been trying because they've stop using there car and started riding biking or even walking rather. Back in the day around World War II we as people in society have depended on a car. So that needs to change soon or later, because what if one day you have to be somewhere important at a certain time and that car you depend on so much blows out? What are you going to to and you won't have enough time get your car done because it would probably take about 1-2 days in the shop. Think about it in your mind do you really need to depend on a car for transportation.
"DRIVING BAND IN PARIS?" Yes Paris, France have band driving because they say that driving was polluting the air. So the people of Paris have reinforced a law that states you are not allowed to drive a motor vehicle. The only reason they had put the law because they want to clear the air of the global city since there was so much smog in the air. People of Paris were either the choice to leave their motor vehicle at home or suffer the chances of paying 22-euro fine. Since the smog had cleared up the law was rescind. See what cars do to our enviroment they mess up the climate it creates global warming which will soon kill us one day. It is much better/safe if we all in the world to aleast tried to not even bother usng a car if would all be great if we would use bikes cause they do not pollute the air we all breathe.
Well people ik get informed many different ways you or some one else reading this essayI wrote you have the power to change the way you see what cars do to us and the place we call Earth. I can try to inform you its bad and we should at least try not to use cars so much as we do today. I'm not saying you have to ut i dont think you or myself wanna die anytime soon because of global warming or any pollution our motor vehicles do well see ya! :) | 2 |
Can you imagine smart cars that can drive for you?
Well I can,these cars will use half the fuel of today's taxis and offer wa more flexibility than a bus.
I think the driverless cars is a really good idea.
It can also be helpful in lots of ways for people.
It can be helpful because you could do other stuff in your car while you are driving.
Such as change your baby's diaper, make an important phone call or text.
You could also watch a movie if you have a build in dvd in your car, or even play games on your cell phone.
If there is an emergency to where you need to be driven to the hospital, the car could take you to where you need to be.
This car could maybe even save someone's life.
I also think that
the driverless cars is a good idea because, they are safe.
The cars are safe because they have smarter roads, so it is better for the smart cars.
The google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel.
There is also a rotating sensor on the roof, and a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror.
The car is being monitored to make sure that no damage is to be done.
The most important piece of technology in the system is the spinning sensor on the roof.
It uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the car's surroundings.
This is to
make sure that the driverless car can mimic the skill of a human at the wheel.
Humans drive when they are needed, this is also another reason why I think that the driverless cars are safe.
Tesla has agreed for a 2016 release for the car being capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time.
If the automakers continue to work on the solving the promblems, there is a good chance for the cars.
I think that they should make the cars sooner for the people that needs them the most.
The idea still grows ahead of us, as we are grwoing closer to the car every day. | 1 |
The main way the majority of the people in our community get around each and every day, is by car. A car is the number way that people get from point A to B, but this is not the case throughout the world. A lot of countries have taken to effect the amount of damage a car can do, so they are beginning to limit car usage. They are beginning to realize that there are benefits from not having to crank up a car every time they have to go to the store thats a minute or two up the road, or every time they have to go to school, or what ever the case may be. A lot of them are coming to the conclusion that by limiting the car usage will, lower the amount of pollution and smog that is released in the air, lower the stress on having to worry about gas prices, and citizens will be more motivated to work and etc.
The amount of pollution that is let out into the air every day is ridiculous. In a lot of countries, smog has become a big issue even with out the effects of car usage. Car usage only makes it worst. In France, there was recored to be a numerous amount of cases where they reported a lot of congestion in the air, due to tha gas that was let out in the air due to the usages of the car. Paris began to enforce a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. Paris has more smog than other European capitals, it was recorded that Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter, with Brussels having only 144 and London having 79.7. They began to momentarliy stop mitir vehicles dropping the amount on congestion to 60 percent.
Although the amount of excersie that is received is at an all time low. By banning the amount of car usages this pushes more people to get excersie. A lot of the people in our community always depend of the vehicle on four wheels to get us around, not realizing they have to feet. Most stores in our community are beginning to be built at every corner to make things a little bit more convenient and in walking distance, and by lowering the car usage a lot of us will have to begin to depend on walking, to get from point A to B. Which will, and can do a lot of our health in the long run.
Now many of us pass by more the one gas station a day, and begin to dread the prices of gas. The gas prices go up, and seem to consistitently go up more and more. A lot of those who work, don't like the fact that they have to give machines their money to get from place to place, and this only gets worst. Most children around teen ages who are beginning to get their liscense are not in the rush just for this exact reason. The prices of gas will only pull you down along with a lot of other expenses that people have to face everyday. Researchers have shown that the precentages in young people driving has decreased by 23 percent between 2001 and 2009.
In conclusion, many are beginning to realize the cons of how much driving can do. For example, the fact that it causes pollution, has a big effect on expenses and has a lot to do with excersing and etc. Many should to take these things into consideration before they try to argue it, and realize the positive effects it may have. | 3 |
Although quite controversial, the pros of driverless cars far outweigh the cons. This modern marvel takes transportation to the next level and can potentially save millions of lives and dollars. Many states still hold laws that prevent or limit the use of these autonomous vehicles, but at this rapid rate of improvement, it won't be long before driverless cars roam the streets. The development of this newest form of techonology, driverless cars, will help to improve the world due to their reliability, cost effieciency, and safety.
Currently, there are many people out there who find autonomous vehicles untrustworthy and usafe, but with recent updates to techonology there shouldn't be any worries. Techonology such as sensors have been around for decades as stated in paragraph 5, "In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheels in the creation of antilock brakes". This shows how long sensors have been around and that they are nothing new. With new inventions such as these, consumers are able to depend on driverless cars when responding to dangerous situations such as rollovers or out-of-control crashes. Also, there are many other safe benefits to autonomous vehicles. For example, if a driver were to be under the influence of alcohol, rather than forcing them to go home at risk, the car would be able to safely return the consumer home. This could potentially lead to far less crashes and many lives to be saved.
Not only are driverless cars reliable, but they are extremely cost efficient in the long run. As of now, millions of dollars are being spent in order to perfect the techonology being used on these futuristic vehicles. But if you were to gather an estimate of the money being saved on fixing cars that got in crashes, the amount spend on research would be miniscule. In paragraph 6 the author states, "Radar was a device on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack." The development of these cars may be much at first, but over the course of a few years, it will greatly decline such as that of the radio, making it accesible to many consumers throughout the country. This cost effieciency is a vital step to the improvement of human life and safety.
Finally, there is the overall safety of the car. Autonomous vehicles are much more trustworthy than the average human being. With the development of cellular devices, drivers pay far less attention the the road than they should. The sensors and computer software developed into these vehicles, can lead to cars with better handling and prevent hundreds of crashes. Not only, is the techonology used today safe, but there are many other inventions being manufactured that can help benefit those on the road. In paragraph 7, the author discusses how, "GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object". Technology such as this can only improve and eventually lead up to a well developed, driverless car, which consumers can depend on for their safety.
In conclusion, the development of driverless cars is extremely beneficial in multiple circumstances involving the cost-effectiveness, safety, and reliability. Autonomous vehicles are the next big thing and will lead to a greater world. This technology will lead to great things and improve economies by saving millions of dollars. There is still much to improve on the road to autonomous vehicles, but before long we won't have to worry about the dangers of driving. | 3 |
When I was little I remember always watching these films about super hero and their really cool cars that would drive themselves. Well, although many take a certain side when it comes to for and against these driverless care, rarely do any think about what it would do to help society and improve or technology.
Our knowledge of technology has completely changed the way we design, make, and see new products. In 2009, Google reinvented the way humans look at cars. Independently run cars have come to the attention for the United States today.
We, as humans are particularly biased when it comes to not having to do something. In this sense, Americans are blind to the negative effect these driverless cars have. Driverless cars are a way for Americans to get out of taking time to drive somewhere, making them completely lazy. Cars like these are a hazard to the community and to the lives of many.
It is stated in a recent article that came out called "Driverless Cars Are Coming", that "there cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash"(2). This is their job, to influence you to think that the new and improved cars that they have invented, are good for society. The article given to the side a measuring scale, that's all it is. To see how far technology has come along but even more so seeing how much we could improve.
A driverless car is just bad new at this point. Without it being fully developed and driverless I fear that we would start experiencing more and more tragedies. The danger hazards of a driverless car are off the charts.
Before we start thinking about selling these Google invited driverless cars, we should work out all the kinks and bruises that could easily turn the new technology in to a bad thing. | 2 |
¨The Face¨
People think that ¨The Face¨ is created by aliens,but it is actually the Face is a natural landform. So here is how I´m going to support my claim with evidence from the article.
First of all,I claim that the ¨Face¨ is just a natural landform. According to the article the scientists used the camera´s absolute maximum resolution so if there were objects in the picture they would see it. The rock formation resembles a human head,eyes,nose,and mouth, so we understand why people think it was a face created by aliens.
