full_text stringlengths 737 20.5k | score int64 0 5 |
|---|---|
In the artical "Making Mona Lisa Smile" the author desribes how a new technology, named the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) , makes it possible for a computer to "calculate" our emotions. The first subject that this was tested on was Mona Lisa. You might be thinking, but that's a painting how could that be done. To that I say, that is how well it performs. It is so good it can tell in paintings. Think about it, facial reconization systems are already made. Now, we have an emotion reconization system. I'm all for it. Professer Thomas Huang should keep making these.
I'm all for it, for some reasons. For one; it's said that the demonstration is suposed to bring a smile to people's faces, just as Dr. Huang said.
For a second reason, it can help us in classrooms. Huang said that the FACS, in time. would be able to tell if the students are bored and or confused. Which then, would let the teacher know to switch things up or help the students understand the assignments better.
Finally, moving facial muscles not only expresses emotions, but also may even help produce them.
In conclusion I think that the FACS is a good thing to bring to the factories. | 1 |
As a scientist at NASA and from the research made by other scientists here at NASA I can tell that this here face is nothing more than just a landform. The Face is just a natural landform, it is not created by aliens. Although many people would love to think that the Face wa created by aliens, it is not. The face is widely spred out as far as 2 miles wide. This enomous head has cought a lot of media attention such as being in a Hollywood film, appearing in books, magzines, radio talk shows, and even radio talk shows.
This landform has become a pop icon, but even with all of this attention it doesn't change the fact that it is nothing more than just another mysterious looking landfrom on Mars. "Thousands of anxious web surfers were waiting when the image first appeared on a JPL web site, reavling . . . a natural landfrom. There was no alien monument after all."
After 22 years, from this first 1976 Viking 1 photograph pf the Face of Mars there was a picture that was taken of the same face ten times sharper than the original that blew away scientists and web surfers showing that there was no alien monument after all. This shows that the Face of Mars is nothing more than a natural landform on Mars. | 1 |
There were many details from the article from Luke's point of veiw that supports convincing others to join th Seagoing Cowboys program.
One detail from the story that supported it was that World War II happed in Europe. That is an important detail because during or after a war, the counrty is most likely going to be in ruins. Also, in the article, it says, " many countries were left in ruins. To help these contries recover their food supplies, animals, and more, 44 nations joined together to form UNRRA. UNRRA hired 'Seagoing Cowboys' to take care of horses, young cows, and mules that were shipped overseas." That detail is very important because " Seagoing Cowboys" are a part of the UNRRA, which is a project that helps recover food supplies for countries that got destryed or maybe in a war. That is very important because those countries were left in ruins, and people were left without food. And some of those peple were already injured.
Another reason to join the program, is because they get to travel around the world, and have fun doing it to. This is a good reason because lots of people dont like traveling long distances, beacuase they think its boring. But in the article, it says, " Luke also found time to have fun onboard.", and " The cowboys played baseball volleyball games in the empty holds where animals had been housed. Table-tennis tournaments, fencing, boxing, reading, whittling, and games also helped pass the time." That detail, supports that you can do activities to help pass time, have fun, and make to trip worth-while
My last reason to join the program is beacuse you would be helping a lot of needy people. Not only does the UNRRA help lots of people, but so does the 'Seagoing Cowboys' that come along with it. That program also helps a lot because they help feed and take care of animals that other people might not be able to.
Those are my reasons to
persuade someone to maybe join the "Seagoing Cowboys". If not the Seagoing Cowboys, then maybe the UNRRA. I hope reasons like these could change someone's mind, and maybe help them join. | 3 |
Limiting car usage is a very good idea. With limiting car ussage there are many advantages such as no pollution, decreasing stress and excercise.
First of all, with not much car use you wont have pollution. There won't be any sickness from air pollution. If there arent as many cars then pollution will decrease. According to "Paris bans driving due to smog" by Robert Duffer, Paris stopped car usuage due to record high amount of pollution. With this policy it decreased congestion by 60%.
Secondly, with limiting car usage means decreasing the amount of traffic. I know that everyone gets stressed by the amount of traffic there is on roads. I hear everyone talking about it. According to "Car-free day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota." by Andrew Selsky, decreasing the car usage increases improvements in the community such as new sidewalks, and a big change in traffic times for the better of course.
Lastly, excercise is very important and could be a major reason why we also stop usign cars. In a car you dont get to enjoy outside or even relax. With a car there is a higher percentage for a crash and most crashes are deadly. But if you start walking to school or work or church, you can get your excercise and also get some fresh air which includes Vitamin D. According to Mr. Sivak in "The End of Car Culture" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, he says that his kids "can walk or take public transportation or car-pool with friends." Just by giving up a car does not mean that you have to give up having fun.
In conclusion, a decrease in car usage would be a very good thing. We could all get more excercise, decrease pollution, and decreasing stress. What's better than decreasing more stress than you already have? Nothing! | 2 |
Would you owe a "Driverless cars." if possable? Driverless cars should be stopped from being created. Driverless cars sensors can suddently stop working and can cause an acsedent. They can also are not fully in control someone always have to be in alert and ready to take over. The also mentions 'safety is best enforce within alert drivers."Driverless cars" should stop being funded because it can cause an accident, a human will still have to be aware and ready to take over, and the law also states that.
Driverless cars sensors are nothing new of course, but they may also fail at occations. When sensors fail at anytime it may cause an accident. If the person in the vihcle dose not know what is going on it may lead to a extream unfortinit case. It may leave the passengers extreamly hurt, or even worst it may lose a life. In which case we do not want to occure. Technollogy may fail.
They are also not fully controlled on it is own. Someone always has to remain ready to take over when ever is needed. Why will someone want to do that when not having fully controlled or no controlled at all. People would offten lose sight of the road. People may also get annoyed. They also say that they may place cameras on vhicle to watch the driver stay foucesed on the road. If the car cannot do that on it's own i belive it should not be a car to be able to use.
Lastly the law it's own belives that 'safety is best reenforceed with drivers alert. When only people think that it is not quite a big deal but when the law belives the same way it is something major. As that have been said most states it is illegar to even test a driverless car. Some of those states are The distric of Columbia, California, Nevada, and also Florida. Whitch i agree and it is a great idea to enforce.
That is why Driverless cars should not be funded nor try to be created. Driverless car sensors may fail and can cause a tragic. They are also not self conntrolled on it's own. The law also said 'safety is best reenforce with alert drivers.'
Would you still want to own a car like thing? I hope this changed your mind if so. | 2 |
The author supports this idea that studying venus is worthy pursuit despite the dangers because venus is the second planet from our sun. While venus is simple to see from the distant away but still safe . Earth, Venus, and mars are the planetary neighbor, that will go aroud the other planets. Venus is very close to the sun . Venus is just like a evening star that they call it in different places.
Each previous mission was unmanned, and for more than a few hours. They always tried to watch venus the planet to see if there was anything new or they need to know something about it . Venus is kinda hot just like the sun becuase they are both close together. Even the clouds are highly corrosive sulfuric acid in venus's atmosphere. The conditions can get far more extreme then humans which can get very bad.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has one particularly compelling idea for sending humans to study venus. Venus will be able to allow scienctists to see more thing and allow them to float above the fray. Peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can only provide a little amount of stuff that will go on. Venus is can be very dangous because it is so hot and u will not be able to vist it because it is so hot u will die from it . The sun and venus are the hottest out there .
The comparison system that use mechanical parts can be made more resistant to pressure, heat , and other forces. Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size . Occasionally the closest in distance too . Numerous factors contributw to venus's repuatation as a challenging planet for humans to study , desprite its proximity to us . The thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus.
Venus has a lot to get things from just like if you look up venus you probably can get alot from it . For scientists to get alot of things from venus they problaby have to get like a machian to see venus since its hot .They have to make sure the mechians are good to go on there so they make sure nothing happens to the mechiane . Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system even through mercury is closer to our sun. That is what you learn about venus and how it is . | 2 |
Driverless cars, the future of the world. There could be many disadvanteges with driverless cars. One disadvantage would be that there could be malfunctions within the hardware inside of the vehicle. Another would be if someone would hack into the mainframe of the car and take control of it without the owner or driver knowing about it. One last disadvantage would be based upon the driver of the car. My position on driverless cars is that I'm really not a big fan of the idea so I don't really aprove of it
The first disadvantage would be if the hardware in the car was to malfunction. Say if the technology in the car was damaged and the car started to not act properly. That would probably cost thousands of dollars to repair. Also if the car was to not function correctly the driver, passengers, or other people outside of the vehicle may be injured. That is the first disadvantage of the driverless car.
The next diadvantege would be if someone had hacked into the the cars mainframe. If someone was able to hack into the car without the driver or owner knowing it can be very dangerous. It can be dangerous because they can track where that person is at alll times. They could tell if they're home or not and the owner can possibly end being robbed. Another way it would be dangerous is that the person that had hacked the car could control the car and may end up hurting the driver or people around the car.
The last disadvantage would be the driver of the car. If the driver of the car was reckless and irresponsible it can affect him/her or even the people around them. Like in the article it says,"The car can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but are alll designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills." If the driver was to ignpre that notification it cause an accident and many people may be injured.
So like I said, my opinion on driverless cars is that they shouldn't be made and used in public. There are many disadvantages of self driving cars, but I only chose three. The first one was hardware malfunctions. The second was if the car was to be hacked. The last one was all depending on the driver it's self.
That is my position on driverless cars. | 2 |
do i think the computers should be able to scan a kids face to tell if he/she is mad? no I dont because that means the cia/fbi know has your face on everyone of there computers and knows where you are and if someone was to hack into that camra they could see everythong they are doing witch is an invation of my and your rights. I think thats why there are so many stakers and weird people cause they know how to hack into peoples computers and they smartphones and track them down or ever spy on them in there owen home with out them knowing. So there for I dont think a computer should be able to scan a teacher, or a students face If it was me i would covor the camra up and not let anyone see it or if they did hack it they wold see a peace of paper shaded in with a black tint from a marker. do i think they should stop trying to make stuff that scans your face yes i dont think they should be aloud to do that because its my right rathor i want some computer to scan my face. If it could scan my thumb or finger or ever my hand i would be ok with that but it dont it scans your face and in that case i say no that that. | 1 |
Dear State Senator,
I think we should get rid of the Electoral Collage vote. It's not fair that a majority of people get to vote extra. The candidate's get to choose people who will vote for the person who picked them just bc they picked them. They probbaly dont have good reasons on the they pick that candidate they just pick him/her because they picked that person. They candidate who did win the election their electorial voters get a przie just for helping them win the election. And the others well they get nothing. It's not fair to the other people who voted for their apponite. All they get is a "Thanks for voting". Presidents voters get a cerification for helping them when. It's not fair to everyone else. Sometimes they candidate they picked to win isn't even a good presidant. They can't hold up to their side of the deal. the President says he/she will fix our economy and then the economy drops. They say they will prvovied a better education for students and they don't. Two electors from the same state can go to Congress. The candidates pick people from the states who know that the will vote for that specific candidates. In 2000 campaign, in total, seventeen sates didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina. In 25 of the largest media market a majority of voters did not go see any of the campaign ads. Candidates will bribe voters and Electorial Collage voters just to vote for that candidate and not they other. It's not fair to the other candidte who plays by the book for losing to someone who goes around the book to get more votes just to be President. Again I think we should get rid of the Elctorial Collage vote. | 1 |
I don't think we should use the Facial Action Coding System to read childrens emotions expressions in school because what if the student didn't want the teacher knowing how he or she is feeling for personal reason? If we did that without permission it can lead to privaticy being broken and the students would probably feel uncomfortable. I also think we should use this because the passage says if a student looks bored or confused the Facial Coding can identifiy the problem and it can make the lesson eaiser for the student. The Facial Coding could also be useful because if a student is feeling depressed the machince can identify that and the student can get the help that he or she needs. We don't want students walking around school feeling that way because that can lead to decicions that a student wouldn't usually make if they were happy. Maybe we should get the Facial Coding System in our school systems. | 1 |
Mustangs, Mercedes, Hummers , and the "Punch buggy " are just a few brands of vehicles well known in America . Vechicles today are big factor in life for the reason that cars are used every single day all around the world as transportation and although we have the bus or other ways to get to places , driving is the most selected choice to get to a location. With that being said , vehicles being used everyday has it positives and negatives . Positives could be how it takes you to a location quicker than riding a bike or taking a walk , but have you ever thought all the negatives there is when a car being used has ?Could you only imagine a world without car? It may seem like a crazy idea to think a world without cars but a life without cars could be a well functional world for the reason that cars could have contribuation to polution in our air or could make the world a so called different place.
In Addition, driving could have a contribution to pollution . Many may not think about it but cars emissions pollute the air we breath. In a article called "Paris bans driving due to smogs" it states how " after days of near record pollution in the air ,Paris enforced partial driving to clear their polution. Also how cold nights and warm days caused a warmer layer of air that trapped cars emission when used in Paris." Pollution in our air may seem a bit scary but the movement of less driving has already began without us noticing .In another article named " The End of Car Culture" it speaks on the subject " there has been a decrease in America in buying cars and driving." Which is a great start to a better future in our world.
Furthermore , We can make the world a so called differnet place for the better. In a article called "In German Suburb, Life goes on Without Cars" it states how "their world with any cars has been sucessful by making where they live more compact and accessible to public transportation. This new approach now stores can be placed a walkway from main street than malls along a distant hallways ." Many places around the world have made a step to a better world for example in a article named " Car-free day is spinning into big hit in Bogota" it states " they had a day free of cars aka driving free to reduced thier pollution and have a more clean better world . Results from this event turned out sucessful , for that other countries have joined this event."
In Conclusion , A world without cars may seem crazy however just think of all the damages it does to the world than the positives because pollution is not something easy to get rid of and by stepping up to make change as it already began will help us live in a better clean world. | 3 |
HI, I'm Luke, and i work for the UNRRA, or the United Nations Relief and Rahabilitation Administration. I am a Seagoing Cowboy, and my job is to help countries recover their food supplies, animals, and more. On the ship you get to take care of the animals and sometimes play games. There is no better job than this! When you are a doctor you have to be extremely careful and have to watch people suffer, a construction worker has to work al day long, a cashier has to sit and wait for people to buy something, but here we help thousands of people and animals while having fun! I have no idea why anyone would out down a job like this! It doesn't even feel like work! You can learn so many good things and meet new people, you can see amazing structures and even explore them! One time I went into a broken down castle and found the coolest stuff. We have gone to the Panama Canal, Italy, and many more amaxing locations. There is Germany, France, and preety much any other awesome country there is! There isnothing else to say beside that being a Seagoing cowboy is the best job there is. | 2 |
There are some positive and negative aspects of this driverless car but some positives may out weight the negative or some negative may out weight the positives but all together this is a really a great idea. The positive aspects of the driverless cars is that we as a people can relax and enjoy riding in the car. Also we don't need to buy cars because the driverless cars are considered as public transportation for us. We don't have to spend our money all the time on gas because it's a taxi system. We also don't have to worry about the law of texting and driving because we are not operating the car while we text. The negative aspects of the friverless car is that we still have to operate the by pulling in and out of driveways. We also have to deal with traffic jams. Once we get to our destination we have to redo what we just did.The point is that there are some good and bad points about this driverlass car. | 1 |
Humans are challenging to study about Venus. Venus is an planet which is very close to the Earth. Sometimes, Venus is the closest to the Earth and other time to Mars that is caused by the right around the corner. Before, we have tried to send numerous spacecraft but didn't survive the landing for more than a few hours. Therefore, any single spaceship has never touched on Venus in more than three decades. However, why do we still challenge to the the planet Venus and why is it a challenge?