Second of all,According to paragraph 12 ¨what the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa-landforms common around the American West¨(12).If it was created by aliens it would not be hard to find because there would be more then just one.¨That´s a lava dome that takes form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the face on Mars¨(12).
In conclusion,I think that the Face is a natural landform. There are evidence from the article to support my claims.¨Malin´s team captured an extraordinary photo using the camera´s absolute maximum resolution¨(10).¨If there were objects in this picture like airplanes on the ground or Egyptian-style pyramids or even small shacks,you could see what they were¨(11)! | 2 |
In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus," the author suggests that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit depiste the dangers in presents" Anyone would love to explore more than just the Earth we live on. Who wouldn't want to know more than what we know already about our planet Earth! Venus is one of the most interesting planets we would want to find more of or know about especially because Venus is our friendly neighbor other than Mars. Venus can be a challenging planet to study, and a very dangerous planet but it can end up being worthy information.
The author uses very good details to describe why Venus is a interesting planet to study. The way the author started off with " Venus is sometimes called the "Evening Star," is one of the brightest points of light in the night sky..." is a very good way to drawl people into the topic of why Venus can be a worthy pusuit despite the danges it presents. Venus is the one of the closest plants to Earth and people often refer it to Earth's "twin' because of the density and size. Venus can be a really challenging planet to study, the way the author used a details about the atmosphere and surface in paragraph 3 sounds even more challenging then what i thought. "A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dixoide..." the author even stated that something even more challening than the 97% of carbon is the clouds! it has "highly corrosive sulfuric acid" doesn't that sound interesing but terrifying? The author stated that humans have sent numerous of spacecraft to the land but none of them have survived more than just a few hours.(paragraph 2).That just adds another reason to why Venus is a worthy pursuit to study. I know more scientist are mostly focused on studying Mars more than any other planet but the author is putting the spotlight on Venus and it's full of mystery's. The author also states that the average surface temperature is over 800 degrees fahrenheit and the pressure is 90x greater than what we experience on Earth, ISN"T THAT INSANE !!! imangine living on Venus and discovering all these other things we didn't even know that it exists. Venus is also being described to once being just like earth long long time ago. Venus still has some features that can be found on earth such as rocky sediment, valleys, mountains, and craters (paragraph 4) this should be most definitely be another reason for humans to study Venus the way they study Earth and Mars. Each planet always has something different within each other, but we can't really study planets futher away from earth like Pluto. Pluto isn't referred to being a planet but it is in our glaxay so it should be considered one, we can't really study those planets well like the Mars, but Vensus is another option to study.
The author used a very good reasoning for Venus to be a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. The Earth, The Moon, and Mars should not be the only planets scientists or NASA studying. Venus most likely has more interesting, mysterious places or objects than just the atmosphere and the surface. Venus sounds like one great and definitely a worthy planet to study. | 3 |
I think that driverless cars aren't an appropriate idea for this time period. There are multiple reasons why I believe this. We would need to do a lot more developing on roads, we would need to put an abundance of sensors in the car, there would need to be new laws made, and there's no practical use to a driverless car.
Firstly, there are very few roads in America, let alone Indiana, that would be suitable for a driverless car. Many roads have unexpected twists, turns, and dips that no sensor would be able to make a fast enough reaction time. If the sensors stopped working, or if there wasn't a fast enough reaction time, it would cause multiple wrecks. If we had to fix a majority of the roads for driverless cars, taxes would go up to pay for it. Nobody would want to pay that kind of money, especially when most people wouldn't be able to afford a driverless car.
Secondly, there would need to be an abundance of sensors in the car. Sensors aren't necessarily a bad invention for a car, but people shouldn't solely rely on them. Multiple things could go wrong with the sensors, sometimes without the driver or car even knowing. If the driver doesn't know that a sensor isn't functioning, they could be relying on it to mimic them at the wheel. Multiple wrecks could happen this way, and the only person to blame would be the driver with the driverless car, because they're the car who had their sensors malfunction.
Thirdly, there would be too many laws that would need to be changed and added. Paragraph nine says, "Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times." A human driver is needed to make these laws and to enforce them. There would have to be new liability laws, and there would be conflict with the manufacturing company. Technology is the not the subject that should be at fault in this situation. The person who should be at fault is the driver, because the driver would be putting themselves, and everyone on the street at risk for driving a car that they are not in control of.
Lastly, there's no practical use for a driverless car. Driving is a privledge for young adults and adults. People are not given the right to drive, but they're given the privledge. There couldn't be anything more important for a driver than to focus on driving. If driverless cars are released to the public, what would people do while their car is being driven? They could sit on their phones or do something that wouldn't be worth their life or someone elses. Manual cars have been around for an abundance of years, and they've been doing just fine.
To sum this up, I believe that driverless cars are not worth the risk, or money, in people's lives. There would be too much developing roads and laws, and there would always be the risk of the driver not being in control of their car. | 3 |
i think technology that reads facial expressions of emotions of students in the classroom is not valuble. if a student is happy, sad, angry, etc they know what to do to make it change.
technology isnt always right anyways so if the computer reads that someone is happy and they are actually sad then nobody could help that student out. also if a student is confused they have to figure it out on there own or ask someone for help they know how to do that on there own and if there board then they can figure out what to do to get movin and to be happy instead of being board the hole time.
lets say we want to have computers to show the emotions that might be a bad thing like if your opening a present you got and you dont like it that could hurt that persons feeligs and make them sad. so no i do not think its a good thing to have computers tell our emotions. | 1 |
Venus the second planet from the sun and very dangerous. A thick cloud of carbon dioxide and heats to high for the humen body, but desipite all of the dangers the autor of this passage still wants to go. Despite all of the dangers is this really worth to pursuit.
The aurtor gives us a idea in paragraph 3 of how dangerous Venus is. A 97% thick cloud of carbon dixoide. Heats high enough to kill a humen, up to eight hundred degress! Thunder storms with frequent lightnign strikes that would kill a humen if stuck by one. Lastly its atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater then earths that would crush a submarine, machines built to withstand pressure! Many more dangers await us on Venus but the possiblity behind all of these dangers is amazing.
The reason the autor wants to go to Venus is just because of human curisotiy and insight of the planet itself theres no real claim for anything else. (NASA) is the only scientific reason stated but even then all the text the autor shows is making a craft to just hover over Venus nothing about actuly exploring the plant. The autor's aproche to this subject could have been more enhancing if they would have given scientfic reasons then just for human curisity.
Venus the sister to earth if she had deadly wepons and was ready to strike you if you got close. The autor makes good points on why we should go there but if you were to ask me I would build and wast recorses on this if this was the convincing paper. | 2 |
I believe the technology to read students' emotions in a classromm would be a great thing. Students such as myself tend to zone certain educational things out when it's to "out of our league". So I believe if we had this tech it would help students learn better in school. Many generations we have had a system where school is honestly boring. We can have fun here and there, but the lessons is where a big percentage of students fall asleep.
Our generation today is the age of technolgy, we are based off computers and not a fifty pound textbook so much anymore. Dr.Huang believes computers need to understand our emotions so it can help us with educaion or other things that may benfit us. I myself find no issue with that because like I have stated, this is the age of technology. We work with computers and phones on a daily bases now, and think about how work can stress some people out. Dr. Huang's tech could help you with things like work or educaion, it could recomend its help to help us find faster solutions.
As humans our minds evolve in different ways just like our characteristics, as a student myself classroom work can be difficult and make me a little tired because of complex equations or wording in reading. I believe with this tech students would have an education of their own that follows their characteristics and their mind set by reading their expressions. We learn from older people who have a higher education then us and who have studied longer. Not all of us can compete and catch up to their understandings of them knowing what to do. One thing our teacher can not do is modify how he teaches for each student but the software created by Dr. Huang can modify things for individuals.
Some people may have a negative feed back on this software because they may find it creepy their computer is examining their face twenty-four hours a day. I say it's fine because it's helping modify and help with everyday learning either at home or at school. As humans according to Dr. Huang humans tend to communicate in nonverbal or emotional ways. So if a human can recognize and help people why not have computers do the same thing. Once again we are based on technology. Out with the old in with the new, with that saying being in mind we are the new and we can benefit off of this new tech.
In conclusion, Dr.Huang's tech software is a benefit to our future as a society and can help individuals by modifying or understading us. We are the future and our tech is part of our society so making something like this apliable to out tech for student use or other uses can help a lot of people. Our education is valuable and so are our feelings. If our heart isn't into something we have support from people, why cant we have support from technology? Tech like Dr. Huang's software program can change the future for students and the world one day. That's why I believe this tech should be in classrooms or other places so it can help our society grow in mind and in understanding. | 3 |
Ever dreamed about visiting a different planet, that is considered Earth's twin? A planet that is very similar to Earth from density to size is called Venus. It is also very close to Earth that it even has it's nickname, "Evening Star." Though Venus is planet Earth's twin it could be very dangers and difficult to analyze the planet, but it won't stop sicentists from that. The occurings of what happens in the planet, and why sicentists wont stop them from exploring Venus.