As a first reason, Venus has similar points to the earth. There is a possibility that long time ago, oceans had been covering the surface of Venus, and had life like the Earth. On Venus, there are also mountains, valleys, crater as like the earth. What more, Venus is an option of a planetary visit. Air pressure at about thirty miles from Venus would be close to that of sea level on earth which contains that not perfecrt condition, but survivable for humans.
For a second reason, It is not easy to reach to the Venus. There are not only alike things to each other for Earth and Venus. For example, the temperatures are totally different. Temperatures on the Venus's surface, it is over 800 for average. As the article says, "The atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet"(Par. 3), there is a huge difference between the atmospheric pressure of Earths's and Venus's. At Venus, you will be having high solar power which is plentiful, and radiation is not similar to the Earth.
As third reason, we haven't even take the samples of the Venus. Researchers haven't collect any samples of rock, gas, or anything else from Venus That could be our challenge. If we could take their samples from there, the research would be easier and helpful. In fact, "NASA is working on other approaches to studying Venus"(Par.7). They are using an old technology which is very powerful, flexible, and quick. NASA thinks that those computers will be useful for studying Venus.
As a conclusion, there are some advantages that human challenge for the other planets. As we are studying other planets, Venus is a good planet for a future of us caused by many reasons. Yet, we are still on our way to know about the Venus, human need to keep looking for the importance of challenge to the Venus. | 2 |
There are many resons that people should do that. #1 is that it it would be some much fun to go explor places that you havent been befor, and go see all the unic culters that many people dont ever get to see in their life. #2 is that you could get closer with some of yor friends and family if they go with you, or invite you to go with them. Reson #3 is that you could meet new people learn other languiges too. Also you cold become part of a family they could take you in and youk cold have another really close friend from some were far far away from were you live.
In the story Luke said"It would a chance of a life time." An I think it would be a chance of a life time. In my opinone I would do it. I would love to go on a trip tio eventure around the world. I love learning new cultres and to see what what it could help me with in my life. Also that it would be cool to do a report on all the places that you whent to in the proses. If I were him or any one els that got the opertunity I would say yes to doing it.
In my family its important to learn and get youst to doing thatbecause my famoly dose alot of edventering. We go to the D.R, Hawaii Colorado, and alot more places too. I think that any kid that gets invited should that, because what they learn stiks to them and it stays with them for a long time and if they dont then they missed a big opertoonity to do that.
I went to the DR for the first time when is like 5 years old and I learnd a lot of spanish when i as there. I also made a lot new friend people my age people that older younger than me too. An we bonded rely whell and i didnt know how to speek a word of spanish!!! I had a translator that helped me know what they were saying tio me and for them to tell the kids what i was saying too. i leand a lot of spanish when i wa there and i still know to say a lot of things in spanish too. I still kow my beat friens name in the D.R. We taught eachother how t say the alfabet in English and Spanish.
Just saying I had the best time of my life and I stayed in the same place the hole time and I still lernd a lot in one day.
And the hole time I was there I was so happy till it came to the part when I had to say by to all my new good friend that I made there. Its hard to leave but then you get to all the other places and meet other people there too.
People that want to explor should do this in order to see what ist like and if thay want to do this for the a long time or not. Just one time at a different place then were you live is awesome because you never want to leave. You could also go see uther animal sthat you have never seen befor in a zoo or that you have never herd of too. I love to see knew thing even if I have heard of it,or not, or seen it, or not it is still really cool to experiance that. An I think kids, aldolts, teens, or eve the elderl would stil love to see that or experiance that time with the family.
And that is my reso to do tha or a least tr yit out for the first time. It could only come once in a lfe time dont let it go to wast, because if you did than you made the biggest mustake of your life. | 0 |
How would I feel about being able to detect somone else's feelings? I honestly believe that it would be helpful to understand someone and what they are going through at that specific time.
My first thought on this opinion is that it must of took a while to actually build this and to think of the idea as to what you could use to figure it all out. When Dr. Paul Eckman built this he must of had to be thinking about other people and the concept of wanting to help others. In pargraph four it proclaims "By weighing hte differnt units, the software can identitfy mixed emotions". Dr. Eckman was on the right track building this because any human being can feel up to 3 emotions at once and he knew just that so he figured he would build it be able to detect not just one but mulitple.
In pargraph 5 it says "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 triat that conveys it". By the arthour of this article I feel like he knows the cainf anf genorosity of being there and helping a friend. This being made is awesome because I don't know about you but most of the times i'm down or angery I don't like to tell people why or event talk about it being I will get even more upset no matter the size of the issue. The FACS is just the answer for helping a friend in need when you know they need the comfort but don't want to say anything.
There is so many good things about this new software that only genius could of thought of. A drama coach once made his kids practice making happy and sad faces due to actually feeling the emotions before they went on to a play. Placed before me in paragraph 9 "Empathy may happen because we unconsciously imitate another person's facial expressions." Did you know that actually listeing to you friends or parents when they say "put on a happy face" it may help. Study shows that this actually can make you happy and being happy is more of what we need in this world.
I highly agree with this article and give it a 10/10 considering it is a very kind think to do and not to mention a brillant idea. All the emotions it can detect right down to the percent in unbelieveable. It can take us far ways and may even make the world a better place. Being happy is the number onekey to a great life and everyone deserves that. | 3 |
Its just a Martian mesa from the red planet Cydonia. It's not made up by aliens its just a landform. Even if the the landmark was an alien made thing then where are the aliens. If people are checking up on this everday and keeping watch you would be able to see these "aliens". So when you think of it getting made by aliens its probaly not the best choice if you have no proof.
If it was made up by aliens then why is it not looking like a face more and more when we look more in to it. We got proof that it isn't made from an alien, "New high-resolution images and 3D altimetry from NASA'S Mars Global Survey spacecraft reveal the Face on Mars for what really is: A mesa." That was in May of 2001, and it can't be anything made from an alien. People who believe that it was made from aliens made the stuff up, like put it in a magazines, radio talks to make a big deal out of it even though it is just a land mark. Those scientests didn't look in to it because it says "become a pop icon" and people think that they know stuff about it and really they don't. You gotta look into it before making a big deal about it.
You need proof, like proof that aliens did make this. Garvin says "It's not easy to target Cydinia, in fact, it's hard work." See hard work not just assuming. You guys have some reasons why like "They might be watching in the shadows of it" but where is the proof they actually exsist. | 1 |
Although, Venus is seen as unlivable and dangerous to human life, NASA has thought of an idea to defeat the odds. Venus is our neighboring planet, and once long ago, may have been the most Earth-like. To this day, there are still some anologous features. Will this be enough to convince the Nation that we should send NASA astronuats to Venus?
Venus is protected by a thick atomosphere of almost 97% carbon dioxide. The clouds on Venus are highly corrosive. Temperatures average 800 degrees F, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times more than what we experience here on Earth. If our neighboring planet is so inhospitable, why do scientists want to visit it?
NASA has a possible solution to all of these conditions that a human cannt withstand. The article states, "Imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape." NASA's plan is to have a spacecraft floating above Venus' toxic atmosphere. Temperatures would still be toasty, at around 170 degree Fahrenheit. But the air pressure would be close to Earths at sea level. There would be enough solar power, and the radiation levels would not exceed Earth's. These are not easy living conditions, but they are just enough for survival. This brilliant idea does come with soem downfalls. The astronauts would not be able to collect samples of rock, gas, or anything from this distance. Standard forms of photography or videography would render useless.
I think NASA should not send researches to Venus without having enough background information. They should continue conducting research. If researchers would to Venus, they would have to risk their health and maybe even lives, to collect some samples. I think NASA should work on different mechanical and technological approaches.
Exploring Venus could give NASA insight information of its past, present and future features. Although NASA has come up with a seemingly brilliant plan, there is some downsides to it. Overall, safety becomes the first priority, there is still some work that needs to be done. | 2 |
In 1976 NASA captured a picture of a landform on Mars . The landform resembeld a blurred face . Many people beleive that this martian "face " was created by aliens . However these theories have proven to be false with photos, and common logic.
Since the first sighting of the face more photos have been taken . Each new picture is clearer than the last . A photo taken in the year of 2001 shows the face to be a landform and nothing else . In fact the face is a mesa which is a common landform in the American West.
Some critics support theories that NASA is hiding the knowledge of life on Mars. It would be a giant step in discovery and extremely exciteing if these ideas came to be true but unfortunatly they haven't .
Despite the many theories that surround the face, the face isn't a face at all (though it would be cool if it actually was
)and NASA is'nt hiding proof of life on Mars . And in the the end the theories are just theories no matter how entertaining or true they seem to be . | 1 |
For centuries, man has been fascinated by the stars in the sky. From the earliest civilizations, people looked to the skies for answers. They worshipped the flaming sun and glowing moon. Later, this worship subsided, and looking to the skies took on a more scientific pursuit. Now, man has come to a time where they can visit the stars and planets. The author does not make Venus sound like a worthy pursuit, because the author is basing the article on the assmption that people should visit Venus.
The author gives three reasons for visiting Venus, and that is Venus is sometimes "our nearest option for planetary visit, a crucial consideration given the long time frames of space travel". Exploring Venus would help us learn more about the planet (paragraph 8) and encourage us to explore other intimidating areas (also paragraph 8). However, the last two reasons are tagged on at the very end, with little elaboration or mention in the essay. Furthermore the second reasoning is vague reasoning. The author should have used specific reasons instead of the umbrella phrase, such as learning why Venus has changed so much since their theoretical ocean covered past. Some of these can be inferred, but it's better to assume the reader knows nothing than expect them to know everything.
The other problem with this argument is the assumption that people would make a planetary visit. Save for the feel of adventure (and that would likely not make a profit based on the billions poured into these endeavors), the other reason a person would visit another planet is if they made their own planet inhospitable. It would be preferable if the government used some of the money given to NASA on projects relating to the Earth. For example, they could spend money on more efficient, sanitary, moral, and less pollutive techniques concerning meat production. They could spend some of the money on making cheap, biodegradable containers and utensils. They could use the money to subsidize fruit costs (they already do so for meat).
It would be nice if the government invested more money in figuring out how to get rid of the ring of trash around our atmosphere (from various space missions) before launching anything else.
The author does not make Venus sound like a worthy pursuit, because the author is basing the article on the single assumption that people should visit Venus. Though it is understandable that many would find fascination with expoloring beyond he outer realms of what is known, I don't think so much money should be poured into these endeavors. Much of Earth's polluting can be remedied, if the government put more money and effort into this. | 3 |
Exploring Venus
I love the thought of humans trying to explore venus and one day maybe even making it there alive. I personally think that this moment in time would be a bad ideal to try and do so. There are of course pros and cons to exploring Venus such as research and a better understanding for the planet. But the cons can be very deadly for only gaing some information. A trip to venus could be almost pointless considering that a human would have a very little chance of making back to earth.
Exploring Earths sister planet Venus to me is by far way to dangerous to any human. With tempertures up to 800 degrees Fahrenheit and a atmospheric pressure 90 times greater than Earths. Making this planet almost impossible for even spaceships to land on. Venus could have a atmospheric preesure the same as Earths, with a Temperture not as hot as 800 degress and would still be almost impossible to go to, Do to the fact that the planet is "coverd with erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lighting strikes".
If NASA found a way to get human life to Venus it would be almost pointless to go. Anyone who would make it to venus would be very unlikely to make it back to earth. Since venus is coverd mainly in natural disasters there would be nothing to do there. Collecting information would be very hard and pointless as well considering the author stated that "The planet Venus has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys and mountains" Nothing that Earth does't already have. This means that if you gatherd information on Venus and brought it back to Earth there would be no diffrence and Humans wouldn't be able to tell that anyone has even been to the planet.
Although I am against the fact of Human life going to venus does not mean that i will be in the next one hundred years. I personally think that we just dont have the right technolgy to make the trip from Earth to Venus. Right now we should focus more on what we need in order to make sure everyone is safe. Humans should start to find a better material that can adapt to the very harsh conditions that venus has to offer. Aswell as a forsure way there and back. Humans would need a material like no other to even live on venus. So before NASA trys to visit the planet they should find or make substance that will fit the conditions of Venus.
I fully support the Authors ideal that studing Venus is a worthy pursuit and im sure one day Humans will make it there. The Author does a great job at suppoting the study of venus although the dangers. I think that humans shouldn't try to go yet considering the dangers it has to offer, It would be almost pointless to go right now, and We just dont have the right technolgy that we need in order to survive on the planet or make it there and back. I support the Athours statment that "Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of Imagination and innovation". Just this quote in general tells me that the Author really cares about this topic. | 3 |
In the article "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" the author clearly describes the article. He supports everything he says, its backed up with more facts after another.
He explains how NASA is working on getting more knowledge about venus, but venus is too hot and extreme for a ship to land on it or even hover over it. the knowledge that they gained so far is being a distant away from the planet. The author says "Each previous mission was unmanned, and for good reason since no spacecraft survived the landing more than a few hours.
He talks about how venus is earths planetary neighbor. Venus is the cloest planet to earth in terms of density and size. Researchers cannot take samples of rocks, gas or anything else since no human can walk on venus. He says "many researches are working on innovations that would allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowledge of Venus." so possibly one day people will walk on Venus and we will discover more and more about our planets. We will soon gain the technology to reach Venus and other planets. | 1 |
Are cars necessary in today's society? Of course they are necessary. Now, are driverless cars necessary? I would argue that they are not. Cars have been around for about a hundred years, and not once has society put its foot down and demanded a car that drives itself. The driverless cars this article discusses are not actually driverless, they are not legal, and there is no telling what future problems may arise.
Shouldn't a truly driverless car not require a human at all? I personally believe a driverless car should be able to navigate itself without human interferance. If it requires a human, then what is the point of calling it driverless? In fact, all the driverless cars being created right now are designed to notify the driver when it approaches a work zone or accident. So, in case the need to have a human take over arises, an individual would have to be sitting in the drivers seat, paying absolute attention to the road, and await the moment the car will allow the individual to take over. Wouldn't that take away the nejoyment of owning a driverless car? I believe it is even more of a hassle than driving ever would be. A person would have to fight boredom and remain alert while doing nothing other than sitting in the driver seat. To all driverless car companies: driving is paying attention to the road, but the driver is actually engaged, making driving more interesting.
Not only are driverless cars not fully developed, but they are not even legal. Most states do not allow driverless cars. In fact, most states do not even allow driverlesss cars to be tested on their roads. The article only mentions four places that allow driverless cars, and they only allow limited use. If these cars are not even allowed by most states to out on the road for testing, imagine how long it would take to pass laws to get these cars approved.
A myriad of problems could arise pertaining to driverless cars. The article mentioned a very real problem in driverless cars: if something goes awry and someone in injured, who is at fault? These cases would resort in major courtroom battles between average people and multi-million dollar companies. Another potential problem with driverless cars is the change off between driver and robot. If the car signals the driver and the driver does not respond, then what would the car do? A multitude of problems could appear, and all automakers can do is hope they will be abloe to find solutions to these probelms. To quote the article, "Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved." Not only are the companies unsure of what issues will surface, but they are not completely sure they will be able to find solutions.
Driving has been central to the American way of life for a large span of time, and if manually driving cars has been working, why change it? Driverless cars have been beiong tested since the 50's, so there clearly is no rush in getting these cars on the street. Also, once these cars are available to the public they will most likely only be accesable to the rich. In time the driverless cars would be more affordable, but the original prices would be high. Driverless cars are getting attention, but as soon as the public knows they will only be for wealthy hands for a bit of time, the excitment will die down.