Venus is the second planet from the Sun. It for sure has different things that planet Earth doesn't exprenice. In Earth no one expreince the temperature,"over 800 degrees Fahrenheit." It would be impossible for humans to even live in such a hot planet. If they do send scientists they will have to be hovering in the air becuase of the extreme temperature. Venus has some similar things that Earth would have very dangerous volcanoes, earthquakes, and lightning that occur. So, why would NASA send sicentists to explore Venus?
The conditions in Venus is nothing like Earth. Though some people might think there's not reason to go and explore Venus some think there are reasons. The author of this article says that it is wroth going to see Venus and analyze it. "Astronomers are fascinated by Venus because it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system,"(paragraph,4). This text from the article shows that venus was once like earth with similar features. Other evidence from the article comes fgrom paragraph 4," ...Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth." If it had
some type of water in the planet now it would be very worthy to visit and even if not now, it could still be worthy becuase it could of in the pass. Even today, Venus has some features that Earth has as well,"... has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters." This helps out to why NASA should really be inspired to visit Venus because of the ability that it could of once been earth.
"Evening Star" is the nickname of planet Earth's twin. Though it's just the nickname it's actually the second planet from the Sun in our solar system. It would of been just like Earth and it still has somes features similar to Earth. So, let's investagate Venus for a chance to visit and see planet Earth's twin. | 2 |
Some people think the Face was created by aliens. If you really think about it is just a natural landform. There are many reasons in why, it is just a natural landform. Being a scientidst at NASA is an important job.
The people at NASA have many reasons why the Face is not an alien artifact. First,
Cydonia became a prority for NASA when Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) arrived at the Red Planet in Sept. 1997, eighteen long years after the Viking missions ended which had a impact on the Face. Second, a cheif scientst for NASA's Mars Exploration Program said that " They felt this was important to taxpayers". I totally argree with him and what he said, it would be very important to the taxpayers.Then, "We photographged the Face as soon as we could get a good shoot at it".
Many people had to play an important role to tell that NASA wasnt created by aliens. On April 5,1998, when Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia for the first time a man named "Micheal Malin and his Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) team snapped a picture ten times sharper than the orginal Viking photos." Thousands of anxious web surfers were waiting when the image first appeared on JPL website reveal a natural landform. There was no alien monument after all. Although many people werent yet quit satisfied. The camera on board MGS had to peer through wispy clouds to see the Face due to it being winter.They started to think " Perhaps, said skepticss, alien markings were hidden by the haze." Misson controllers began to prepare to look again. "It's not easy to target Cydonia, says Garvin." In fact its hard work".
Many people still began to think that the Face was created by aliens. On April 8,2001 a cloudless day in Cydonia Mars Global Surveyor drew close enough for a second look. " We had to roll the spacecraft 25 degrees to center the Face in the field of view," said Garvin. "Malins team captured an extraordinary photo using the camera's abssolute maxium resolution." Each pixel in the 2001 images had spanned 1.56 meters, compared to 43 meters per pixel in the best 1976 Viking photo. The picture showed the Maritan equivalent of a butte or mesa landforms common around the American West.
Many people thought that the Face was created by aliens, but turns out it was a natural landform. The NASA had to take mant steps for them to be able to complete this task. The NASA had took many important roles to find out if it was an natural landform. Being a scientist at NASA is an important job. | 2 |
Changing the election by popular votes for the presidents of the United States is fair right? We'll it says according to a Gallup poll in 2000, taken shortly after Al Gore thanks to the quirks of the electoral college won the popular vote but lost the presidency over 60 percent of the voter would prefer a direct election to the kind that we have now.
Next, There are problems with the electoral college system voters vote not for a slate of electors, who inturn electthe president. Imagine if we had electoral votes it would be much easier and fair for all the people, than just rather have senate or House of Representatives have to pick, or Congress. At the most basic level,the electoral college is unfair to voters.
Then, Some of the problems that we have, Because of the winner take all syste, in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning and that's a big problem focusing only on the tight races inthe "swing" states. It is informing us that During the 2000 there was a campaign that seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all,including states Rhode Island and South Carolina. and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't even get to see a single campaign ad. If anyone has a good argument for putting the fate of the presidency in the hands of a few swing voter, they have yetto make it.
Last, It almost obvious the electoral college is unfair, outdatedand irrational. And the arguments against direct elections are spurious at best. It's hard to say this butBob Dole was right he said to Abolish the electoral college. Given that many voters vote one party for president and another for Congress, the House's selection can hardly be expected to reflect the will of the people. In 1968 a shift of just 41,971 votes would have deadlocked the election then, In 1976, a tie would have occurred if a mere 5,559 voters in ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted the other way. The election is only a few swing voters away from catastrophe
In conclusion, we voters have to stand up for our rights achieve our goal making this a better country and society to live in. Electoral votes should be made it is a much easier system. Changing the election by popular votes for the presidents for the United States is fair right? It is fair because it makes our country muche easier and better place to live. Some of the Electoral College method of selecting the president may turn off potential voters for a candidate who has no hope of carrying their state. It is clearly unfair Electoral College votes should be madefor everyone to have popular votes, to vote in this country. | 2 |
Aliens are real, Frank I'm telling you. The aliens made that face on Mars. Why do you think that, Grayson? No one can step on Mars. If a person steps on Mars, they will die. No one has ever been to Mars, Still to this day. Are you sure about what you are saying? I'm sure about this. Aliens live in the galaxy. They can step on any planet whenever they want to and not die.
Well I have something to say. Aliens do not exist. If they were real, they would have took over the world. They would have been making us do work every single day. f they came here they would probaly have killed us by now. Have they killed us, have they started making us do work? No, they haven't.
Grayson? Yes, Sir? I heard you and Kevin talking about how aliens made that face on mars. Both of you are wrong. You were right about the no aliens part, but everything else was wrong. We just now figured out that it was just another Martian mesa. It is common enough in Cydonia. When we took the picture, I have got a lot of e-mails saying "what is that thing?" I even got a e-mail from Michael Bay saying that he is going to use that image for a movie. This stuff is crazy!
Thats awesome sir! Wait, Grayson there is more. The picture is accually the Martian of a butte or mesa. It's common across the American west. I hope we can find more stuff like that. Me too that was a wierd experience. | 1 |
They come in red, blue, green, black, and white. They beep and honk while they ride on highways and transport people form place to place. Cars are everywear. What would the world be like if we didnt have cars? What are the benefits of life without cars? Life with out cars benefits the environment, and peoples' health.
First of all, the elimination of cars helps the environment. "Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe...and up to 50 percent in some car-intensive areas in the United States" (5). In other words, cars are higly responsible for the harmful gases that pollute our atmosphere and cause global warming. In Paris, a partial driving ban was issued to clear the air after days of high air pollution rates. After the driving ban, "congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France after five-days of intensifying smog" (14). By using cars less, citizens can reduce pollution and help keep our earth clean and safe. Statisticts show that fewer people are using cars around the world. "A study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009" (41). Sociologists belive that this trend will continue and possibly increase. They belive it will "have benficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions" (34).
Another benefit to limiting car usage is that it will benefit the health of citizens both mentally and physically. In the German suburb of Vauban, citizens have given up their cars. A resident there says "when i had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way" (3). Limiting car use also limits the frequency of trafic jams, accidents, and unfriendly drivers in a hurry along with the stress and frustration that accompany them. In Colombia's capital, Bogata, the Day Without Cars has had many participants. One of whom said "It's a good opportunity to take away stress" referring to the event. (24) limiting stress can have major benefits to a persons health and mental well-being. limiting the use of cars does'nt just positivly effect mental health, it can positivly influence physical health. In Bogata, Colombia, the car-free day inspired residents to "hike, bike, skate, or take buses to work " (20). Excersize releases endorphins which are chemicals in the brain related to pleasure. Many people that excersize regularly are happier then when they don't. By limiting car usage,citizens are more inspired to excersize making them happier and healthier.
In sumation, a life without cars means a healthy, long-lasting planet along with a happy, relaxed, and healthy population. Even though cars are conveint, they have many negative side effects. Next time you want to go for a ride, think of all the benefits of limiting them. Rember what a breath of fresh air feels like because the gasses from cars might mean they will be gone soon. Get used to angry faces honking horns, and being given "the bird" by angry drivers because with cars come many conveiniences, but also many frustations. | 4 |
The author describes how a new technology called Facial Action Coding System enables computers to identify human emtions. The author lets us know that " Eckman has classified six basic emotions- happiness, surprise, anger, disgust, fear, and sadness and then associated each with charactheristic of the facial muscles."
I am for the value of using this technology to read students emotional expressions because the author gives a lot of detail from the texts and lets us know that "the software can even identify mixed emotions." It even lets us know that each expression is compared against a neutral face.
For an example, you can most likely tell how you're friend is felling simply by there look on his or her face. "Yet Dr. Huang observes that artists such as da Vinci studied human anatomy to help them paint facial muscles precisely enough to convey specific emotions." They even let us know that his new computer software stores similar anatomical information as electronic code.
Next they let us know that "it could modify the lesson, like an effective human instutor." the author even lets us know that they have "the same technology can make computers- animated faces more expresssive for video fames or video surgery.
Last the author lets's us know about while were looking in the mirror you should raise your lips at the corners of your mouth. Then squint your eyes slightly, to produce wrikling at the corners of your eyes Finally raise the outer parts of your cheeks up, toward your eyes. The text even tells us what "muscles are called there called orbicularis oculi pars palpabraeus it makes crow's- feet around your eyes."
The last thing is that in the end of the text it let's us know that the author says "According to the Facial Feedback Theory of Emotion, moving your facial muscles not only expresses emotions, but also may even help produce them. In the text it also let us know that making faces could reveal a lot abot the science of emotions. I hope you learned a lot about what I wrote theses are the reasson why I agree to this artical. | 1 |
Happiness. More money. Healthier living. Are all types of advantages that limiting car usage have.
In source 1 paragraph 3 the author Elisabeth Rosenthal put the qoute "When i had a car I was always tense. Im much happier this way" said a media trainer. Having a car means always having to drive around and figure out how to get much for gas and break downs. Without the car it brings happiness and you can clear your mind on a nice walk go to where you have to go. Also stated in source 1 paragraph 7 "All of our development since World War II has been centered on the car, and that will have to change." Americans and people around the world really havent thought about any other type of transportaion except the car. Just imagine giving your community a break for one day without driving how much cleaner the air would be.
In source 2 paragraph 10 author Robert Duffer states "After days of near-record pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city." No one wants their city to be full of pollution and breathing smoke all day. In source 4 paragraph 32 author Elisabeth Rosenthal states "But America's love affair with its vehicles seems to be cooling." Every year fewer and fewer people arent getting their driver's license because they dont feel the need to have them because of other forms of transportation.
On the other hand many people desn't like the limiting of limiting car usage. In sorce 2 article 12 Duffer states "Almost 4,000 drivers were fines, according to Reuters, twenty-seven people had their cars impouned for their reaction to the fine." If its only one day of nondriving its not like your going to die if you dont drive, walk or take public transportaion. Also in sorce 2 paragraph 18 it states "Delivery companies complained of lost revenue," if public transit was free of charge from Friday to Monday then why complain, it might take you a little longer but youll get it to the.
Their are all types of advantages that come with limiting car usage. Limiting car usage now will help us in the future by helping the community and keeping down pollutiong, and many people around the world will save money. | 2 |
I am honestly against driveless cars. Driverless cars takes alot of techonolgy just for it to be able to be used. I can't say driverless cars are just so bad but as in my oppinon I would never want a driverless car and these are the reason of why I wouldnt ever see myself in a driverless car.
Driverless cars needs to much technology just for it to work and still with all of that technology you still have to steer the wheel. The cars takes about half of fuel today that taxis and buses use. Also I wouldnt want a driverless car because its way to exspensive for the car when its not all the way certain to work. It states in paragraph 9 in the second sentence that "Presently, traffic laws are written the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times." So why would i want a car that is not for sure safe to be putting myself into? Also if the technology wasnt to work all the way and i was to get injured that would be my fault for trying something new that took to much stuff to even work.
Dont get me wrong driverless cars does have some type of good use like when there is a crash or you are about to get in a crash the car can warn you. But safety is still better from a human to me. In plus you can save alot more money just driving yourself instead of buying a car that has camars in all. The reason I bring up camars is because why would someone in front of your car want camars pointing at there car. There is still work needed on a driveless car anyways so as for myself I wouldnt take the risk of getting one.
SO yeah the driverless cars are pretty neat but there just not something anybody should want to get. Who wants to have to depend on alot of technology just for a car? Also why would someone want to pay so much money for a car thats not even proven to be safe. I know I wouldnt want to ever have to depend on a driverless car to be safe. I hope after you read my reason of why not to get a driverless car you think twice about getting one yourself. | 3 |
The auther's support on the studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers are too dangerus. Venus is too harmful to humans and/or anything that touches the planet.
Many people sent numerous spacecrafts to Venus but, were unsecessful and they didn't last for a few hours. The issue helps understand why nothing has touched Venus in over Three decades. The carbon dioxide that's like a blanket on Vense is almost 97% The planet's clouds are highly corrosive silfuric acid in it's atmosphere, temeratures are over 800 degrees Fahrenheit and the pressure is 90 times greater then on Earth.
NASA are manking idea's on sending humans to Venus to study it. Sending humans to the planet is too dangerus and harmful for them, even the spacecrafts that they send to Venus. Taking samples from the planet like rock, gas, would become a risk to their lives. NASA is looking back at old taht were used in the 1800s and played an important role in 1940s during World War ll. | 1 |
You may have heard of the "Evening Star", but this is actually a planet. Venus has been studied for many years. But becausse of the extreme temperatures, high pressures, and many more dangers, it has kept us from knowing more about it. The author supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers, very well.
First of all, the author gives details of how Venus is similar to Earth. In Paragraph 2, the author states, "Often referred 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." Later in Paragraph 4, the author goes on to say, "Today, Venus still has some features that are analogous to those on Earth. The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters." These both show that Venus is a worthy pursuit. Since Venus is so close and similar to Earth, this could potentially be a new planet that could substain life. This shows how the author is well supporting that Venus could be worthy despite the dangers by showing a benefit of studying it. In Paragraph 8, the author develops that same idea even better. They stated, "Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also because human curiosity will likey lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors." This shows that the author thinks that knowledge and new insight can be gained by pursuing Venus. The author also shows how researchers need to get up and close to Venus. Paragrpah 6 says that peering form a ships or hoveing the planet cannot give full insight on ground conditions because light cannot penetrate through the dense atmosphere. Researchers are also not able to get samples of sediments from the ground of they are up above. This goes to show that the author thinks missions and studies made on the ground should be done. That demonstrates how well the author is supporting his/her belief that Venus is a worhty pursuit by demonstrating all the benefits that come from studying the planet.
In conclusion, the author supports the idea that studying venus is a worhty pursuit very well, by showing earth and Venus are similar, and showing the knowledge we would gain from it. By showing how Earth and Venus are similar, this is suggesting that Venus could have advancements and substain life like Earth. Both of these are great advancements to humans and therefore supports the author's idea that studying Venus is worhty despite its' dangers. | 3 |
Limiting car usage can actually be effective believe it or not. While limiting your car usage you would be saving money, getting more exercise, and not polluting your environment as much as before.
Limiting your car usage is beneficial because you could potentially save alot of money. Every time you need to put more gas in the car thats fifty dollars down the drain. Saving fifty dollars a week actually adds up very rapidly and be used on something you will enjoy. Instead of buying gas you can go to the movies with friends, go iceskating or even out for dinner. Money is an important role in our economy today and spending a large amount on transportation regularly doesnt sound proper. Having more money is something im sure everybody would enjoy, especially not wasting it on gas money.
Not using your car is also benificial because you can get more exercise by walking or riding your bike where you need to go. Exercising is something everybody needs to do to maintain a healthy lifestyle and also staying active. Instead of driving your car park in in your garage on go for a nice relaxing bike ride. And if you dont have a bike go for a walk. People everyday are getting bigger and bigger and dont realize how important exercise really is.
Every time you use your car it harms the environment. When you start your car..... Pollution. I believe someday were going to have so many cars that all of the fumes and smoke will blur our vision when driving. During a point in time we wont be able to breath all the fumes because how strong they will be.
Not using your car is beneificial to both the environment and you. So next time you want to go out park the car and go for a walk. | 2 |
Luke Bomberger is one of the best seagoing cowboys to ever live he traveled the most trips wich is nine. Im convincing you to be a seagoing cowboy because you would get to travel on boat and take care of animals. If you really like all of those things you get to do being a seagoing cowboy is the job for you. A lot of people love doing this so I think that you would love it to you can even get your friends to do it with you. Some of the places you get to go to is China, and across the Atlantic Ocean.
It takes about two weeks to travel the Atlantic Ocean to the eastern coast of the United States. It takes about a month to travel to China. You have to get stalls that you can put your animals into so you can feed them and wash them. Once you drop your animals off you can start to get back on the boat and sail back. The fun part is of sailing back is you get to do fun things such as table-tennis tournaments, fencing, boxing, reading, whittling, and games to help pass time. Also it is great to get outside and adventure and open up the world to yourself.