The system works, and it works well, so why change it? Driverless cars may sound high-end and futurisitc, but our cars now do the job well. Plus, there are hazads and roadblocks the driverless cars will have to overcome first. Should we really make state legislatures waste time debating the use of a driverless car that is not completely driverless? Driverless cars have benefits, but they are not street legal. I see no point in spending money for a car that cannot be driven in most streets and is not able to operate without a human there to takeover incase something goes wrong. | 4 |
Whoever thought that a machine could read a person's emotions? To our surpise, a highly advanced technology called the "Facial Action Coding System" is capable of reading one's emotion by calculating the movement of our face muscles. Some may say that this technology has no value and should be abandoned. However, it is clear that this technology has a great amount of value because it helps us better understand the muscles in our face, it improves communication between people, and can improve the quality of faces in computers.
First of all, the experts of the software are constantly experimenting on different parts of the muscles in our face. By doing so, the experts are better understanding the part's of the muscles. On paragraph 3, the author cleary states that, "all 44 major muscles in the model must move like human muscles. This shows that the experts have noticed these odd movements of the muscles. The muscles function similarly to legs. Also, on paragraph 4, the author talks about how this new technology can even detect ones mixed emotions. The evidence that he uses is the painting of Mona Lisa. The painting was filled with different types of emotions such as 83 percent happy, 9 percent disgusted, 6 percent fearful, and 2 percent angry.
Next, the technology has played a major role in improving our communication between people. On paragraph 6, the author shows us that most communications between people is through nonverbal. The technology can help ones understanding of emotional communications, thus improving their nonverbal communication. The technology can tell when someone is zoned out or just completely bored. On paragraph 6, the author states that "A classroom computer recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored". This machine could better the communication between teachers and students.
Not only does this machine improve communications, this machine can improve facial expressions in our games and our technology. At the middle of paragraph 6, the author states that "The same technology can make computer-anmated faces more expressive". This will improve the quality of our video-games. Video games will become more vivd and realistic. Also, in the medical field, this improves the video surgery. With a better video surgey, more lives will be saved.
Lastly, the facial technology will and has played a major role in our lives. This machinery is a huge technological discovery and should be continued. This is because the technology has helped us better understand our facial muscles, has improved nonverbal communications between people, and has improved the quality of our computer-animated faces. This technology can play roles in almost every thing we do. From video games to hospitals, this machine does it all. | 3 |
Well the author is saying that Venus is the most like Earth than any other planet we have seen. Venus has oceans covering a bunch of the planet. The author also explains that there could be various forms of life that could be living on Venus, but we don't have any information because Venus is a super hot planet and when we send something down to land on the planet it melts or gets destroyed just because how hot it is.
Since Venus has a possibility of life I think we should keep investigating this extremely hot planet to see what it has to offer. If there is any life on Venus we need to keep exploring the planet to see where the planet leads us and if we don't find any signs of life then I say we move on to another planet and just keep exploring. NASA is saying that they are looking for ways to further investigate the planet and take notes on what they see.
So therefore, Venus is the most like Earth and NASA is trying to figure all the ways to find information about the planet and see if there is any life or it's just a dead planet. This author has kind of the same mindset as me and what I think we should do and figure out things. | 1 |
Self-driving cars a thing of the future that we used to dream about.
With recent technology we are prettty close to having self-driving cars.
Self-driving cars can be the solution to many problems that may occur during the time we are in our vehicles.
However, we solve one problem but other problems will occur also.
There will always be constant arguments about whether these "Self-driving" cars will be a successful impact on society.
My personal opinion on self-driving cars is that they should only be driven by those who can not drive a standard car because of some physical or mental defect.
For example, someone who is paralyzed for the waist below would certainly have need for car to be self-driving so they are not relying on others all the time to get them places.
Once you think about if a driver is not driving their car they are just sitting around doing nothing which would lead to boredom which could lead to more things and so on.
When you drive you have to be alert to the things around them, and keeps your motor skills from becoming lazy.
Another debate that has probably occured is how they are able to prevent accidents with sensors that can control the breaks.
What if something were to happen to the sensors and they malfunction; that could result in an accident or even a fatal one in fact.
Also, people may try to blame their car for the accident and you can not truly figure out who is at fault in the situation.
These are things that everyone should consider about these cars.
These cars sound amazing but are they really worth it.
Like I mentioned in the previous paragraph they could be extremely useful for people who have a mental or physical defect but not so much for others.
Otherwise i can not wait to see what new technology will be introduced in my generation.
To conclude, there will always be arguments on everything so there is not truly a yes this is good or no this is bad, but hopefully it will be a succesful impact on society. | 2 |
The Facial Action Coding System is a good idea if the general populous likes it. There is a posiblity that most everyone would like to have that coding system on their computer to make life that extra step easier. Profs. like Thomas Huang and Nicu Sebe have disinged it to help keep students active in school, and to help people keep their research interesting or just make someone happy when they are angry or bored by ajusting what they are looking at on the screen.
I feel like the Facial Action Coding System will or would help students to stay awake and more aware that their computer can read their emoutions and change to how they are feeling like with ads and if you smile when you see one then more would come up like that. When you look at a website and perhaps you smile a lot on this website then the computer could adapt to wedsites that you like. If you do not like something on your computer like an ad then less of those ads would appear.
There will be people against the idea because they would feel vulnerable with a computer actually reading their emotions. It would be more practicle for you in different ways such as ajusting a lesson in school when you are starting to get bored or drousy. The computers would have a dumbed down version of the algorithm because most home desktops would not be able to work with such a complecated system but instead would be able to use the algorithm in detecting small things like a smile or a frown to tell if you liked what was on your computer monitor or not.
This would be a nice system to use but a lot of people not like the idea and they have their reasons. But here was a few to perhaps change a mind into liking the idea or just simply accepting it. Everyone has their own emotions and feelings about what they see or read about and this new system could detect those feelings, and help out to support or to completely change what was just seen by that person using a computer.. | 2 |
I think we should change elections to popular vote because it will give the people more say in the elections, it will be more fair, and you would actually be voting for the president and vice president them selves, and not for a slate of electors.
First of all, if we change elections to be based off of popular vote people will have more say in the elections as to who gets elected. Forr example, when you cast a vote for the president you want to be elected you arent voting for the president, you are voting for a slate of electors who will vote for the president. But if we change it to popular vote you will actually be voting for the president and vice president them selves instead of voting for a slate.
Secondly, if we change voting to popular votes it will be more fair. it will be more fair because votes wont be controlled by the electoral college so it will be more fair. thats why we should change voting to popular voting for elections. | 2 |
In my opinion, I think driverless cars could simply change the world, i don't see many negative aspects of the idea of trying to make a car that a human doesn't need to drive.
I also think that making a driverless car that needs human assitance aswell is pointless because, the driver would sit there waiting for his turn to drive and that could get really boring for the driver sitting there cautiously waiting when its his turm.
It should be driverless completely or not at all.
In my opinion, the idea of driverless cars would be revolutinizing for humanity in many ways.
According to the text, they would use the driverless cars as a taxi service, that would help in many ways when people need rides or want to get somewhere quick in a major city and not wait for a bus or train.
The biggest concern for the driverless car is the safety hazards and the laws that are set in place.
The text states that states like, California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have limited use of semi-autonomous cars due to safety issues. A big concern is if you get into a car accident with a driverless car, who is there to blame?
In order for driverless cars to be used they would have to set in liability law changes and who would be be blamed for the accident, as it states in the text.
I am mutual for the feeling for driverless cars because there are the positives like, driving the handicap, the taxi service that drives you where you need to go, take a nap , etc. But the negatives are, driver safety for the passengers, will it be safe enough to driver on the street with other driverless cars, and will it be able to drive with this type of technolgy efficiently.
Based on the information I supplied, I think the driverless car can be a major step in the world, but it can be a very dangerous one if not handled correctly.
According to the text, Tesla announced they would have a car that could drive itself 90 percent of the time by 2016, also Mercedes-Benz and Nissan planned to have cars that can drive themsleves completely by 2020.
The road to the truly autonomous car streches ahead of us it could lead to a bright future that revolutionizes the world, or it could lead to a very dangerous one, but we grow closer to the destination everyday. | 2 |
Dear senator,
I highly suggest you to reconsider about voting for that particular president. There might be quite a few people that voted for that person. Also there is a lot of people that like the other canidate. Most of the people that are not eligable to vote would want you to make the right choice.
Now that most states have a winner take all system it is not very fair for all the people in one state just to go to one person. It is the right thing to do to get all of the people in one state just to vote for the canidate that they want to take over the oval office. It would be a better system and would have less of a possible risk just to get a tie in the ellectoral college.
So i highly regard this letter just to let you know that changing the way of voting would make a big deal to all of the country. It would benefit the whole country that every person could make a big difference in the elections of modern society. In the future we will have what is called chaos in the voting polls. None of the voting will matter because the electors will get to decide who will be president.
Scincerely,
Dylan | 1 |
In this article it talks about the face of Mon Lisa. Many of people have wondered and thought what Mona was feeling or was trying to express. Will now they came out with a new software were it recgonizes and tell the experssions of ones face. To me I don't like the idea of the software, it can be subatage to someones art. In parapgraph one in the beginning of the sentnce it gives you bunch of facial expressions that Mona is giving. The software indicates several expressions that she is making. In paragraph 3 says when the process begins, the computer constructs a 3-D computer model of the face. They recognize the the muscles and what the face is expressing.
To me this software of a cheat cheat to art. Art is meant to be looked at, to be studied and to make you more intrested in the art. You can have a millions of questions about an art piece the cool thing about the Mona Lisa is that it is a very famous painting, why because it was unique, people wondering for many years to see if she is smiling or no or what she's is expressing. in paragraph 5 says,"We humans perform this same impressive "calculation" every day." Which is a good thing becuase we learn more about the face and how they make it with expressions.
A software shouldn't be able to tell what they're expressing it just makes you not observe the photo anymore as much, because now that they may know what she's expressing she won't have the much popular attention to it like it did before. Says in paragraph 6,"The Mona Lisa demonstration is really intended to bring a smile to your face, while it shows how much this computer can do." Really it even says imagine a computer knowing when your happy or sad, to me thats just invasion to a person, you can always tell you how you are feeling and many just decide to keep them to themselves.
Many people have their way of expressing themselves and sometimes you can be curious of how they're feeling. Which is good because the more you look at something you study it and you put piece and piece together until you solve it. Look at pragraph 7, it gives you something to do while your looking in the mirror, to make a face expression, and the face they told you to make was smiling. It's showing how easily you can describe someone face just by describing the face and the muscle form. It's not always good for everyone to know what you're face is expressing because thats just dull. It's not important for people to know, which will just make you more curious of you. Just as long as you know what your feeling, and thats what I think the artist that did this painting was trying to achieve.
This is my opinion on the software. I think that it is useless. It really is something that is happening now in this world is that technology is taking over us and what we do. We barley use our brains to study or read over something because we use the internet for that. We don't play outside or even try to look at new things in the world because were distacted by our phones or the tv. Most people are barley active and decide just to lay around and look at a screen. Now this is another thing less for a person to worry about, and slowly things that we are capable of doing by ourselves and using our head wouldn't be neccary because there's a sofware to that for us. Artist express themselves in art and they want people to figure it out and admire their painting, not a software to tell us. We become intelligent more each day if we use our head and take time to think about and thats something that is good for the people. | 2 |
We have all dreamed of owning a self driving car, and have heard about it once or twice. They may seem very cool and very far off in the future, but in fact, driverless cars may be the next big project the world will start to expand on. We all believe that there will come a day when none of the things we do now will be left to do in the future, but how well would the things do today be carried out in the future? I believe that future cars would be very ineffective, because of the cost of the process of putting the plan in motion, the problems that could occur while the cars are driving, and the amount of time it would take before we could make the cars legal.
Throughout history, we have had great success in everything that has advanced in technology, like replacing hard labor with machines like tractors and cars. However, many of these products have been very expensive when we have tried perfecting the dream machine for technology. Cars vary from a large price range, and many of them that are new are not cheap. This could be a problem if we tried launching the driverless cars into action because of how much money it would take to build the right car. The car would have to first be made to be tested, which takes both time and money. Then they would have to gather up a whole bunch of money to start producing these types of cars, which everyone may or may not like. They would then have to take all of the cars from wherever they were made, and ship them to where they need to be. This would be very expensive, and may not even be liked by some people. Some people dont feel safe in a car, so why would they by one where they wouldn't be in charge? These future cars would also come at a very high price, because the top leading car companies are the ones trying to make future cars come true, like"Google's modified Toyota Prius," and,"BMW," which were talked about in the article "Driverless Cars Are Coming." This means cars will just keep getting more expensive, until eventually no one could pay the price, which would also be a drawback for the company, especially in materials, money, and time.
Not only is cost an issue, but so is the technology itself. Most cars malfunction in all different sorts of ways. For example, locked breaks, oil leaks, and much more. This means that not all cars can be trusted and one hundered percent trustworthy. We are still trying to perfect the modern car used today, but there is always something that occurs that stops us in our tracks. Putting our lives on the line by letting a new and advanced car could be very dangerous, because the history of perfect cars is not clean at all. In the passage "Driverless Cars Are Coming," there is a lot of talk about sensors and gadgets used to ensure saftey, but knowing about most technology, it would have some downfall, which would be very unsafe. For example, if "antilock brakes and driver assistance" failed, which they could potentially become a big hazard once they failed. In Drivers Ed, they tell you to limit as many hazards and distractions as possible, so that you can be assured safety while driving on the road. If you add more advancments to your car that could be a hazard at any given moment, you would add more problems later on that could become unsafe.
The last big problems future cars are subjected to face are making them legal. If it is very hard to make cars legal by testing them and spending money on them, then the chances are driverless cars would be way worse. They would have to be tested a lot more, and would definatley cost a lot of money. Some people wouldn't even trust the car, because we as humans can't even trust each other at certain points in time. In order for someone to trust the car, they would probably have to make it themselves. Even if they became legal, as soon as one major accident or malfunction with one of the cars happened, we would have to go back to square one, and gain everyones trust yet again, which is very hard to earn back. If someone puts your life at risk over their own, you wouldnt trust them right away after that, would you? Making it legal would be very hard to do, like stated in "Driverless Cars Are Coming," because of the "roadblocks," that, "lie ahead for the autonomous car," and the amount of saftey that would be needed in each car that would have to be tested many different times.
Technology is very cool and facinating, but we all have to take a step back and ask ourselves if putting effort into it is worth the risk. Cars are far from being perfect, and not having any flaws, and driverless cars are way far from being perfect.
In order to actually happen, we would have to consider the cost and amount of time needed to make them work right, the problems with the technology in the car that one may encounter, and the possibility of making it leagal and gaining everyones trust in doing so. Future driverless cars aren't that far away, but are also not that close either, because of the cost, time, problems, and making it legal that would have to be faced while making them. | 4 |
I truly believe that as a human race, we need fully driverless cars. I feel like we need these cars for many reasons. All the time on the news you hear about someone who was innocent get hit by a drunk driver, or someone who was texting and driving. Face it, we are all humans, and no matter what the law says we will still get an urge to talk/text and drive, or drive under the influence of alchol or another type of drug.But with self driving cars we can still do these things, exect we will have the car to drive and keep us safe. I believe with all self driving cars there will be very few accidents per year.