I am trying to encourage you to become a seagoing cowboy because if you like to travel and be on a boat with animals then this is the job for you. If you do become a seagoing cowboy remember its a lot of responsibility that you have to take care of. When the job is over you get to play games on your way home. Right when you get back you dont have to get more animals and go straight back to the job. If you want you can spend time with your family and chill out. This is a seagoing cowboy convincing you to become a seagoing cowboy. | 2 |
Have you ever sat back in thought to yourself how would the world be with or without Driverless cars? well if you have been thinking about the driveless cars that is a good thing because driverless cars will be amazing we should have driveless cars we need to start to investing into driveless cars it will be great. These cars will change the world. Driveless cars will help make the world a better place. I say this because it can really help people out. When you have a long day at work late night on your way home you are tired you are ready to go to sleep you have eat you are just done if you had a Driveless car it can help you solve that problem because it will do all the work for you and you wouldnt have to really worry about driving are falling alseep on the road a driveless car will take care of that
If we have driveless cars we can really help out mom who was a new born in the car while they are driving . when the mom is driving she has to be focus on the road she cant turn to the back in see whats going on with the baby because she is driving but if she had a driveless car she can turn back in make sure the baby isnt crying and he/she is fine because the driveless car will take care of the road and she can do what ever she needs to do to make sure the babys doing fine on the car ride
Also if we had a driveless road trips wouldnt be so borning and so long because drveless car will do all the work that a human will have to do on a road trip you can take you mind off the road and let the car do most of the work well thats what driveless cars are made to help make driving more easy and fun for the people who are on the road alot take your mind off the road for a few and relax while you are driving
Driveless cars will make the road more safer i only say this because some people text and drive that isnt safe at all but if you have driveless car you can text and drive because the driveless car is driving you can send those messege or emails without putting anyones on the road life on the line also driveless cars is great to have when you are running late for a big meeting and you didnt have time to get all the way dress you havent put your shirt on yet you can put your shirt on in the car you dont have to worry about a thing everyone in the world should get a driveless car it will help you out with drving and alot more you can relax whilr driving talk on the phonw when driving put a shirt on drving how cool is that get a driveless car you everyone is getting on dont miss out on the greatness | 1 |
Dear, Senator
When voting for the president of the United States we need to make sure he or she will get there job done. I think electoral voting is better than popular voting. There are parites and each candidate running for president in your state had his or her own grop of electors. Thats usually based on the candidate's political party. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. In order for the president to be elected they must have a majority of 270 electoral votes. In the electoral college system, voters vote not only for the president, but for a slate of electors. The argument against the electoral college is what they call the disaster factor.
Each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee however, it is possible that the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote.
There are five reasons for retaining the Electoral College despite its lack of democratic reasons.
The first reason is the certainty of outcome. The outcome of an Electoral College vote is possible. It is also less likely than a dispute over the popular vote. For example, Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote comprared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and Romney.
To add onto the five reasons we have the second reason that states Everyones President. The electoral college requires a president candidate to have trans-regional appeal. The residents of the other regions are likely to fell disenfranchised. They would feel this way because there votes wouldnt count. Our third reason we have Swing states these ones are likely to be most thoughtful. For our forth and fith we have big states and aviod run off elections.
To wrap this up i think electoral voting is a much better way of finding out who the president should be. When you do popular voting it doesnt give you a good idea of what the people think. | 1 |
Using technology to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is just wrong. People are already feeling like they are being watched through their technology as is, and this would only validate that we don't have any privacy.
Technology just keeps growing and getting more advanced. We have robots that can cook, and cars that can drive themselves. While all of this can make our lives easier, you have to wonder where what these robots see goes. Today, there is a huge issue of privacy from the government. Almost all of our devices have cameras in them now, and we might not be the only ones who can see through them. With this facial expression recognition, it would only prove that we are being watched. I'm sure that some, if not all of the computers data gets observed by a human at some point, which means that you don't really know who is watching your every move.
Not only is this technology a threat to just your personal privacy, it could end up being a threat to your life. If someone has access to see through your computer, who knows what else they can access. So much of our lives are put on our computers with us trusting that noting will happen to that information. The article says that the technology can react to your face when you see certain ads on websites, which means that they are most likely able to see what is on the screen. Say you are logged into your bank account and switch over to another website that has an ad on it, while your bank tab is still open. Someone may be able to see that bank account information and rob you of your money. This example can be applied to many other things as well, like your credit card infomation if you buy anything online, or social sercurity number. At any time i'm sure this technology could also pinpoint your exact location, and if that gets put into the wrong hands by chance, yous ands your friends and families could potentially be in danger from an in-home robbery, or even possibly a murderer. Even in classrooms, the school's information could be hacked and threatened, so is it really even worth the risk?
I can see the positive side of this technology. The artuicle talks about how it can react and change ads based on your face, and even modify lesson plans for children in school, but unfortunatley the bad outweighs the good. There is too much of a risk of what can be seen, and who has access to that information, even if it is used in classrooms to help students. | 3 |
So when you think of going somewhere mysterious, dangerous, or exiciting, you may think for Oceans. Probably not. Space. Maybe. The Planet Venus. Defintinly. Many people can say they know that Venus is a planet, but not really anything else because we just don't know a lot about it. So Venus is a planet worth discovering because we can learn if the planet use to be Earth a long time ago, find more about it and help us understand the planet more, and despite the dangers how it can benefit us by knowing more about it.
To start off, understanding a planet is the most benefical way we can do because if we understand it, then we will learn more about it. In the arctilce it says. " More importanly, reachers cannot take samples of rock, gas, or anything else, from a distance. Therefore, scientists seeking to conduct a through mission to understand Venus would need to get up close and persconal despite the risks. Or maybe we should think of them as challanges. Many reseachers are working are working on innovations that world allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowedge of Venus". This quote from the article supports that even through we don't know much about it, we can still do it if we can get closer to Venus surface to study more and understand why is it the way it is. Also, by knowing more about will help us understand why it the way it is because we will have more information and facts behind understanding it.
Next thing I am going to talk about the the dangers behind Venus and and benefit why knowing about it will make that more easier becasue by doing this we came make it safer for humans and machines to be able to stay there for longer periods of time. In the articleis says " A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent crbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sufuric acid in Venus's atmosphere. On the planet's surface, temperatures avergaes over 880 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on own planet". This is showing that the Venus atmosphere is dangerous, but we would not known that if we didn't take a chance to learn more about the planet. Futhermore, if we did not know about this we could gone to Venus and could have died because we did not know what the atmosphere was like.
Futhermore, on the topic of Venus at it the closest related planet to Earth because to has similar geography of Earth. I the article is says " Astronmers 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. Today, Venus still has some features that are analogous to thise of Earth. The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and inculdes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters". This quote is saying that Venus is almost identical to Earth in some many ways like the geography structure to animal life on Earth. This is earthskaing because if Venus is almost indentical to Earth, then maybe millions of years ago that could been what happen to the Earth before ours and could be what this earth could look like millions of years from know.
On the otherhand they say Venus can be to dangerous because of how bad the atmosphere is for humans and machines. In the article is says " These conditions are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth; such an environment would crush even a submarine accomtomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans and would liquely many metals". They say this in the article but this is a little false because in the article it says " Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans". By saying this in the article this could meaning the quoute could be truth because id the atmosphere is so dangerous when why say its survivable for humans.
All and all, Venus is a planet worth discovering because we can learn if the planet use to be Earth a long time ago, find more about it and help us understand the planet more, and despite the dangers how it can benefit us by knowing more about it. Find more information about can help for farer investigattion on ethe planet and understanding a planet is the most benefical way we can do because if we understand it, then we will learn more about it. Despite the dangers to behind Venus and and benefit why knowing about it will make that more easier because by doing this we came make it safer for humans and machines so it can be able to stay there for longer periods of time. Aslo, learning about that Venus is the closest related planet to Earth because to has similar geography of Earth can help in faer discovers. Even though they say Venus can be to dangerous because of how bad the atmosphere is for humans and machines, then they say that humans can survived on Venus. So in the end Venus a dangerous planet to be discover, but if we do not, then who will? | 4 |
The brightest point of light in the night sky, the our sister planet, or sometimes called the " Evening Star", thay all are as know as Venus.
The author has a good information by reffering from the National Aeronautics and Spave Administration (NASA). According from the article, "The National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA) has one particularly compelling idea for sending human to study Venus." It shows that all of those information sound believable because NASA is the famous organization and a lot of people trust in them.
The author creates an imagination to explain how dangerous it is. For example, the author says "Just imagine exposing a cell phone or tablet to acid or heat capable of melting tin." That show how dangerous it is and it is easier for the reader to understand about it.
The Venus seems to be an Earth's twin "Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size, and occasionally the closest in distance too." It can tell that Venus has some features that are similar to Earth.
Even though the Venus has something dangerous, it still has something that are anologous to those on Earth. Which mean Venus has value as well. | 1 |
The question is, is this technology valuable to telling what a student in a classroom is feeling? Can it actually tell how someone is feeling by their facial expression? I think, no. I mean what is the big deal here? They can't actually tell what a person is feeling, right? Well I for sure do not think so.
Of course you can look at someone and think they are sad by what they are saying or how they look, but they can obviously be acting like that to hide the fact that they are happy. Or the oppostie. Many, many people hide that they are sad with a big smile on their face. I just think this technology is pointless because people hide their emotions all the time. I know I do.
For example, say you are at a family get together, and you feel unhappy about something, but your mom wants to take a family photo. You're going to smile in the picture but that does not neccisarily mean you feel happy. Or for a school picture. You could be upset about something but of course you are not going to show that in a picture everyone is going to see. And why would you use the painting of Mona Lisa as an example. It is a painting! She might be smiling becasue that is how the artist wanted her to look but she doesn't feel that way!
"Eckman has classified six basic emotions; happiness, surprise, anger, disgust, fear, and sadness; then associated each with characteristic movements of the facial muscles". Sounds like he knows his stuff, but does he really? I agree that he can tell if a person looks sad, happy, mad, disgusted, surprised, or scared, but is that how they're really feeling? I'd like to see them calculate how they actually feel. Until then, my opinion is that this is pointless.
"A renowned drama coach, Constanin Stanislavsky, had his actors carefully reproduce smiling and frowning as a way of creating these emotions on stage". Exactly, acting is all it takes. That sentence from the article pretty much proves my point. So overall, in my opinion, I think this is not valuable at all and it shouldn't be used in a classroom to see how a student feels. It won't work. | 3 |
"Paul", Luke said "do you want to join the Seagoing Cowboys program?"
"Uhm I'm not sure luke, why would I join the Seagoing Cowboys program, like give me an idea of what it would be like" Paul said
"Well you get to help out Europe and China by giving them horses, baby cows, goats and so on.", Luke said, "You also get to see so many natural wonders, antiques, buildings from long long ago, and meet so many new and great people"
"Sounds fun but what about my kids and wife,they will miss me, and who will be man of the house after all I only have two girls with a mother that is sick. I'm sorry Luke I just can't go to many things to worry about".
"Well why didn't you tell me that i would've got that taken care of no questions asked", Luke said, "I can call up your brother have him come up here and take care of the house and call a docter to take care of your wife, I know you would've called a docter if you had the money to, but I will pay for the docter visiting so you don't have to woory about money".
In the meantime Luke called Dr. Philipe, (phil-EY-pay) called Saul, Paul's brother, asked if he could house sit for Paul, and payed for the docter visit and Saul's trip.
"So Paul, now can you go?", Luke said
"Yes I can go", said Paul
On the way to the Luke's barn that was on a hil next to the lake, they found multiple holes in the ground that hadn't been there before. "I wonder where these came from?"
"Me too, maybe a giant worm or a mole", Paul said
"Let's follow the holes to see where the main source is". They followed the holes and it led them to the barn. They heard a lot of noise from the horses then the cows and then the chickens. "What's going on in here", Luke said. ALmost right after he said that he spotted a cottenmouth snake on of the most deadliest snakes of all, besides the viper.
"Oh my chicken nuggets, it's a snake", Paul screamed. The snake heard Paul scream and turned around to face Paul. The sake bunched up and Luke said, "Run!" Paul was to late. The snake bit him on his ankle and Paul fell to the floor. Luke grabbed an iron horse shoe and threw it at the snake, missed the first time, but the second hit the snake in the head.
"Get away from my friend!" Yelled Luke, "Or I'll through another one!" The snake just stayed there hissing at Luke. Luke threw another one and hit the snake again and killed the snake. Luke threw the dead snake out of the barn and got all the venom out of Paul.
"Lets go now", Luke said. They left and was on the boat untill one of the horses saw a spider and ran towrds land. "Let's just leave it after all we have 337 horses", said Paul.
They left and was having the time of their lifes, seeing all type of sea creatures and weird fish. They made it to Europe and delived the animals safe and sound.
"So did you have fun?" asked Luke.
"Yes, it is fun to get out of the house and two screaming girls and enjoy life while we still can", said Paul
They made it to homeland and had the best welcome back party of their lifes. Luke said bye to Paul when Paul went on his next trip and Luke went home to do house chores. They never saw each other again because it was said that there was a storm that year and the SS WiIlington 370 capsized in the water and was never seen again. That was the story of Paul and Luke, the Seagoing Cowboys. | 0 |
Cars are quite helpful to an extent. According to Source 1, "In German Suburb, Life Goes On Witout Cars," the usuage of cars is beginning to derease. "Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe" says Elisabeth Rosenthal. Most of the bills that are being paid show that 80 percent of the Government's money is going towards the production of highways, while only 20 percent is going to other transport.
Although not having cars around may eventually lead to an increase of time that it takes to get to different destinations, it also has many advantages. The smog around Paris has been said to be created by the amount of cars around the area. Paris put a partial ban on driving in order to reduce the amount of smog. On specific days, even-numbered license plates would not be allowed to travel, the owners of these vehicles were ordered to leave their cars at home athat day. If this order was not followed, the owners would be forced to pay a $31 fine. Drivers with odd-numbered license plates had to follow this same procedure the next day. The people of Paris had to alternate the days they could drive their cars. As said in Source 2, "Almost 4,000 drivers were fined."
Not allowing many cars on the roads causes there to be a significant decrease in the amount of traffic. In Paris, after they placed a partial ban on driving, "Congestion was down 60 percent . . ." Bogota then participated in what they call a "Car-free Day." This led to no traffic jams, and only buses and taxis on the roads. The people in Bogota walked, skated, took a bike or a bus to work that day. Once again, violators had to pay a $25 fine. Andrew Selsky states that, "The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog." This day became a big hit in Bogota, so Cali and Valedupar, two other Columbian cities, joined them in this successful event.
The United States is viewed as "[O]ne of the world's prime car cultures." The US had the most amount of cars traveling on the roads per day. Slowly, the amount of cars are decreasing due to a rise in tunnel tolls. Also, According to Elisabeth Rosenthal, due to "demographic shifts in the driving population . . . there has been a large drop in the percentage of 16-to 39- year-olds getting a license. . . ." Between the years of 2001 and 2009, "23 percent of young people driving decreased." | 2 |
While the Face on Mars does look like a face, there is no way possible that it could be an alien artifact. Research, advance in technology, quotes from scientists, and actual evidence proves that this is just a natural landform on Mars. Mars has had plenty of speculation on this, yet all the answers have come back that it is impossible. No, there is not a lot of evidence, but there is enough to show that this is just a mesa.
When scientist first found the Face, it was already speculated to be a mesa. This was because of the place where it was located, Cydonia. Cydonia is known for having many mesas in its area. This one just happened to have shadows on it appearing like a face. Let us not forget that the Face was found in 1978. That is when space travel was still a new for the world. Technology was not that advanced as it is today. The last picture was taken in 2001, which was twenty years later after the first photograph was taken. Spacecraft and photos had improved twice as much.
Even though technology has improved we still cannot tell whether it is an alien or not. We must go off of facts. Scientist Jim Garvin stated that,"As a rule of thumb, you can discern things in a digital image 3 times bigger than the pixel size. So, id there were objects in the picture like airplanes on the ground or Egyptian-style pyramids or even small shacks, you could not see what they were!" This shows that the Face could not even of been seen. So, it is impossible that it was an alien artifact.
Mesas and buttes are very common on Mars. Especially in Cydonia. Technology has improved and there is no way we could see a face from that size. "That's a lave dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face of Mars," said Garvin. Research and results have proven that the Face is just a landform like any other on earth. | 3 |
Do you believe in aliens? If so, what is your evidence? In "Unmasking the Face on Mars", conspiracy theorists believe in 1976 the Viking snapped a photo of an alien face on Mars. In 1998, Mars Global Surveyor re-took the photo of the Face with sharper cameras. The Face on Mars is a natural landform that appeared as an Egyptian Pharaoh.
Cydonia, or Red Planet, revealed unusal shawdows which made the Face look like an Egyptian Pharaoah. The MOC team snapped a picture ten times sharper than the original Vikings photo. After released on the JPL web site, the photo revealed a natural landform. Later in 2001, the Mars Global Surveyor took another trip to Cydonia on a cloudless summer day. They snapped an extraordinary photo using the camera's maximum pixel use. The picture later revealed a Martian equivalent of a butte.
After all of the photos being investigated, the photos revealed a landform shaped like a Face. NASA proved to conspriacy theorists that they were not hiding anything about the Face on Mars. The MOC team also proved that the photos did not show any evidence of an alien face on Mars. Finally, the MGS, NASA, and the MOC teams all revealed the photos to the public on the JPL web site for the public to view and leave there opinion on the Face on Mars. | 2 |
Dear senator i think that we should cape the electoral college process because, if it is not broken don't fix it. Also this process is a part of our founding fathers history it was established to compromise between election of the president. Thats way we should cape the electoral college process.
The electoral college has 538 electors but the president needs to have 270 electoral votes to become the president. The 23 amendment of the contitution allows columbia 3 electors and treated like a state for purpose of the electoral college. When you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidates electors. Every candidate running for president in your state has his or her own goup of electors. Some states have a winner take all system, which gives all the electors a award to the winning presidential candidate.