One of the problems is even though we need to change to fully self driving cars in the future, it will be very expensive for all of the car companies to fund this project. Also, not every human makes a good earning to afford these cars, which will be very expensive. Then if the customers dont buy the cars, it could potentionally put these major corporations out of buisiness. To also put something else in perspective, lets think about repairs. Lets say your car won't start, will you take it to a shop? Or will you have to manually find the
problem. One good question is will these cars need to be electric for all of the functions to fully work? Or will we able to stick to gas?
I personally believe, these corporations should either find a way to inexpensively produce and sell these cars, or
stick to the cars we have now. Because not everybody can dump there old car and go out and buy a new one. Also, lets say we all have to go to self driving cars. Right now there are billions of cars on this planet. We would produce so much pollution to recycle those cars, plus we would have to dump all of the non-recycleable parts. If we do happen to go to all self driving cars, it would be incredibley expensive, but it would also create lots of jobs. But these jobs would all depend on how the car was built, and what would be needed in order to keep the car fully safe and functional. | 2 |
The technology to read people emotional expressions is valuable. The six basic emotions are happiness,surprise,anger,disgust,fear,and sadness. It associates each characteristic movements of facial muscles. Its good to have a technology that actually can tell whats their emotions. Telling whats their emotions is good for us because we can be there for them when they feeling down.
Each expression is compared against a neutral face that shows no emotion. You can tell how someone is feeling simply by looking at their face. Most of us have trouble at describing each facial trait that conveys happy,worried,etc. Human anatomy is to help the painting to facial muscles precisely to convey specific emotions. A classroom computer could recongize when somebody is becoming bored or confused.
They could indicate the difference between a genuine smile and a forced one. Moving your facial muscles not only expresses emotions but can even help to produce them. Feeling someone else's emotional state may happen because we unconsciously imitate another person's facial expressions. To whoever did this type of technology we wouldn't know people faces that can reveal so much of their emotions. | 1 |
The date is May 24, 2001 and twenty-five years ago we found something that left both NASA and I speechless. They say that this face was created by Aliens however they are totally wrong. NASA says otherwise that it's just natural landform. The most logical reason is the natural landform, because we haven't had any evidence of aliens being real. Therefore I argue that its just a natural landform and not in any form made by an alien.
First of all, we have no proof of aliens whatsoever. No one has proved that they exist, or that they are real. So why do they think its aliens, when it could've just been a natural landform. Things like these happen all the time, our Earth just happens to make things like these. People are actually beliveing that aliens are real, when really they don't have proof.
Second of all, how would the aliens know how to create it. If to say if they even are real. How would they create it, there aren't any tools on Mars. They wouldn't know what they were making, they would have no idea. The face just happened to be a natural landform, it was not created by aliens. Along with they have no proof "aliens" did this.
Third of all, why would they even do this. If they did happen to do it , they didn't even mean too. Because they haven't seen a face so they wouldn't know how to make it. Aliens are not real, if they were it'd be everywhere all over the news. People would be so excited and although going to space is a risk many people would do it. Just to go see the "aliens", but no one has proved they are real. Therefore, NASA will stand correctly. The face is just a natural landform.
In conclusion, NASA is correct. There is no proof of aliens, and even if there was the slightest chance to having proof. Aliens wouldn't even have meant to do it. They have never seen a face, so why would they just do this. Natural landforms happen all the time. But this one just happened to be spotted by NASA. NASA always seems to be correct on their stats because they do so much research, unlike the other who just suggest that its an alien. I'd like to see you do as much research as NASA and give me proof of aliens, then we'll believe you. | 2 |
In 1976 NASA'S Viking 1 Mars Global Surveyor had taken a picture of a face-like form on Mars.
The area that this was found in is common for having these types of forms.
This land form was found in Cydonia, a region on Mars.
This form on Mars is a natural land form, although many people thought it to be created by aliens.
This thought had sparked sudden interest into the people about Mars, when it was released to the public.
Scientists had further looked into it and found it was just a land form.
However, somone had still thought that this was created by extra terestrials because they knew it was winter in Cydonia, so it was cloudy.
They stated that they thought the clouds could have blocked off many features of this land form.
They also thought that if you had taken a clearer picture then you would see many other features explaining that another life form had created it.
The same picture was later on taken in 2001.
This picture had many more pixels to show an HD picture of the object.
This updated picture showed a much more smooth and almost dome-like formation instead of a face.
This led many scientists to believe that this is a natural land form.
Some of the rock's features still had resembled a little bit of a human face.
Before NASA could know for sure wether this was natural or not they made the face on Mars a priority to take more pictures and find where it is and when they did, they had found that yes, it was just simply a natural landform.
In conclusion, NASA had seen a face on Mars and couldn't figure out what it was so they took more pictures as the technology advanced.
This allowed scientists to know for sure that this was a natural thing.
Many people are still convinced that this is an extra teresrial creation and thet Ancient Eqypt had truely been crated by these creatures considering the fact that this face looks like and ancient pharoa from around those exact times. | 2 |
Dear Senator,
I feel that the electoral college should be be removed from the voting process and replaced by the popular vote. The vioce of the people is the most imprtant thingin ensuring the president elected is truly the people's president. The Electoral college is an unfair system for many voters and keeps our nation from being the demorcratic society it was meant to be. Even those who oopose this view agree that the Electoral college is a non-demorcratic system. Doesnb;t that seem like an issue considering this nation was founded on Demorcratic beliefs?
I understand that some feel it's ok if the the voting is left mainly to toss up states because they seem to be the the people who are more thoughtful about the lection. The only reason this is the case is because the canidates spend their whole time in the swing states and they completely alienate the other states. In fact, in 2000, seventeen states were completely skipped over by canidates. This causes people to feel discouraged from voting because they feel as if their votes are unimportant or that they don't know enough to cast an educated vote.
Also people like to argue that there is no problem with the electors because they can always be trusted. But this also is simply not the case. In 1960 the demorcratic electors were almost completely replaced by electors who would vote in oppostition of JFK. Sometimes electors flat out refuse to vote for the canidate they were elected to vote for. Cases like this completly undermine the very idea of the electoral college.
Then in the case of a tie in electoral votes the election is put in the hands of the House of represenatives. Each state is only given one vote, so a state with a single represenative vote, such as wyoming, would have the same amount of influence as a state with 55 represenatives such as California. Plus people don't always vote with their party when electing people for congress so how can they be sure that their best interests will be represented in the case of a tie. Some may say that a tie is rare and has no foundation in this argument, but they would be wrong. In 1968 the outcome was only 41,971 votes away from being a tie. In 1976 it was 5,559 away in ohio and 3,687 away in Hawaii. With the Electoral college in use, a few swing voters could throw the whole election.
So to summarize, the Electoral college is basically an outdated system that may have worked when the country first started, but doesn't really apply today. It's time to put the power of the election in the hands of voters directly and make the election a truly demorcratic system. | 3 |
If someone invited you to become a Seagoing Cowboy would you go or not? I know for a fact that I would take the invitation and go. I mean there are pros to this. There also cons.
There are so many opportunities to go explore the world. These are one of them. You would get to visit China, Europe, Greece, and many other places too. This is a chance for you to communicate with the rest of the world that you haven't seen or probably heard of yet.
Now to the cons, this is also the end of this because I know you WILL go. The one and only con there is that I know of is that you would miss your friends and family. I mean, to you there are probably other cons. To me, I only have one con. So, would you take the invitation to become a Seagoing Cowboy? | 1 |
Do you think that the Face on Mars is a natural landform, or do you think that it was created by aliens? The picture of the Face on Mars was captured on May 21, 2001, and a few days later it was shown to the public which got this whole thing started. Most of the people from NASA believed that it was just a natural landform, but conspiracy theorists believed the it was created by aliens on Mars. The MOC team snapped a picture ten times sharper to reveal a natural landform. It was just a huge rock formation which resembled a human face, and the defenders of the NASA budget wished there was an ancient civilization on Mars because they would benefit off of it.
A few days after the photo of the Face was snapped, they showed it to the public for everbody to see. The NASA team caption the photo with "huge rock formation...which resembles a human head...formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose, and a mouth." Some people believe that the Face was created by aliens on Mars. NASA and many scientists believed that it was just another Martian Messa. Martian Messas were common enough around Cydonia.
On April 5, 1998, The MOC team snapped a picture that was ten times sharper than the original Viking Photos. The photo first appeared on the JPL web site, and it revealed a natural land form. Since the Face was located at 41 degrees north martian latitude, it was winter at the time they snapped the picture which was in April of 1998. At this time, it was cloudy on the planet Mars, so the camera on board MGS had to peer through wispy clouds to see the Face. Conspiracy theorists said that maybe the alien markings were hidden behind the haze.
Lastly, the defenders of the NASA budget wished there was ancient civilization on Mars. If aliens did exist and NASA did discover them or signs of them, then NASA would benefit off of it. NASA would most likely send people or some kind of camera to take better pictures and videos of Mars. NASA would not keep it to themselves, they would share it with the public. After all this time survaying and taking pictures of Mars, they have not found alien life form on Mars.
In conclusion, the Face is just a natural landform like many others. The Face just happens to be unique because of it's many shadows that make the Face resemble an actual face. Many rock formations happen on the planet of Mars. The Face is no different then the many thers of it's kind. The Face is the most unique and interesting landform found on Mars the is one of the many natural landforms presents on the planet Mars. | 3 |
When they got on Mars they realized that it looked like a human face and they wanted to know if it was left by an alien or something. In order for the face to be created by aliens we would have to know that they exist. We would have to actually know that aliens made the face on Mars, we would have to have evidence that they exist. In order to know that the face is a natural landform we would have to do a lot of research stating that maybe something or someone made the face. Scientist would have to make sure that it is a face and not something else. Scientist figured that is was just another Martian mesa, common enough around Cydonia, the unusual shadows made it look like an Egyptiazn Pharaoh. They would have to do research to see if aliens left it there or if its something that someone or something left on Mars. In order to find out if it's a face they would have to make conclusions about what it may be. They figured that it did not have anything to do with aliens but they were not sure if it was true or not they wanted to know if alien marking were hidden by haze. | 0 |
"Most human communication is nonverbal, including emotional communication," notes Dr. Huang. "So computers need to understand that, too."
The use of this technology to read students' emotional expressions is a great way to see if someone is happy. It can possibly help others to see the person in front of them and what their emotions are or what that person is 'trying to hide'
It's all about muscular action units. They even indicate the difference between a genuine smile and a forced one. In the real smile, the zygomatic major (the muscles that begin at the cheek bones) lift the corners of your mouth.
The muscles called orbicularis oculi pars palpabraeus make crow's-feet around the eyes. But in a fake smile, the mouth is stretched sideways using the zygomatic major and a different muscle, the risorius. To an expert, faces don't lie; these muscle clues are sometimes used to spot when a "smiling" politician or celebrity is not being thruthful.
Making a fake smile can also help produce a real one. Practicing with putting a pencil across your mouth works the same muscles as when a person is smiling for real.
This project does help in forms that can tell when someone is being sad, happy, disgusted, surprised, angry, fearful, and/or sad. | 1 |
Dear, senator
I belive the electoral college was a usefull tool in the past ,but is now an out date system that should be changed. If we continue to use this system we aren't really giving the people a fair chance to vote for who they want. For example in California a more democrtic state republicans may be lessen the incentive to vote knowing that there vote will not have an effect. This rasise another issue, which is not everybody is voting and it is not all a right but a prevlige among US citicens every where. The elctoral college was evective in the past because we did not have the technologe to count all the votes from each state, but now we do so we can only go by the popular vote.
The popular vote is more effective and I'm not the only one who thinks so over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now. Al Gore thanks to the electoral college won the popular vot but lost the elctoral, how is it that some one could win more votes from most voters ,but still lose? The answer is the elctoral college, the reason is that you are not voting as a indiviual person but as a state. This brings me back to California and how republicans votes don't count because the state voted democrat.
Though the electors should do there job and vote with the state they could always defy the will of the people. In 1960 segregationist nearly succeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would op-pose John F. Kennedy. So please take into consideration that your vote may not have an effect on the election if we don't change the system. | 3 |
To Whom it May Concern:
The Electoral College is the cause of many political disagreements and problems whenever mentioned. Although established in the constitution, it is seen as undemocratic by many. The Electoral College takes away the ability of citizens to vote for their president; instead they are voting for Electors, not always loyal to the canidate. As a result, I believe the Electoral College should only be used in instances of a tie between two canidates.
Each presidential canidate has a group of Electors, which will be part of the Electoral College process after the popular vote is taken. The Electoral College proccess consists of the selection of electors, the meeting in which the vote for both President and Vice President occurs, and then the votes are counted by Congress. (Office of the Federal Register)¹ When the popular vote occurs, and the canidates are selected, the votes are tallied, and then the electors of the two canidates attend the meeting, and then the final decision for President is made. This is viewed as undemocratic, because there have been instances where the Electoral College dissagrees with the popular vote. Such as the case of Al Gore in 2000, who won the popular vote, and then lost the Electoral vote and therefore his presidency.(Bradford Plumer)² This caused over 60 percent of voters, to wish for a direct election opposed to the electoral proccess, according to a Gallup poll, also occuring in 2000. (Bradford Plumer)²
Anotherr issue within the electoral college, is the electors themselves. While they may claim to be loyal to their canidate, loyalties can be bribed, changed, or electors may even be replaced with only a certain party (Republican or Democratic). Which occured in Louisiana in 1960. The segregationists almost replaced Democratic electors, with ones who would instead oppose Kennedy, as a sabotage attempt at Kennedy's Presidency.(Bradford Plumer)² There have also been cases in which the loyalty of the elector was switched, and the citizens were seemingly forgotten at the electoral college. While there are over millions of people residing in the United States, there are only 538 Electors, and the fate of our country is put in Electors who can't be trusted.
Over 60 percent of Americans oppose the Electoral college, but there are still some which still believe in the compromise established by our founding fathers. The Electoral College provides a smaller chance of election ties, and an equal vote from each state. While a tie is possible in the popular voting system, it is also possible in the Electoral College, with 538 electors, 269 votes from each side can cause a huge dissagreement within our Legislative System, which could be avoided by using only the popular vote. When politicians and presidential canidates are looking for votes, they most commonly travel to the larger states, because of the larger population. A larger population provides an even larger chance of obtaining voters. But, this leaves the small states with no attention from canidates, and a smaller population weakens the states chance of the canidate they desire. Every vote counts for a canidate,5,559 voters from Ohio, and 3,687 from Hawaii stopped a tie by voting. (Bradford Plumer)² Even the small states contribute in a presidential elections, their votes are just as big as ours, even if their states ae small.
The founding fathers formed the Electoral College as a compromise, and hundreds of years later, I believe it is time for a compromise once again. The popular vote, should become the deciding vote for who is elected as President, Vice President, etc. With this, the chance of a tie comes, so i propose that the Electoral College remain only for the purpose of a tie in the popular vote, or if state legislature has reason to believe this canidate is not the best for America.
¹Excerpt from "What is the Electoral College?" by the Office of the Federal Register,from www. archives. gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about. html. In the public domain
²Excerpt from " The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best laid defenses are wrong" from Mother Jones by Bradford Plumer. Copyright © 2004 by Mother Jones and the Foundation for National Progress. All Rights Reserved. Permission Pending. | 5 |
The author supports the idea by telling us how Venus has great temperature. In the text it says "On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet.' This means this eas the first time they've had great weather on 800 degrees. Venus is the closest place to visit. In the text it says " The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains , and craters. Furthermore, recall that Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit, a crucial consideration given the long time frames of space travel.' Which mean Venus can possibly do space travel back in time. At tthirty-plus miles above surface, temperature would still be toasty at around 170 degreea fahrenheit , but the air pressure would be close to that of sea level on Earth. Solar power would be plentful , and radiation would not exceed Earth levels. Not easy condtions , but survivable for humans.So its saying it only safe for hmans but other condtions.'However , peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditond because most forms of photography and videography ineffective. This means it only provived those things. In conclusion Venus was a great place to live and sttay at. | 0 |
Driverless cars have been a big topic lately. In some ways driverless cars sound cool but they also seem a little scary. I think that diverless cars shouldn't be allowed on public roads because they are not safe.