After the presidential election the governor prepares a "certificate of ascertainment" listing the candidates who ran for president. The certificate of ascertainment declares the winning presidential candidate in my state will represent your state at the meeting of electors. Abolishing the electoral college no said Bob Dole and Jimmy Carter they agreed. They are not alone according to a Gallup poll in 2000 taken after Al Gore thanks to the quirks of the electoral college won the popular vote but lost the presidency over 60% of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now.
The electoral college avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast. There is pressure for running off election when no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast that pressure which would complicate the presidential election process is reduced by the electoral college which produces a clear winner. | 1 |
I am for the develpment of these cars because i feel like it would be safer and everyone would have a ride and wouldn't have to walk. It would also save a lot of gas and energy from all the cars that won't be used, and only the driverless cars would be using gas. The driverless cars offer far more flexibility than a bus as well. The article also mentions such cars would change the world.
If the cars crahsed or stopped working who's fault would it be? Will the human have to drive the car in and out of the driveway as well ? The cars are a great idea because like i said it would save a lot of gas and money, and everyone would have a ride somewhere and they wouldn't have to walk in the cold weather or rainy weather. These cars have postive and negitive things. If the car runs on google for transportation and the internet shuts down then what wil happen ?
I feel that if they test out the cars mulitple times and they are successfull , then yes allow the cars . Would we be able to keep the cars we have now ? Or would we have to get rid of them and just use the driverless cars ? I also believe it would be a lot safer because it would save the cops a lot of trouble, if you decided to get drunk then you wouldn't have to drive home. | 1 |
As you may know, the Electoral College consists of 538 electors, which is a even number. As said in "The defenseof the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing President," that even number can be a result of a tie in electoral votes, but is highly unlikely. But even then it is unfair to those who "like" the system, where as I oppose the votig system. Like everyone, I have my reasons;1) 'Electoral college is a disaster factor' 2) Voters don't vote for the President, but the electors instead.
To begin with my first reason, that electoral college is disaster factor as said in ' The indefensible of the Electorial College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong' the system had a fiasco, as you may call it, back in the 2000 election was the biggest crisis in a centuary. Also in 1960, segregationist in Louisiana legislatures almost succeeded in replacing Democratic Electors whith electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy, so that the popular vote wouldn't have gone to Kennedy. What else has hepened in the 1960s? As you may or may not know, Vice President Richard Nixon, validated only his opponet's electors. With this, the Electoral College has flaws or loopholes making it a disaster factor.
As for my second reason, that the electorial collge is unfair to voters. Electors may not always be faithful to their party, as said in ' The indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defense of the system are wrong' electors could vote for another canidate if they refused to vote for their party's canidate. Meaning that if a voter votes for a certain elector to vote for a certain President, then their votes probably wouldn't count. Also, because of the winner-takes-all system, candidates do not spend time in states that the are aware that they have no chance of winning them over, but focusing on the 'swing' states. For example, in the 2000 campaign, 17 states didn't see canidates at all and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't see a single campaign ad. Candidates shouldn't just avoid states that they have no chance in, but take that chance.
Even though the Electoral College is unfair and a disaster factor, it also fair in the state department. Smaller states votes area as equal as a bigger states votes, and the electorial college requires a presidental candidate to have a trans-reagional appeal which makes sure that a candidate doesn't just go to a ragion that he knows he will get votes from, but to others that will allow him to gain more voters.
So in conclusion to my knowledge, the Electoral College voting system should be changed for so that the system wouldn't be disfuntional and unfair to voters. Which will make electing a president functional and fair to voters. | 3 |
Have you ever seen anything unusual and thought that it was just a natural landform, but other people thing it was created by extraterrestials? Well, some people argue that the Face on Mars was created by aliens and some people believe that it was created natural. I believe that the Face formed naturally. I believe this because of the camera quantity and the shadows and clouds of the planet.
First, I am going to discuss the camera quality. The quality of the camera is important so that the picture of the Face is clear. When the scientists first took the picture of the Face in 1976, there was an unclear picture. As time went on the cameras got more and more advanced that to the point you could see every detail of the Face. In 2001, when scientists took a clear picture of the Face, they identified it as a mesa, a natural landform in Western America. Also, they said that if there were any other alien landforms like egyptian pyramids that it would show up in the picture. Last, in the passage it states, "Thousands of anxious web 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 quote from the passage proves that the Face is a natural landform and not created by aliens. This is how the camera quality prove whether or not the Face was created by aliens or is a natural landform.
Next, I am going to discuss how the clouds and shadows of Mars prove that the Face is a natural landform. First, the shadows of Mars gives the Face an illusion of eyes, nose, and mouth. In the passage it states, "Huge rock formation...which resembles a human head...formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose, mouth." This shows that the Face is not really a face and it is actually a natural landform. Next, the clouds on Mars can throw off the cameras vision of the face. When the MGS took a picture of the Face when it was cloudly on Mars the picture was unclear and scientists could not see the Face in detail. Although, in 2001 when the MGS explored Mars, it was not cloudy. MGS was able to get a clear picture of the Face and scientists identified it as a natural landform and not an alien creation. This is how the shadows and clouds of Mars prove that the Face is a natural landform.
Finally, the camera quality, shadows, and clouds of Mars prove that the Face is a natural landform. The better the camera quality the more proof there is to say that the Face is a natural landform. Also, without the clouds and shadows of Mars, the Face is easily identified as a natural landform. To conclude, this is how the quality of the camera, shadows, and clouds of Mars prove that the Face is a natural landform. | 3 |
Driverless cars are not a good idea and I am not for them. Driverless cars are very expensive to begin with. Uprgrades to public roads need to be done for the Smarter Cars to be driven on. The massive upgrades to the roads will also cost too much money.
Self driven cars still do not meet all safety measures, that's why it is illegal to drive on the road with them in most states. None of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves. They all require the driver to drive throught work zones and around accidents. Why shouldn't the driver just drive all the time if you have to drive through little things like work zones? Driving doesn't require much skill besides being aware of your surroundings. What else do you have to do in a car on the road? Driving should be a basic human skill for all people in the world today.
Almost all driving laws help secure the drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe. Keeping these laws are best achieved with alert human drivers. You never know when the computer in the car will malfuction, or when the devices will just suddenly stop working. If the technology fails, the blame goes on the manufacturers. There will most likely be a lot of court cases that the car companies will have to deal with if the cars malfuction.
The self driving cars will cost a lot less money on gas, nearly 50 percent of gas will be saved. But the money that you save on gas, doesnt make up for how much the car will cost, how much the upgraded roads will be, and the risk you are taking letting a computer drive you around wherever you want to go, even when you have to do some of the driving yourself. The cost of the gas does not make up for how much everything else will cost.
I am not for driver less cars. Most of the self driving cars will come down to two things, money and safety. It will cost to much money for everything with the cars besides gas. There still isn't enough safety being provided in the vehicles. The upgrades that need to be done, you dont know if they will be safe and you know the cost of them will be really high. I am not for driver less cars. | 3 |
In the article,"Driverless Cars Are Coming," there is an abdunant amount of reasons why these cars with the idea of driveless cars is absolutly absurd. The idea for the car itself is a ton of money just to build it. Then to add "smart-roads system"(3) would add thousands of more dollars to go to waste. If the money issue is not a concern, then what about the idea of still having to assist a car that is suppose to be "driverless"?
The cars themsevles would cost a fortune to make but "smart-roads systems"(3) would cost too much money for anyone person to pay. Now the car itself would be too much money because of the need of so many sensors. With an estimated guess, there would have to at least 11 different types of sensors to be place in one car. Even with thousands of dollars going into the driverless cars, they still have not found a way to have a completely driverless vehicle. Different cars call for different driver's assistance. Some "make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel,"(7) while others will send a signal to the driver such as, vibrating the seat, announcing to driver that they "should be prepared to take over"(7), and others have flashing lights. Which means that in no way is this car driverless if it some how requires the drivers help with driving.
These cars would cost one person, a lot of money that they do not have. Even the safe-road system that has not even been made would cost even more then the car itself. If that was not enough, then what about the fact that these cars are not driverless... the driver still needs to help driving. These reasonings just help with the understanding that these cars is just something that is not needed in this world. | 2 |
In the article "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" the author claims that Venus is a worthy planet for us to examine more closely. Venus is unihabitable and its impossible, with the technology we have today, for a human to step foot on venus. So why does the author beleive its a good idea to send humans to study this dangerous planet?
I beleive the author supports his idea that studying Venus would be a good idea very well. Although Venus is uninhabitable and dangerous for humans the author shares many solid facts that throughly support his claim. For example the author states in paragraph 4 that "it may well once have been the most earth like planet in our solar system." The author also shares that Venus may have once supported forms of life. I beleive these two facts alone could spark interest in the reader and get him/her to want to know more about whats on Venus. In paragraph 4 the author also states that Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for planetary visit. I beleive this fact supports the authors claim very well. Not only does the author provide facts that sparks the readers interests he also provides logical ways and evidence of how scientists can get humans to Venus. In paragraph 5 the author says "NASAs possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray" meaning NASA might be able to create a vehicle that can float above all the dangers of Venus.