Some think being able to have your car drive itself sounds nice. You could just sit in your car and listen to music while you wait to arive to your desination. Driverless cars would allow you to sit in your seat, hands on the wheel, but not acually driving. This idea does sound nice but as all other technology such as computers and phones, technology is not always reliable.
A driverless car could cause a marjor or even fatal crash. While most driverless cars require you to have hands on the wheel this does not mean you will be paying attention if somthing is about to happen. All it would take is for somthing in the car to mess up and people could be very seriously hurt.
I think that people driverless cars are not safe and they should not be allowed on public roads. | 2 |
Driving cars can be a tiresome chore. In "Driverless Cars Are Coming," the author presents driveless cars. Although there is not an official driveless car, there is progess towards making one. He displays both the advantages and disadvantages of driveless cars, but the advantages out-weigh the disadvantages.
The advantage of driveless cars is people no longer have to drive. Without people in control, there could be less accidents, leading to safer roads. When driving, some people lose focus, become distracted, or even text and drive. With driveless cars, the computer in the car would control the car. Unlike humans, the computer in the car would not have these issues. According to the article, Google has studied cars that could drive independently. These cars drove more than half a million miles and they did not crash! The odds of accidents happening when driving half a million miles is high, so although these cars were not fully, driveless, imagine how safe a truly driveless car will be. In addition, newer technology is coming into place to make driveless cars safer than human drivers. Several parts of the car are being enhanced. For example, sensors have been altered and advanced greatly within ten years.. Sensors were used in 1980 as antilock brakes, but in ten years, these senors had become more advanced. They were able to sense and respond to danger on the road. With the information from sensors, the car will be able to apply brakes when needed. According to the article, this allows "far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone." This shows that the driveless car will be safer than a human driving. Driveless cars will be able to handle more and more tasks on their own with this new technology. With the progress being made with driveless cars, these driveless cars will be safer than cars driven by people today.
In conclusion, driveless cars will truly benefit the world. Although, it make take time to fully build and design a driveless car, it will be worth it. Driveless cars will be ensure the safety of driving. It will be a much safer option than human drivers. | 3 |
The future is comeing and it is coming iin the shape of cars. Driverles cars hve been a dream form long ago and it might just now be coming true.
Although smoe popele think that this is is not avery good idea there many advantages to driverless cars. These cars are safe, well tested, and very helpfull.
Some peole will argue that the cars might malfunction and crash or not know if there is a work zone and i needs to go slower. Driverless cars are not fully driverless. Although these cars can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves there is still a driver. As it said in the artical, " all are desinged to noify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills." This would be like if there was a work zone at this point the car would alert the driver and he/she would have to take over. in the artical it states that the comepanis that arer making these cars have added a way of notifing the driver. Some of the formes of alerting the pasenger is by, vibrating seets, announcing that he or she should be prepered, and flash lights on the window shield. They have even thought of using cameras to make sure the driver is paying attention.
Also these cars have not just reacently came out of the factory and put on the streets. Google has been working on its driverles cars since 2009. Acording to the artical, "their cars have driven more then half a million miles without a crash. Yet, thier car is not compleatly driverless, there is still a human that takes over pulling in and oout of driveways or in complicated traffic issues. The thought of driverless cars has been here since the 1950s in the artical it states that, 'in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. The track was embedded with an electric cable that sent raidio signals to a reciver on thfront end of the car. ' So then since the 1950s scientest and engineers have been working on and improving this consept of driverless cars. That is more then sixty years of resherch and work inorder to make and sime perfect these cars.
After and when driverless cars are finaly perfected they will have many significant uses. For example, public transportation, every where you go there is public transportation and it is a big need expesualy in the big cities. in this passage it states that, the cars would use half of the fule of today's taxis and offer far more flexibility then a bus." This would change the world, if cars are diverless it would give the human a great advantage. Also in a fun perspective when people go on long road trips they can normaly just drive for about eight houres before they need to rest. With driverless cars the car would do all the work aposed to the driver.
In conclusion driverless cars are coming and are a great thing. They will be safe for all users, provide great benifits, and have been well reasherched and worked on. They are a thing of the future and we are finaly there. Driverless cars are a thing everyone should look forward fore. | 3 |
In this article the author is supporting his idea about the studies of Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers. In the article the author gives reason and evidence why. There is a posiblity to live on Venus, but still too dangerous.
Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers because it may well once been the most Earth- like planet in our solar system. In paragraph 4 it says "The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familar features such as valleys, mountains,and craters." There is even a posibility that Venus was largely covered with oceans and could have supported various form of life just like Earth. Venus can be a possibility of Earth travels. The dangers of Venus is the 97% carbon dioxide on the planet. In paragraph 3 it says " Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere." Venus atmosphere is more dangerous than ours, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience in our on planet. Can Venus be a planet we live on?
To get an understandment of Venus NASA need to get close and personal despite the risk. In paragraph 6 it says " Many researchers are working on innovations that would allow machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowledge of Venus. " NASA is working on different approaches. One example they gave in the article is some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide. This have been tested in a chamber simulating on Venus surface, and lasted three weeks.
Our travels shouldn't be limited by the dangers and doubts, but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation, like the author says in paragraph 8. At least try if there is a possiblity. | 2 |
Dirverless cars can be good or bad, safe or reckless, and smart or dumb. Either way our technology is advancing and it may be adavncing too quickly. A good thing about the car is that its easier for disabled people and a bad thing is technology isnt always reliable. The cars could cause less accidents or cause even more. The cars could be the smartest thing the world could have or it could be the dumbest.
The thing about driverless cars is that we are not learning control and once again the world is getting even more lazy. Most of the time no one will be paying attention with them not having to drive. They will be too distracted listening to the radio, sleeping, talking on the phone, talking to passengers, or texting. Also if the person would need to take over they wouldnt be able too because they wouldnt know when to take over, because of the distraction.
16 year olds wont be able to drive normally, because they will never learn because of the driverless cars. The teenagers would just sit in the car just like a passenger and not drive. The teens would be so distracted with all their social media and texting they would have time to react if something went wrong. If the teenager needed to take over they would know what to do because they didnt learn how to drive right.
Although this is a rather good thing for disabled people. If they have an amputated leg or leg and actually any disability that would still allow them to drive it would be easiar on them, because they may not be able to drive 100 percent of the time. They would be less stressed out on people yelling at them for being too slow and fighing and conflicting with them.
Disabled people already can drive, you can get a prostedic leg and still be able to drive. If they cant drive 100 percent of the time they should be driving anyway. That is a huge hazard on the road. It could lead to many accidents and multiple injuries or even death.
Driverless cars will come whether we like them or not. I personally do not want the driverless cars, but I would have to deal with it and embrace it. I still think there needs to be a long time inbetween now and when they do come out so it gives our people and technology time to embrace it and get used to the Driverless Cars. | 3 |
Nick D'Alto wrote this passage in the mindset of informing us how this new technology works with analyzing and even producing seemingly accurate emotionsal information theough a computer analyzing the muscles in individuals faces. Prof. Thomas Huang is primarily the man who produces or made this program for a computer. They used this to determine the emotions of the magnificant work of the great artist "Leonardo da Vinci", called the "Mona Lisa".
They claim that it can produce the same or even better results for many different jobs than people can today.
They say that they can set up a computer that can do a teachers job, in the classroom. They say that it would be able to read students facial expressions and emotions and determine if the students are confused, bored or even any other emotion. Then it can reteach the lesson in a different or more simple way than the previuos way. The people also say "most human communication is non verbal, including the emotional communication". Therefore, it would make this computer even more relevant. They also say that using this could improve many digital subjects such as video games or video surgery to make the faces more expressive.
The prefessors have a reasonable argument for their program and they might be on to something. If this computer/program can aid teachers in teaching their classes, this computer would be the perfect fit for further the kids learning experiance. Therefore, it would be a great aid to the teahcers for them to get to better teach the students if the teachers themselves dont pick up the students confusion or frestration. | 2 |
Dear State senator,
The Electoral college is a process that was established by our founding fathers in a constitution as a compromise between election of the president by a vote in congress and election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens.The electoral college consists of the selection of the electors then that carries into the meeting or gathering of the electors.In that type of meeting of the electors they vote for the president and the vice president,Next is the counting of the electoral votes by congress.The electoral college consists of 538 electors,Did you know that a majority of those elector's votes are required to elect the president.Well 270 electoral votes to be exact.Well how did the number of electorals get chosen? The way that exact number got chosen is because tehere is one electoral to each member in the House of Representatives.Don't you agree that that was a wise choice? Also dont you think that our founding fathers really sat back and but real thought and effort in to a decision like this,something to put into the constitution.
Personally,I believe that the Ellectoral College should be kept in place and not depend on a popular vote to elect our president,for two reasons.The first reason is because most people who are about to vote they dont actually sit and take the time to see who they are voting for,they just "christmas tree" all of the options that they have. The second reason why i believe that i believe that the electoral college should stay in place because that this is a good process to have in place.
How many people do you think actually sit there and research and put thought into the president that they are chosing to run their country? Do you really belive that everyone does that? Think about the young and inexperienced voters who are fresh out of highschool and probaly just getting into college,Do you think that on top of their school work that they'll sit there and add something else on to their plate? To be completly honest i would not. I would either not vote or just pick at a random.Many people have a family and a job or jobs and have alot on their plate so the last thing they're gonna do is take the time out of their busy schedules and researchand find information on something that they dont need to do.
I also believe that the electoral college should stay in place because it's a good process to have. Having the electoral college in effect takes the stress off of the voters so they can continue on with their busy lives and not have to stand in those unreasonably long lines in the cold,hot,rain, or even snow. The people workers out in those lines are irritable and dont want to be there along with the voters,They look at it as a a waist of their time. No one likes to feel like their time was waisted because "Time is Money".
I hope you actually get this letter,read it,and but thought into what you just read.The Electoral college is a very good process to have in effect. Remeber that it keeps peole stress free and less irritable and if you use the Electors and not citizens you will end up getting a more educated vote because they sat back and analyzed the actions from the past of each canadate that is running and is making a vote based off of knowledge,not picking at a random.
Signed,
PROPER_NAME | 3 |
Dear State Senator
As it may have come to yourn notice I would like to foucus your attention to the debate about the Electoral Collage. The Electoral Collage is a unfair process the fathers of the Constintution established. As you know it is a "Compromise between electon of the President by a vote in Congress and eletion of the President by popular vote." (Source 1) In other words the Electorial Collage is where we elect represintives to vote for the president. That then makes their vote more important then everyone elses. And let me tell you, you wouldnt want that.
The Electoral Collage was a structure our founding fathers set up to help formally elect the president. But if this process goes aginst the wishes of the people, the ones the Constitution was writen for, then what purpose does it serve? " Its official: The Electoral College is unfair, outdated, and irrational." (Source 2) Once the Electoral Collage has be abolished the president can then be elected by popular vote and every one will be satisfided.
"The Electoral College is widely regarded as a anashronism" (Sourse 3) This means that the Electoral Collage is a thing that seems to belong in the past and does not fit in the present. Im sure that our founding fathers had good intions when they installed this system into our goverment. But times has changed since then,and we need to abolish the Electoral Collage so we can have a simpler system that almost every one agrees with. I relize that you have a tight schedule so its alright if i dont Resive a Resbonding letter. Insteed I ask that you use that time to consider what I have presented to you today.
Sinserly
A Worried Citizen | 1 |
The face on mars created by aliens or just a natural landform. I have solid evidence that it is just a landform. In the photo from 2001 it is very clear to see that its just a natural landform.
The face on mars is just a mesa we have very clear pictures taken by our latest MGS in 2001. We have a satelite circling mars everyday the face is the only thing that resembles any past life on mars. in paragraph 12 it says " What the picture actually shows is the Martion eqivialant of a butte or mesa landforms commonly found in the Snake River Plain of Idaho." says Garvin in the article "unmasking the Face on Mars".
Yes the photo in 1976 looks like a face but in more recent better quality photos you can see its just a landform. which looks very similar to mesa's in the western united states. In paragraph 2 is says it was shadows that made it look similar to a Egyption Pharaoh.
Do you think it is still a face or just a natural landform? just look at the 2001 photo it so clear to see it is just a mesa. | 2 |
Dear Mr. Senator:
The Electoral College has been around for quite some time. It has aided us in the election of the president for years. Is it truly fair though? Are the right votes being expressed? Whilst the Electoral College has a history for determining and appointing the president, I believe that it is not quite fair as it doesn't use the direct votes of the people, the slate of electors have the ability to defy the will of the people, and the voting system just isn't fair.
To start off, in this system of voting, the actual votes of the people aren't used. The people vote for a slate of electors who in turn vote for the president. These electors can be appointed by state conventions, the state party's central committee, or even the presidential canidates themselves. These electors may be chosen and then paid to vote for a certain canidate and therefore swinging their decision to an obvious bias. This is quite troubling as when it comes down to the actual counted vote, it really isn't the will of the people as a whole, it's the will of those few electors who have the ability to vote for the other canidate rather than the one they are chosen to vote for.
That being said, the electors that are chosen may have been chosen for a certain canidate, but are payed off to vote for the other. Though this is unlawful, it is a possibility. The people vote for these people rather than the president themselves, so the decision rests on this slate of electors. Should they change their mind on who they want to vote, or should they be paid in someway, they could defy the will of the greater people who have voted for them.
Having established that it is not the actual vote of the people, but a slate of electors electing the president, the number of actual votes do not go towards the president. Though a canidate may have the highest number of popular votes, if they do not have the highest number of electorial votes, they are not going to win. I believe this isn't right as the votes for the president should come directly from the poeple. If a canidate has the highest amount of popular votes, I believe that canidate is the one that should be appointed president because it is the greater people that favour them.
In closing, I believe that the of the Ellectoral College should be abolished as it isn't the vote of the poeple being used, the slate of electors always has the ability to defy the greater will of the people, and the over all system just isn't fair. There are many kinks to this process that I believe direct voting will take care of. I acknowledge that such a transition would be quite the lengthy process, but I would like to see the change happen. Wouldn't you like to see the actual voice of the people expressed?
Thank you for your time and I truly hope you take my words into concideration,
PROPER_NAME | 3 |
In the Article " Driverless Cars Are Coming" has a very distinct view on cars. Majority rules that even though these computer cars are more efficient, it can also be endangered for the drivers due to any conditions. These smart cars need more power than just a start button they need sensors. For instance the Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, etc. These smart cars are just too much not just for one person but multiple. These cars may seem fascinating but once you get that bill you'll think other wise . The expenses on the material , technology , and anything else you want will break your pockets. So why even bother when you can have a normal SUV truck that you drive on the regular.
Others may vouch that " Regurlar Cars " are basic and dual. They need something that will keep them up to speed. Of course regular cars may cause you more gas, fix broken parts , and more focusing on the road than having the car that can do it itself. But do you really want to waste all your time putting money into a smart car. Thats only going to last for almost a year before you give up. These high technology sensors are nothing new , of course . In 1980, automakers used speed sensors. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger surroundings.
Are these smart cars actually keeping citizens safe? In 2013, BMW announced the development of the "Traffic Jam Asissitant". The car can handle driving functions at speed up to 25 mph, But special touch sensors make sure the drivers keeps hold of the wheel. A regular 2009 lexis doesn't need the stability of an assisstant nor these high risk sensors. this car can obtain the same ability of a smart car. So, whats the difference high technology cars can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves. Wow!! thats very exciting, even though notifying a driver about upcoming navigations such as work zones, accidents. Human drivers still must remain alert and be ready to take over when situations like that occur. Why investigate into something you cant actually control , but can also harm yourself and others.
These sensors can go out at anytime developing a more dramatic problem upon yourself. By having a regular car you can just go to the gorage an get it fix. Instead of waiting for days to get all the technology back up to running you'll be out on the road an no time. Considering that its more cheaper an less parts to fix. Human aspects on technology is very inconsiderate than rallying on themselves to get the job done. | 3 |
The evening star, the closest to us, the one with famliar features, our nearest option for a planetary visit, what are the options for making a mission safe and scientifically productive?
Venus also known as the evening start, is actually a planet and it is
simple to see from the distant, it has proved a very challenging place where it can be examinaded closely by, Austronomers are insteresded by Venus because it has been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system, Venus has a surface of rocky sediment and has famliar things such as mountains, valleys and cratear. There have been made many studies to work with Venus, NASA is woking in another approches to studying venus, for example some especific old eletronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simulating the chaos of Venus surface and have lasted for three weeks in such coinditions, NASA has also a particulary compelling idea for sending human to study Venus. NASAs posible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of venus would allow scientists to float above the fray. Striving to meet this venus challenge our travels and beyond should not be limited by dangers and boubts but should be expanded to meet every edge of imaginantion and innovations.
in conculsion the challenge of exploring venus article show us that Venus is not a bad planet to study and there are many posibilities for humans to go there it has not easy conditions but survivable for humans, studies have been alredy made and Venus is an earth-like planet what makes the studies more clear. | 2 |
Do people vote for the man who runs the country. No, thats the Electoral Colleges job. The Electoral College is a process in which a numerous 538 electors cast there vote from the people of their state want as their president. The people have no interaction but to put in there ballet and choose there own electors who favor the candidate. Congress counts the votes, and if a total of 270 votes are cast for a candidate then they are elected president. For most people this how they think this is but it's not. Who chooses the Electors the answer is the state. So the sometimes the popular vote never wins, but that that happens rarely.
Many people like Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole dislike the idea of Electoral College for this reason, the popular vote sometimes never wins. Al Gore who won popular vote but lost the presidency to Bush, lost the because of the Electoral College people believed that this was unfair and blamed the electoral college. But there is some benefits to the process, example is that if the people voted the states with the larges population would always keep the balance unchecked,or if there there is a tie in the popular vote we wouldn't have to rely on a thousand voters to decide. But the voters of the Electoral College to decide.
There are some draw backs to the process though. Since the number of electors are the based on the population of a state most state with few population numbers, careless about the election. There are reason why people find that we should keep the process,there are also reason many dislike the idea in the first place. Viewing the benefits and the weakness of the idea of the Electoral College made think that even though the College has flaws. Those flaws are rare and can be fixed, with proper work and planning. | 1 |
The Trip to Venus
Have you ever been looking up in the sky and see somthing that youve never seen before? Well thers a good chance that was Venus. Venus is the one of the neighboring plantets next to earth and also the most simular. In " The Challenge of Exploring Venus" the author talks about how NASA has been studying Venus and there plans on it.
First of all, Venus is the second planet from the sun and is somtimes called the "Evening Star." In the passage the author tells of how Venus is called Earths "twin" because of how simular both a made, with both of them having around the same size and density.
Next, the author was able to tell why getting to Venus was the actuall hard part. Venus has been hard for NASA to figure out mainly because of its atmosphere and ground conditions. In the story the author describes how Venus's atmosphere is mainly made up of carbon dioxide and that the clouds on Venus are made up of sulfuric acid which is corrosive. Then if you where to make it to the ground the avergae temperature is said to be around 800 degrees farenheit. So thats why in the passage he described Venus as inhospitable.
Finally, NASA has been trying to make trips to Venus but most dont make it through the atmoshere or only last a few hours on the ground. But as said by the author NASA has been brainstorming ways they could get to Venus and collect data. One idea mentioned by the author is that NASA would to make a blimp like object that houses people in it to hover above Venus's atmoshpere making them unharmed while they collect data. Another idea is that they would use technology back from WWII which didnt use electronics but gears so that putting that on Venus's atmoshere wouldnt break down as fast due to it's conditions.
In conclusion, the author states good evedince that in the future we might be able to know more about Venus and maybe even send people there. With knowing more about its physical properties NASA might be able to do more missions's there and maybe even send a person there. | 2 |
25 years ago, a NASA spacecraft called Viking 1 was circling Mars, taking pictures of landing sites that its sister spacecraft, Viking 2, could possibly use. While circling Mars, it snapped a photo of a landform that seemed to look similar to a human face. Thay called it the "Face on Mars", and it became hugely popular, making appearances in movies, books, radio talk shows, and even grocery store checkout lines in the form of magazine covers. Contrary to some popular belief, wasn't anything to do with aliens, and here's why.
The Face on Mars is what you would call the Martian equivalent of a mesa, a natural landform that is common in the American West. The scientists assumed so whenit first appeared on screen, but this particular mesa had shadows that made it look kind of like an Egyption Pharaoh. When releasing the images to the public, the author of the article made it sound like the eighth wonder of the world, trying to attract attention to Mars, and it worked.
The photographs that were first taken of the "Face" were very hazy, and many people believed that there were some sort of alien markings under all the fog. The truth is, they took amazing photos with maximum resolution on April 8th, 2001, and there were no markings, aircrafts, little structures, or pyramids to be seen anywhere. What the picture does show is that the "Face" is, in fact, a kind of butte or mesa on Mars. Jim Garvin, chief scientist for NASA's Mars Eploration program, said it reminded him of "Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho.". So, In conclusion, the "Face on Mars" was just a natural landform that got a bunch of hype in the press. | 2 |
INTRODUCTION: A brand new software has been developed. This software improves accuracy in perceiving the emotions of others; This new software has promising applications for a variety of industries.
Imagine a computer can tell how you're feeling just from your face, like for example you go to a computer and ask her how am I feeling today, then the computer will say= 83%happy, 9%disgusted, 6%fearful, 2%angry; And you'll be like WHAT?, how can a simple computer make such a thing?.
The process begins when the computer constructs a 3-D model of the face, with 44 major muscles this is called "action unit".
Dr. Paul Eckman, creator of FACS (Facial Action Coding System)
BODY: Dr. Huang observes that the facial expressions for each emotion are universal and humans perform the same impressive "calculation" every day; How?: you can probably tell how is your friend feeling just looking at him or hearing his voice.
This software could change the whole world; For example imagine you are in the ethernet and then a web ad player pop's up, if you smile at it a similar ad might follow; But if you frown, the next ad will be different.
"A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored" Dr. Huang predicts.
CONCLUSION: Moving your facial muscles not only expresses emotions, but also can help produce them; we unconsciously imitate person's facial expressions. So in conclusion I would say that we can start using this magnificient software and his technology to read student's emotional expressions because it could also help teacher's to see how their student's are doing and if someone is distracted or bored the computer will notice the teacher so he/she can move on into another thing or go talk with the student. | 1 |
The used of this technology in the classroom would benifit the teachers. The teachers could teach and use the technology to see if the students were bored or confused. Another way this technology would help with is teachers could make a video teaching the lesson and use the technology to see how the students reacted.
The use of this technology would be great for teachers to know if their students are confused or bored. The teacher could teach a different way each day and see how the students reacted. Then which ever way kept the students more interested and made them pay attention more would be the way the teacher could start teaching so that the teacher gets the best results from their students. If the students are confused and don't want to ask a question the teacher could see that the student is confused and then the teacher can talk to the student one on one to help the student best understand the topic that he or she is confused with.
The technology could be used if the teacher was gone. The teacher could make a video teaching the lesson and the facial action coding system could see the students face and change the way the lesson is being taught to each student making the video lesson more personal towards the student. This would help the student learn the lesson how they like to learn. This would help them absorb all of the information in hope that they can retain the information for the test.
The technology would be great for classrooms. It helps the students learn the lesson the way they like to learn. It also helps the teachers teach the students to the best of their abilities. It will help the teachers teach the students the best way for the students. The teachers will know if their students are bored and that the teacher need to change up the way that they are presenting the lesson to the students. It will also help the teachers know if a student needs one on one but the student won't ask the teacher for help. With this technology the teacher will be able to go to the student and help the student. These reasons are why the facial action coding system should be implimented into the classroom. | 2 |
" The advantages of the limiting cars usages "
Time ago cars where just a little aspect to people use . But now cars are an obsesion, a way to go anywhere without walk , the car has become the foot of society in adiction of it . Streets parking , driveways and home garages are generally forbidden in this experiment new distric on the outskirts of freiburg, near the French and Swiss borders. Vauban's streets are completely "car-free", except the main thoroughfare, where the tram to downtown Freiburg runs and a few streets on one edge of community. That is one of the mainly reason why cars are becoming the food of society. But people don't know that they are wrong because it has become an obsesion and we all are making our future and if we still like this is not going to be good, because in 2006 is a good example os growing trend in Europe ,the United States and elsewhere to separate suburban life from auto use , as a component of a movement called "smart planning."
Another situation that comes to this theme is the reduce of greenhouse gas emmission from tailpipes cause to by the ecsecive use of cars in society . The passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emission in Europe what some peoples should say is't that much of greenhouse gas emission but believed or not it's and no body make sence of it that's why is an adventage the limiting cars usage in any place not just in one , because here in the Unite States is up to 50 persent in some car-intencive areas and that is someting to really worry about. Vauban , home to 5,500 recidents within a rectangular square mile ,may be the most advance experiment in low car suburban life.
David Goldberg , an official of transportation for america , a fast growing coalition of hungreds of groups in the United States ,who are promoting new communities thhat are less dependent on cars what is good in so many aspects less greenhouse gas emission ,more fisicly effors by people and less adiction to cars that is what society has now like Mr. Goldberg added :"How much you drive is as important as whether you have a hybrid." | 1 |
In American society today- and other countries also- it's safe to say that only a little bit more than half of teengers are wanting to get their driver's liscense. It is the same way with adults too. More people are choosing to move to smaller communities where shopping centers and restaraunts are a walking distance away. At first, it was all about just following the trend or a new law. Now people are realizing that not driving everywhere is benificial in more than one way.
In Europe, this trend is growing rapidly and has been for a few years now. Countries like Germany, Frace and Switzerland are examples of where a large percentage of their population don't drive cars. In Vauban, Germany it is against the law to park anywhere except for parking garages and if the car-owner purchases their own parking space, with a home also, for $40,000. "As a result, 70 percent of Vauban's families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here." ("In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars" P3). Greenhouse gas emissions are produced from 12% of car-owners in Europe. With less cars, it is said there the city has a less tense and/or stressful vibe to it, and the pollution level has decreased dramatically.
In America, the love for cars is not as strong anymore either. In April 2013 the number of miles driven per person was 9% lower than it was in January 1995, and 23% of people weren't driving between the years of 2001-2009. "In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency is promoting 'car reduced' communites, and legislators are are starting to act, if cautiously." ("In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars" P9). Though reducing the amount of cars being driven has a positive impact on the environment, it will have a negative impact on car indistries across the U.S.
Paris, France and Bogota, Columbia have prooved that having less car-owners has decreased pollution levels. In Bogota, there is a Day Without Cars where only public transportation is allowed. Citizens will suffer a $25 fine if they are driving their own car. Paris, France temporarilly banned driving, and if they were found driving a 22-euro fine was charged. Both countries saw immediate results in the ammount of smog in theit cities.
It is obvious that not owning a car or choosing to walk more than driving has effected places like Europe, America and South America in a positive way. As more people realize that limiting car usage is good for the environment and benificial to their everyday lives, less people will be driving and the world will slowly see start to see a change. | 2 |
Driverless cars are an amazing step forward in the technology field, but they are also a huge bump in the road for many drivers. Driverless cars are great, they make it easier for new drivers to drive, also cuts down on human activity so we can do something else instead of picking our spouse up from work. The problem with driverless cars is the fact that its driverless. The car is one huge computer but whatwould happen if the system glitxches while the cars in the middle of the road. would its brakes malfunction and stop working.? would the car just stop and cause a mass crash? Theyve installed systems in these cars to alert the driver when theyre needed, but that defeats the whole purpose of the car. Many things could happen with the absence of a driver.
To me a driverless car is pointless and could only be useful in very few circumstances. The point of a car is to make travel easier so you can get somewhere and do what it is you planned on doing. Why send your car to the grocery store if it cant get groceries.? A driverless car is a spectacular advancement but its one thats not needed. Hopefully next time theyll try installing conveyer belt sidewalks across the world. | 1 |
The details that the author is showing through this article are the most interesting thoughts on how we should explore venus more deeply. The main thought on why we should explore venus more is because it could be the next planet we could inhabit and survive on. Venus could open a new curiosity for humans to explore into and expand off of. Venus is one the planets that closely resembles earth in the most importnant type of ways.
Venus is one of the planets that us humans could live on and strive if we just learn better ways of living on it. As the author talks about how this planet is inhospitable mainly because of the temperatures and the atm on the surface of it. The author states " almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets venus". This is one of the challeneges we have to face in order to live on this planet and make this a better planet to live on and make one of the greatest achievements humans have done in a long time.
Planet Venus is one of the planets that could open the door to curiousity and new exploration. Venus is giving us new ideas by giving us a challenge to just even step a foot on it. The author states " Imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape". That is one of the many ideas we have came up with just by thinking of getting close to venus and trying to explore it indepthly.
This planet is one of which that closely resembles earth in the most important ways that scientists have ever seen. The planet has the most important features on its surface that closely resembles earth and it is like looking in a more acidic mirror. The author claims that " Today, Venus still has some features that are analogous to those of earth". This shows that Venus once had the features that earth did but a long time ago. Venus had many thing that closely resembles earth but something happened and now its kinda like a wasteland.
This planet had many features that could call it a twin ton earth but something happen and I don't know but it could be the next earth humans live on. This planet still has many things that we can explore but can't at this time period. Venus could also open new things to have been made towards this travel of this planet. This planet could show a lot of things in time. Only time could tell when we would able to step foot on this planet at least once. | 2 |
There are many positive ideas to the driverless cars of the future. Not having to drive, uses less gas and oil, and less crashes. Even though these are all good points to make about the driverless car, autonomously driving cars will not bring the driverless function untill the technology is available. If these driverless abilities malfuntion, people will get hurt with no idea if it was a driver or the computer had an issue. Alse, There will always have to be a driver alert for these cars to make the right decisions if there were to be crashes or construction sites.
The self driving vehicles of the future have many sensors and radars. This technology is not cheap in the current years. Yes, there is better technology than the year of 2000, but it will not be cheap to convert or buy a vehicle with all the sensors and laser beam radars. Companies will have to invest loads of money into this technology for it to become affordable. Maybe the company wants to spend that money but others will most likely not want to invest lots of money into driverless cars.
if the driverless car is put into production, the switching period will take many years for it to catch onto. There will be a mix of driverless cars and driver depedant cars. Like before, some companies will take longer to produce driverless cars than others. With this mix in cars that can drive themselves and cannot, there will be issues of liability with these issues. For example, if there were to be a crash with a driverless car and a regular car, who would know who was at fault? The driverless car will blame the manufacture and cause many unneeded court cases.