Despite the dangers and extreme conditions of venus the author still supports his claim with logical facts and resonable ideas. I beleive he supports his claim very well. | 2 |
The author did a great job supporting his/her previous statements. The author used many examples and real facts to back up the explanation of why we should keep studying and trying to get to Venus. Venus is a complicated planet, with many features that are not imaginable. Although we haven't made many big discoveries about Venus itself, we will still continue to learn, look at, and love everything about it.
The author stated that Venus is extremely dangerous do to the crazy temperatures, radioactivity, and absurdly high atmospheric pressures. "On the planets surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet"(The Challenge of Exploring Venus 3). This quote represents everything previously stated. It speaks of the high temperatures and the atmospheric pressure on Venus' surface and atmosphere. "Also notable, Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system, even though Mercury is closer to our sun"(The Challenge of Exploring Venus).
This quote shows another fact that'll help back up other statements. It talks about how Venus actually has the hottest surface in our solar system.
In concluson, Venus should continue to be studied and should be understood by everyone. After reading this passage, it's hard not to see the beauty of life. After years and years of studying and learning, maybe one day we'll make a ground-breaking discovery about Venus, and we'll be able to inhabit the planet somehow, along with having a better understanding of our solar system. | 1 |
The Electoral College is not a place, but a process. It was established by the founding fathers in the Constitution. The college consists of electors, which vote for President and Vice President. The College consit of many electors, about 538 that is. There is a certain number of votes that is required to elect the president. Each candidate running for president is his or her own group of electors. The candidate's political party usually chose the electors. Election is held every four years in November on the first Tuesday. There is usually something called a "winner-take-all" system, it awards the winners of the presidential candidate. People should agree of keeping the Electoral College because without it, countires would not have presidents or vice presidents. Most people don't understand the use of the Electoral College. I think that there should be someone going out to jobs and schools talking to the the new generation and the people with jobs about this Electoral College. Under the electoral college system, voters vote, not for president, but for a state of electors, so what do you think our country would look like without this? For instance if you lived in Texas, and you wanted to vote for David Mark, you'd have to vote for about 34 Democratic electors pledged to Mark. People always seem to argue about this Electoral College, we calll it a disastor factor. American's should consider them selves lucky for the big election crisis that happened in a century. Some people think the electoral college is unfair to voters, only because of the winner-take-all system. During one of the campaigns, seventeen states didnt see the candidates at all. People say that the electoral college is unfair; outdated, and irrational.
Each party selects a slate of electors that are trusted to vote for the party's nominee.
There are five reasons for retaining the Electoral College;
1) Certainly of Outcome- A dispute over the outcome of an electoral college vote is possible 2) Everyone's President- The electoral College requires as presidential candidate 3) Swing States- The winner-take-all system of awarding the electoral votes induces the candidates 4) Big States- The electoral college restores some of the wight in the political balance.
5) Avoid run-off elections- The electoral college avoids the porblem of elections in which no candidate recieves a majority of the votes cast.
People still continue to argue about the Electoral College method of selecting the president. that it may turn off voters for a candidate who has no hope of carrying their state Democrats. The Electoral College is a good thing. Vote for President and Vice President and your country will be on top. | 1 |
In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile," the author tell me about the technology called Facial Action Coding System. Im will being find details in the passange on how the technology identify human emotions.
Frist I will be telling you what's the Facial Action Coding System how it works. It is a technology that Dr. Paul Eckman created he has classified six basic emotions on it. scuh as (happyiness,suprise,anger,disguts,fear,and sadness.) what this technology does is show the emotions that universal. the new emotion recongnition software tracks the facial movements.
Now I will be arguing weather the use of the technology to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is valuable. I think this is a bad idea for the technology emotional thing to be in class room to read students emotion becuase if a student is upset for a reason and the emotional mechine read there feeling maybe the student didnt wanna tell there personal binusness about there feelings. I also think its a bad idea because what if the technology mechine tell you your feeling a suertion way but then the mechine got it wrong, then the teacher would be naging that person on about there mood.
I told you all about how the Facial Action Coding System works. I told you my opinion how its bad if they have the technolgoy in the class for it to read student emotions. and how it would effect the mood if the mechine got the emotion wrong. | 1 |
The Aliens on Mars
In the text Unmasking the Face on Mars NASA says that there was a face.Then they went back eighteen years later.Then another three years and said it was a natural landform.I also think that it is a natural landform because there isn't really aliens or anything other living thing on mars.Some people would there are lifeforms on Mars because of water which is ridiculous.There could be clouds and water on a planet without a lifeform. In these next few paragraphs i will tell you why it is a natural landform.
One reason that the so called face is only a landform is because it could've been a rock formation.There could be rocks in the shape of a head because of other rocks and erosion.And how the got the eyes?...shadows.Shadows could've been a be part of this because its a planet pretty close to the sun.So from which way the Viking 1 was facing there could've been shadows.
Second reason is on April 5,1998 when they went to mars again with Mars Global Surveyor...while thousands of anxious web surfurs were waiting the image JPL wedsite revealed it as a natural landform. People were upset so they said since it was a cloudy haze there could still be a face.Which made it worse because people actually believed that.
Third reason is if there was a face form on earth and no one would freak out by it because there is actual humans on earth.So if there were aliens everyone would freak.Am I right?So if there were real aliens you wouldnt know what they actually look like but you do know from evidence from "actual pictures" that people supposedly took.
Some people think its the other way around.Some people who aren't like me actually believe in aliens.They think since in 2001 they sent a better camera on a "cloudless" day that there were Martians.And since they have the camera whith better pixels they could see more clearly...so clearly that you could've have seen Egyptian style pyramids or even a small shack which was almost impossible in the Viking 1.
To conclude, I think that the face was a natural landform made by erosion.It would most likely to be impossible for it to be a martian, not saying it is but I highly doubt there would be martians. | 3 |
No, that is not a face in the picture from the Viking 1 from 1976,rather, like the scientists at NASA say, it is a natural landform.Yes, I know it looks like a face but in reality,
it's not.Technically, you really can't say it is from an alien life form because scientists and astronauts haven't found evidence of life on Mars yet.Conspiracy theorists say NASA is trying to hide the truth from us when actually they want you to know the truth.Otherwise, if they didn't want you to know the truth they wouldn't have put the picture out in the first place.There are a lot of statistics and facts that obviously point to the truth and I'm going to explain all of them to you.First,the other and newer pictures, the obvius comparison to landforms on Earth, and why your brain thinks it sees a face.
First of all, it's obvoiusly not a face because the newer pictures ,that were taken of the same thing show a different thing.You might wonder, how can it show a different thing but still be the same thing?Well, the newest picture,from 2001, was taken with a much better camera.So, the picture is clearer and so is the fact that this is a natural landform.Finally, the pictures are the most important clue that the face is a natural landform.That is how the pictures tell that the face is a landform.
Secondly, if you compare landforms on Earth to the face pictures you'll get similar pictures.For example, if you take a picture of the Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho from above and compare it to the 2001 picture they'll look identical.That is according to cheif scientist for NASA's Mars Exploration Program.He stated that, the face reminds him the most of the Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho.Finally, when and if you get the chance you should compare the face to other landforms on Earth.That is how comparing landforms on Earth,to the face can provide evidence to you that the face is a natural landform.
Lastly, your brain somewhat tricks you into seeing a face,but don't worry because it's natural.When you look at the first picture, you're most likely going to see a face, even I see a face.So, we kind of get excited about discovering another life form, and we start to jump to conclusions.Don't think there is something wrong with that because there is not, as long as you have evidence to support it,but in this case,you don't.Furthermore, the reason are brain 'tricks' us into seeing a face is in our DNA.For example,from when you were born everytime you looked in the mirror or looked at somebody else, you saw a face.The reason why you always see a face is because our brain has been ''hard-wired'' to recognize a face.That is how our brains trick us into seeing a face.
To conclude, those are all the clues/reasons why your brain sees and thinks the first picture is a face when it's actually a natural landform called a mesa.To recap, the comparison of the first picture to the 2001 picture can show that it's a mesa. Next, the comparison of landforms on Earth to the face can show you it's a mesa.Those are clues that can prove to you that the face is a mesa. So basically, all you have to do is compare different things to the face.Finally, the reason why your brain tricks you into seeing a face instead of a mesa is because everybody's brain has been 'hard-wired' to recognize a face.So that is why when you look at the first picture you see a face instead of what it really is, a mesa.Finally, sometimes all you have to do to find the truth is dig and look deeper and you'll discover the truth.That is why I say the face in the first picture is actually, indeed a mesa. | 3 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.