The cars today that have driverless like capabilities will need driver support. It is highly unlikey in the next year or so that they make a magical car that can drive itself through a constructionzone or a pileup on the freeway. There will need to be an alert driver to guide the car through these caution zones. There will need to be a huge leap in technology for that to happen and to fit this technology to everyday people's cars. This will cause the manufacture large sums of money for the production of this tech.
Driverless cars will indeed become reality. This may happen in 10 years or 50. The only thing to worry about this becomeing reality is the testing and the transition. Testing will happen on closed or maybe open streets. Also, the mix betweeen driverless cars and driver cars will bring the biggest problems in terms of liability. Untill this technology becomes readily available for consumer cars for an understandable price, there will always be a driver in the car having to steer for tricky situations and road hazzards. | 2 |
The use of Facial Action Coding System would not be needed to be use on students or evn at schools.For example, It would be a waste on money, we can already tell on how a person is feeling ,and the schools would have to get better computers because it wont be able to handle the program. Even though it looks like a good idea it would also be pointless .
To begin, all this programing and computers would be costing big bucks to the schools. Next, the schools would have to but the program and still have someone to install it. Futher on, They would have to pay someone to teach the studrents on how to use it ,and witch would been having to pay for that person . Lastly, the schools could use that money to fund classrooms for the students to have a better enviorment to learn.
Secondly , we can tell when someone is mad or sad , we dont need a computer to tell what a persons is feeling. This coud have school money. For example, in the passage it says "you can probably tell how a friend is feeling simply by the look on her face." Further on, even they said that by just a look at someones face you can tell what mood and feeling is. Lastly, its like we have our own program in our head.
Thrid of all, Going back to money the schools also would have to upgrade to better computers. According to the reading it says"Your home PC cant handle the complex algorithms used to decode Mona Lisa's smile." Further on, this means the school would have to get rid of the regular computers and install way more expensive ones. Lastly, the school might not afford one for each student to use at once, so whats the point.
What is the point of the program FACS ? We dont need to spend tons of money , we can just take a look at someone to figure out their fellings,and we have pretty good computers for just our needs. Yet the technolgy is getting better but should we let computers take over? | 3 |
In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus", it tells the reader about the challenges that there are for exploring Venus. It also talks about reasons why reseachers and scientist should not give up on the exploration of Venus. In the passage, the author supports his idea that Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers by explaining how the trip could be made safer, the technology that can be used, and the value of exploring the planet.
The author supports the idea that Venus is worth exploring by explaining and giving examples on how travelling to Venus could be made safer. In the article, it says "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." In other words, this proves how the trip to explore Venus can be made more safer. Furthermore, the author supports his idea by giving examples and explaining how the exploration of Venus can be safe.
Another way the author supports his idea is by explaining the techonlogy that can be used to explore Venus. In paragraph 7 of the article, it states "NASA is working on other approaches to studying Venus. For example, 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 shows how this type of technology can be used for the further exploration of Venus.
Lastly, another way that the author supports his idea is by explaining what the value would be if humans explore Venus. In the last paragraph of the article, it says "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 likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors." It also states "Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation." This proves what the value of exploring Venus would be for humans. In other words, the author supports his idea by explaining the opportunities and values of exploring Venus.
Furthermore, the author supports his idea that Venus is a worthly pursuit despite the dangers by explaining the travel safety, the technology that can be used, and the value of exploring Venus. The technology that humans have right now can bring so many opportunities, such as exploring new planets. These opportunities should be used now and not be on hold. | 3 |
Luke Bomberger is a Seagoing Cowboy that travels world wide to help horses, young cows, mules,and people after World War 2.
I'm Luke Bomberger a Seagoing I travel around the world to help animals like horses, young cows, mules ,and people after World War 2 destroyed most countries were left in ruins. I am now going around helping and trying to convince others to participate in the Seagoing Cowboys program. I start off in China helping others and animals while talking to the communtity to convince them that they should participate in this program because your not only helping people and animals but your also getting the unbelievable opportunity of seeing Europe and China! Even though the animals kept me busy I wasn't giving up convincing others that there is a amazing opportunity to help the damaged and runied spots and help animals out also letting them know that sometimes they can serve as a night watchman that job was to check up on the animals every hour. My last thing telling them was that you can also have fun on board, especially on return trips after the animals had been unloaded by playing games like baseball, volleyball, table-tennis tournaments, frncing, boxing, whitting to help pass time."But being a Seagoing Cowboy was much more than an adventure
I'll open up the world to you ,I'll make you more aware of people of other countries and their needs." I say to them.
That is how I Luke Bomberger set my mark on trying to convience others to become a Seagoing Cowboy to help animals, people, and to take the opportunity to see countries like Europe. Would want to become a Seagoing Cowboy? | 1 |
Dear state senator,
I strongly believe that we should get rid of the Electoral College, not only is it unfair to voters, but it lacks democratic pedigree.
Firstly, my honest opinion is that I stongly believe that we should get rid of the Electoral Colledge. It's very unfair to voters, and most of the time their votes hardly count. When voters vote, they don't really vote for the president, but for a slate of electors who elect the president. Awhile back in 1960, states sent two slates of electors to Congress, instead of one. Now is that really fair? Maybe it was a mistake, but I hardly doubt it. What if it happens again, it's very hard to trust these people. The electoral college is unfair to voters also because of the "winner-take-all" system in each state. What's wrong with this you may ask, well see candidates are very smart, and know what they are doing. They don't spend time in states they know have no chance at winning. 2000 was the worst, during the campaign, seventeen states didn't even see the candidates at all. Rhode Island, South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't see a single campaign ad.
Secondly, the Electoral Colledge lacks democratic pedigree. Democrats in Texas, or Republicans in California, really don't pay attention to the campaign because they know their vote will have no effect. If the president were picked by popular vote, not only would it be more fair and official, but people would take more intrest in voting. But, no voter's vote swings a national election. In 2012 about one-half of the American population did vote, but the difference is, is that they want to express a political preference, rather than others who think that a single vote may decide an election. In 2000, there was a dispute over the outcome of an Electorical College, it could happen again. The Electoral College method is not at all democratic in a modern sense. When you vote for a presidential candidate, you're actually voting for a slate of electors. See, it's not the people who elect the president, it's the electors who do. So how is that fair, basically your votes don't count toward anything and you're waisitng your time. Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFL-CIO all agreed on abolishing the electoral college, so why hasn't it happened yet?
I stongly believe that that the electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. It's very unfair to the voters, and it lacks democratic pedigree. The electoral college can cause many disputes, and arguments. Why not just get rid of them? I hope you read this, and understand where I'm coming from. | 3 |
"Driverless Cars Are Coming"
What do you think the world will be if the cars were driverless? Will there be more danger? Or, will this benefit us? There are many things that you can say about having driverless cars, some main things would be having that type of money for it, the different dangers that can occur, and as well on how it will benefit us, humans, and our lifestyle.
With all this technology advancing anytime soon there will be cars like these that will be driving themselves without having an actual person driving them and this is coming very quick. As said in the article, "Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. The road to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us, but we grow closer to the destination every day." That being said, anytime soon there will be vehicles that will be able to do all things imaginable things in a short amount of time. It is crazy how all of this technology is happening in this type of era, but it is exactly correct we grow closer to greatness every day and we sometimes do not even notice, until it happens.
Driverless Cars coming, there is also danger and percaution that comes along with is as well. That is something very important that people need to still take into consideration when buying cars like these and all the different effects it has. As stated in the article, " This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. This necessitates the car bing ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs." Therefore, as for the human driver will always have to be precaution about the different things that can happen, and as well as not to fully trust these driverless cars and all the different things it can portray.
Taking into deep considerarion, will these vehicles benefit us and the way we live now? Many people can say it will, and then there are people that will say no, it will not. Imagining how much money it will take to afford a driverless car is also something to think about as well. In the article it informs us about all the different things these vehicles can do, "They can steer, acclerate, and brake 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." As much as it says in the article how they are "driverless" they still do need humans when it comes to certain occasions. So in the end it is your personal prefrence about being able to please yourself with a fance vehicle like these.
Finally, what do you think the world will be like when these driverless cars come out? This world is growing in the world of technology there will always be different, exotic, marvalous, inventions that are coming and with all these crazy things so are the Driverless Cars Are Coming! | 3 |
So close, yet so far away. Venus, also known as the evening star or Earths twin is so close yet we know so little about it. Witch gives us all the reasons to find out more, after all wouldnt you want to know what your liveing by? In the artivcle " The Challenge of Exploring Venus" the auther has meny great points describeing why we need to know more about Venus, and why studying Venus is a worthy prusite despite the dangers that may come along with it.
In the article "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" the auther talks alot about why we need to explore Venus. He/she says how no humen has ever been to Venus and how it may be for the best because no space ship has lasted for more then a few hours on Venus. In the text the auther said," Numerous facotrs contribute to Venus's reputation as a challangeing planet for humans to study, despite its proxinity to us." The auther is saying how althow resrving Venus may be dangrous it is worth it to know more about the planet. The auther tells how NASA is working on differnt approaches to study Venus and how they are looking back on old technology called mechanical computurs, witched played a inportant role in the 1940s durning WW2, but was orginaly invented in the 1800s. The reason why they are thinking about useing mechnal computurs is because they are more resistant to pressure, heat, and other forces.
All together NASA is trying to find new ways to study this misterous planent that we live so close to. It may take years before we can truely study Venus but in the long run knowing more about Venus will positivly effect us just due to the fact that we know more about our surroundings and mabye one day, far into the feature we will find a place in Venus, a place where we can call home. | 2 |
I finally got everyones attention in the plaza, Now just to let them know.''Everyone can I have your attention! If anybody is looking for a decent job then please listen. I used to work for two jobs at the same time, but one day a friend came to me and said if I wanted to become a Seagoing Cowboy, Well you all might be thinking...well what in tarnation is a Seagoing Cowboy! Well let me explain, A Seagoing Cowboy is a person hired by the UNRRA (the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Adminastration). More than 40 Nations joined this.
What you will be doing is taking care of horses, young cows, and mules that are shipped overseas, we are doing this due to World War II. Some Countries were left in ruins and are low on the Stock Market. People, please join!!! You guys should join to HELP others. If you think traveling on a boat is boring, YOU ARE WRONG!!!! We play games on the ship. Trust me these games make the trip even faster! All we need to do is watch the cows and feed them. Pretty easy, People!
I hope you ALL want to join thihs program becuase just imagine if OUR Country was in Ruins, You all know that others will help us. So join now!!! I'm just going to say this now, THIS IS A BIG OPPORTUNITY!!! So if interested please let one of the cowboys know and once you let us know, you will become one too''! | 1 |
Humans have been curious about what is out beyond the sky for a long time. From ancient Greek and Roman astronomers who thought the Earth was the center of the universe, to Galielio who proved them wrong, humans have been wondering about what is truly out there amoung the heavens and the stars. In the "The Challenge of Exploring Venus", the author, despite the many harrowing "challenges" metioned, strongly and effectively supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit, calling to that innate human want to know.
One way he supports this endavor is through scientific logic. He cites how similar Venus is to earth saying, "Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size, and occasionally the closest in distance too". One of the best ways to support a point is through factual evidence. By making clear that Venusian exploration makes logical sense, the author strengthens his argument. The fact that Venus is Earth-like and at times very close distance wise to her, makes exploring Venus seem like the next logical step. This scientific backing gives the mission to know more about Venus crediblity and adds a sense of noblitiy, which makes it seem worthy. Without scientific backing it would seem like a far-fetched dream, unworthy of any time or effort.
The author also effectively supports the exploration of Venus through emotional means. He does this by dangling the possibility of life on Venus. He states,"Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life". It is basic human nature to want to not be alone. The want on community drives humans to great lengths to find others like them. Humans have and contiune to cross oceans, battle fields, and other challenging situations in order to not be by themselves. This pursuit for companionship extends to the exploration of Venus. Despite the temperature of Venus's surface being "over 800 degrees Fahernheit" and it having an "atmospheric pressure ... 90 times greater than [Earth's]" humans are still trying to think of ways to go there on the slim chance that there might be or might have been life there at one point. All in the hopes that humans might not be so alone in this grand universe. By tapping into the basic need and want to not be alone the author makes a strong case for the worthiness of Venusian exploration because many see the search for other life as noble cause and can relate with it.
Another way the author supports his point is by giving expamples of the progress already made and supplying hope. One of the "challenges" Venusian exploration faces is the weather on Venus. Venus has "eurpting vlocanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strkies". These condtions would frighten anyone. But to combat them, the author informs the reader about a possible solution proposed by NASA of a "blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape". In doing so, the author makes the problems seem easier to solve while at the same time providing hope through a possible solution. By showing that the exploration of Venus might indeed be possible that author is able reenforce the worthiness of pursuing Venus. The question changes from "Can it be done?" to "How should it be done?" which makes it seem like a worthy adventure. The author also give the pursuit hope by diplaying a possible way for it to actually happan. This can get people excited and add to the fervor and want to find out what Venus is really like.
Through the use of scientific logic, emotional motivation, and inspiring hope, the author of "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" is able to take an endavor that seems impossible and turn it into a worthy adventure that many can relate with and want to happen. The author taps into human curiousity and exploits it. In the same way the drive to explore the Moon enabled humans to reach new heights, so to does the author depict the study of Venus an epic mission, worthy of adverse challenges humans will face to accomplish it. | 5 |
In this story talks that mona lisa wants to invited a technology object thst can see people's emotions. And this is why mona lisa is trying to come up with technology object. But I disagree that she should not invited a technology object that can see peolpe's emotions. Someone people will say that they will feel worried that a technology object is see how their emotions feel like. Other thing is that people saying bad things to mona lisa that why she invited a technology object that allows to see emotions. And also mona lisa says that most people have trouble describing each of their facial trait. And also she wants to see if people are always happy or anger or their sad. And mona lisa thinks that it is good idea to come up with a technology object. She wants to see how people react to danger things in life. On the other their there is other doctor called Dr Huang that is trying to develop better ways to humans and computers and to communicate. And this doctor thinks that it is good idea to develop better ways for human people. But i also disagree with this doctor too. Because we can never changes people ways. We even can not make people's life make them in a better way. In conclusion I both disagree with this two people because we can never change develop people in better ways. Latest, is that we schould not invited a technology that we can see people's emotions. Because people will feel worried or get mad about inviting a technology object. | 0 |
On May 24,2001 NASA vikings 1 spacecraft was circling mars and snapped a photo of a strange human like face on mars. It just so happens its not actually a face. Scientists discovered that the face on mars was just a natural landform. Some people think aliens created the "face" on mars.
However, aliens did not create the face on mars. The face was a natural landform, scientists did tons of research on this face. At first the scientists thought the face on mars was just another Martian mesa. Once this face was captured on camera a few days later NASA revealed the face they took a picture of on mars. The face then was starred in a hollywood film, appeared in books, magazines and even radio talk shows.
When the scientists were researching the face on mars, like i said they thought it was just another Martian mesa, common enough around Cydonia, only this one had unusual shadows that made it look like an Egyptian Pharaoh. Many people make ridiculous assuotions, like how they think aliens created this face on mars, even though there can be human life on mars but those are just theorys people are making. Which is when everyone starts amking these assuptions and even make it look belivable that aliens could have possible made the "face on mars".
So aliens did not create this human like face on mars it was mostly just consquently mistaken to be one becuase it really is just huge rocks together just so happening to look like a face. | 2 |
Some people might think that the Face photograph taken from 1976 is an alien artifact, an alien monument, or an Egyptian Pharaoh. However the Face is in fact a natural landform or a Martian Mesa. A Martian mesa is common around Cydonia or the Red Planet.
The evidence that the Face is a natural landform is because the Face was found around Red Planet or the Cydonia that commonly have Martian mesa . Even though the Martian mesa looks like a face, it is actually a giant rock formation "which resembles a human head...formed by shawdows giving the illusion of eyes, nose, and mouth." Also, when the Face was taken again on April 5,1998, by Michael Malin and his Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) team with a ten times sharper camara compared to the origional Viking photos, it reveals that the Face was "no alien monument after all." Still, some doubt the picture of the Face because it was not in the right weather or angle. However, when Mars Global Surveyor took the picture of the face again at the right angle and weather, it revealed that the face was actually a Martian which is equivalent to a butte or mesa.
Some people might still think that the Face is an alien artifact, alien monument, or an Egyptian Pharaoh. However, the Mars Global Surveyor showed and provide evidence that the Face was a natural landform or a Martian Mesa that is common around the Red Planet. To sum it all up, the Face is a natural landform according to the evidence that the Mars Global Surveyor provided. | 2 |
Amazing, fun, extraordinary, this is what the cars of 2020 will be! Could you have a car that drive's by it's own? Can you even believe that some cars are driverless? I know it's hard to believe when i studied about this topic it was unbelievable at first, but then I started to get in the topic a little bit more and it got promising!
Unbelievable car ready for 2020? Well in the story it say's, " Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020." This is very promising and well i'm very anxious to have a car that is driverless! For me, I think driverless cars are very exciting and they would be very safe because humans wouldn't be driving them. one reason is because humans aren't perfect and they are alway's having accidents even in the more little thing! Google cofounder Sergey Brin say's," The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today's taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus."
It would be the best experience as drivers that we could ever have! Day by day technology is increasing in this world. They invent this driverless cars and later they are going to invent flying cars, it wouldn't really surprise me because of all the technology that the world has. People are increasing in knowledge and we're learning different stuff. Which is kind of interesting knowing how everything started, which i believe it was by God.
In conclusion, this driverless car idea is very promising and very realistic. It's going to be very fundamental because in the story it talks about the car is going to use half the fuel that taxis use which for the United States of America this would be very good savings! This idea is the best idea i've heard about cars because they care about the safety of the driver. So why not be anxious for a driverless car that's going to be ready in 2020! | 1 |
Did you know Venus is the second planet from our sun? Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size. Venus is simple to see from the distant but safe vantage point from Earth, it has proved a very challenging place to examine more closely. You will learn why Venus is worthy pursuit despite the dangers it present.
In the story " The Challenge of Exploring Venus" it talks about how the study of Venus is worthy to be studied despite the dangers of it. In the article is said "Venus still has some features that are analogous to those on Earth. The planet has surface valleys, mountains, and craters. Furthermore, recall that Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for planetary visit, a crucial consideration given the long frames of space travel"
This explains why the author suggest studying Venus would be worthy because it can help us in the future with space travel. It also says NASA is working on other approaches to study Venus. For example, some simplifed elecronics made of silicon caride have been tested in a chamber simulating the chaos of Venus's surface and has lasted three weeks in such conditions. There coming up with ideas to study Venus.
Other example thats shows why the author suggest that studying Venus is worthy. In the article is said " NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientist to float above the fray" This explains that scientist are trying different ideas to get closer to Venus. They want to see how it looks. They also want to send humans to go study Venus. In the text it said "Solar power would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth levels. Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans." This explains that it make be it may not be easy for us to send humans to Venus but they will survive. That is very good for us to send humans to study Venus.
The author most likely suggest that studying Venus is worthy because it can help us with space travel. Even though there are some dangers that it can present. It will be very exciting to see how other planet operates. Those are my reasons why the author suggest Venus is worthy to be study. | 2 |
In 2005, the number of miles driven in the United States peaked. All of those miles contributed to global warming by emitting green house gases. Germany, France, and Bogota have realized the effects of driving cars and are taking action. There are many advantages to limiting car usage.
Since the mid-1990's Bogota has has been celebrating The Day Without Cars. This program had millions of columbians hiking, biking, skating, or taking buses to the places they needed to go. Car-free day left the streets free of traffic jams. Once Bogota stated to reduce car usage, they replaced the narrow, uneven sidewalks with smooth, wide ones. Throughout the city new restaurants, shopping districts, and even parks and sports centers have bloomed. About 7 million people participated in Bogota's Car-free Day.
A city in Germany called Vauban has given up their cars. Vauban's streets are completely car-free. "70 percent of Vauban's families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here," says Elisabeth Rosenthal. Vauban is a growing trend in Europe and the Unites States. Since there are no cars in Vauban, stores were placed withing walking distance.
Paris, France banned driving due to smog. Robert Duffer states, "After days of near-record pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city." The car banning started on a Monday. Drivers who did not comply were fined 22-euros ($31). Nearly 4,000 drivers were fined and 27 people had their cars impounded. After five days of intensifying smog, congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France. However, citizens did complain about the inconvenience so exceptions were made for hybrids and plug-in cars. The smog cleared enough for the ruling French party to rescind the ban.
Barack Obama's goals to curb the United Sates' greenhouse gas emission unveiled last week and will make a shift in American behavior. Recent studies show that Americans are buying fewer cars and getting fewer licenses. Passanger 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. Limiting car usage has many advantages. The advantages include less greenhouse gasses, less smog, closer shopping areas, less traffic, and a healthier environment. | 1 |
I'm against having driverless cars because I don't think that driverless cars will ever work properly without getting into a wreck on its own. The cars wouldn't even be driverless because it would have to have a person turn them into and out of a driveway or dealing with complicated issues dealing with traffic. You're not just assisting a car you are driving the car still. It isn't 100% on its own on the road you would still have to help steer at certain spots. Therefore they can't be trusted because you could be approaching a stoplight that has a lot of traffic and then your car wouldn't stop you would have to stop it before it caused a wreck.
I would feel much more safe if I had just a regular, normal car that I could drive 100% of the time. The only safe car is a car that has a person in it and driving it. If it was a choice between the driver or the manufacturer I would definately say that it was the manufacturer because a good driver wouldn't wreck, or get injured. The car would though because a self driving car couldn't work and would cause way more wrecks than what there are now. Therefore I would never let a self driving car drive me around.
Like I said it wouldn't even be 100% on its own just the driving straight part of it. The car wouldn't be able to turn or go into traffic on its own, but a person can. That's why I'm against Driverless Cars and why I don't think that any of them would work. | 1 |
I think that driverless cars could be a good thing or a bad thing, but I think that the pros out weigh the cons. First of all the numbers of deaths and car accidents would be derastically decreased. If all the cars were automated you would have no human emotions getting in the way of driving and there would be very few mistakes made on the road.
Driverless cars are becoming safer and safer over the years. The article states that Google has had cars that could drive independendtly under specific conditions since 2009. It is now seven years since that point and the reliability and the safety of driverless cars has gone up. If we have driverless cars the roads would be much safer. There are some people that are driving to and from work very early or very late at night. Withought a doubt these people are suffering from sleep deprivation. These people have a higher chance of having a car accident then the rest of the poppulation. If cars were driverless then these people would not have to worry about driving. In later years, as technology advances, they might have the oppurtunity to relax and maybe sleep on the car ride home or to work.
Because of these arguments I think that driverless cars are a very real possibility. I think that people underestimate the power of the computer and what it can do. I would have more trust in a highly inteligent computer to drive me somewhere then a taxi driver. As long as technology continues to progress and evolve I think that within a few years there will be a few driverless cars in the mix with our normal traffic. | 2 |
Attention my fellow citizens, we should limit car usage because limiting car usage will release stress, reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes, and stop smog.
First, we should limit car usage because driving a car can be stressful. For example say you just got finished with a hard day of work and it was not the best day, You hop in your car and when you start to drive you look ahead and see a trafic jam. After working all day, getting in a car to wait hours and hours to get home is not peaceful or fun. Another example would be when you're on the road and the people around you are not driving safely. "When I had a car i was always tense. I'm much happeir this way," said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two.(In geram suburb life goes on, paragraph 3)
Not only does the usage of cars cause stress but it also causes greenhouse gas. The use of cars should be limitted because we could drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes. "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." (In geram suburb life goes on, paragraph 5) Using a car to get around is nice but isint living on earth better than driving a gas powered vehicle and slowly destroying the earth? "All of our development since World War II has been on the car, and that will have to change," said David Goldberg, an official of Transport for America.(P7)
Finally, We should limit the usage of cars because if we do we can stop smog. Smog is pollution that creates clouds all around and it is discusting and horrible for the earth. 'Bejing, China is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world."(Paris bans driving due to smog, Paragraph 14) After intensifying smog, congestion was down 60 percent and thats only after 5 days thats incredible!
All in all, we should limit car usage because if we can use cars less than we do, it will ease stress, reduce greenhouse gas, and finally clean the earth. What do you say, use your car less and get some exersize? Thanks for reading my fellow citizens. | 3 |
Technology. It surrounds us, it grows, it changes the world. A resent advancement in technology has been brought to locals attention. That is, driverless cars. A driverless car. It's been hypothetically promoted in movies and TV shows about the future and has always been a perfect idea in society's mind. However, is a driverless car better for our community or will it only cause chaos.
A car where no driver is required is simply amazing, or more so the idea of it. Yes, a driverless car would be more convinient for one, however, it sounds as if the driverless car would be more endangering than it would be convienient. A general satement supporting my position is that technology is simply not reliable one hundered percent of the time. It fails sometimes and to rely on such an invention to transfer one safely from one place to another is simply unreliable.
The meaning of the word driverless in this article is very misleading. In the article it cleary states that even if this invention were to take off and people did start to use it, a driver would still be needed for difficult obsticles. Obsticles such as construction and around accidents.
The article does mention alerts that would signal the driver but this system is inconvenient and not reliable. If a driver were to be asleep and did not respond to the signal fast enough, then what would happen? An accident could occur, an accident that cold have been easly avoided if a driver had been at the wheel. The manufacturer admits that issues like this are challenging but it interperets the fun in driving. However, wouldn't a person much rather be safe than to have
a mear minute of "fun"?
The law has recognized this problem and in some states it is not even legal to test drive these cars. In the text it brings up the queation of who is at fault in the state of an accident, the driver or the manufacturer? This question, I assume, will gain a majority of potential buyers and of course the laws attention. Changing laws for these cars would be difficult and timely. The liability in the case of an accident is very questionable and many people would disagree on the topic at hand.
Although automakers are still continuing their work the probability that they will fix the major issues are slim. The jeaprodization of a human's safety is a tremendous and most problematic issue with the invention itself. All error corrections aside, technology still, is never one hundered percent guaranteed to follow through. Human skill and knowledge is much more practical and better defined than technology when it comes down to it. | 3 |
today i will be writing an essay on this machine called FACS which stands for Facial Action Coding System it can read emotions from people in paintings and people that actually move it can tell you their emotions which i think is incredible in all but you can't just look at people's emotions without them knowing what your doing.
Most humans can already tell how our friends, family and other people are feeling just because we can look at them and tell how their feeling its as if we already knew hoow they felt just by the look on their face.
Everybody has an expression that shows how the feel each day a couple of genious's made an invention that changed the world it can tell you how a person is feeling in many different ways but they do it so everybody knows what they are feeling even though they might or might not know.
Everybody feels different emotions some might even be depressed because of maybe a loss of a family member or a best friend so might be angry because of many different things everybody have different emotions me i had depression for a long time and it took me a little bit to realize theres more to life than just sorrow or depression just move on and just try and find someone who makes me happy theres this girl that makes me happy we aren't dating but she gives me hope for the future as i said everybody is different.
So for my conclusion i think they should keep using the machine to study are feelings it may be helpful in the future so we know how to deal with it thank you for reading my essay. | 1 |
As cars become more involved in the technology world, the roads will become a dependable environment to get from point A to B without risking danger. The develpment of the driverless car is a postive advance in technology because of its ability to create a safe, comfortable and smart environment. With roof and wheel sensors, GPS receivers and in-car entertainment centers, self driving cars will save lives and the death rates of driving will decrease.
Driverlesscars will lower the driving death rates dramatically because of their sensors that detect sudden motion or objects near the veichle. The more the sensors advance, the more they are able to respond to danger in a way that is inhumanly possible. Once danger comes into play such as an out-of-control situation or a sudden skid, humans become less dependable to respond correctly in result of the stress they are put under in the rapid situation. The driverless car's ability to make motions based on its surroundings is a positive advance in the technology world because of how many lives it will save.
Deaths caused by texting and driving will also be reduced because of the entertainment systems the driverless car's manufacturers are installing. The entertainment system's ability to shut down once a driver needs to drive will create a safer environment rather than those who have the abiltity to text and drive in their manual driving cars. The heads-up displays in the driverless cars are an effective way to safe lives because it takes away the purpose of needing a cellphone.
As self driving cars become the norm they will also create a better future for drivers. The driverless car's advances add a positive light to the technology world with its high chance of making roads and highways safer for drivers and decreasing the driving death rates. If all of the features to the driverless cars are safety features, then the environment created for the driver will be impeccable. | 3 |
The authors supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers is that NASA is sending humans to study Venus and the difference between Earth and Venus. Humans cannot lived or survived the landing for a few hours. The planet for humans to study can not lived there because the planet is hot to lived for humans, it 800 degree Fahrenheit, and the clouds are sulfuric acid. The NASA want to see if it safe for humans to lived or not, and humans can study there or not. So, the travels on Earth should not go there for the dangers and doubts but should be safe here on Earth.
The difference between Earth and Venus is they are twin, closest planet to Earth, and there density and size. For example, Venus temperature is the highest than earth, "A thick atmosphhere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus." And "Venus temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what they experience on our own planet." This means that Venus temperature and atmosphere is hotter than Earth and 97 percent carbon dioxide. Another example for Venus is, "Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans." Probably today, Venus could have some features familiar to Earth like valleys, mountains, and craters.
The authors supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers is that NASA is sending humans to study Venus and the the diiference between Earth and Venus. Venus can be dangers to the humans. Humans curiosity can study for Venus but not actually going there because they would melted or dies in a minute or 2 minutes. | 1 |
In this article i am against the value of using technology to read students emotinal expressions , because most people hate being reminded that they are mad. When looking at a person u can tell if they mad sad or really down , and for technology to do that there is no reason we should have a computer knowing were mad, happy ,or anger .
In article 5 for instance you can probably tell how a freind is feeling simply by the look on there face as the article say. In this community today most people just look mean . As Dr. Huang perdicts most humans communication is nonverbal, including emotional coummication . But wen using a fake smile the mouth is streteched sideways . Nobody should use a fake smile just to caculate that they are happy.
The value of using technology to read students shoudlnt be approve , most kids get bored but know alot , but just dont wont to do it most kids shouldnt be read if they dont wont to be read . | 1 |
Earth is the third planet in our solar system , and the big rock we humans inhabit in todays time. Living on Earth, conditions are pretty good with inhabitable surface temperature, low atmospheric pressure, and breathable air. Our space neighbors, however, aren't so lucky. The two closest planets to Earth are Mars and Venus. Venus, however, is the most closely related to Earth is density and size, and distance in some cases. The only problem is that Venus has a very harsh landscape, and humans even fitted with the most capable technology wouldn't last very long . So,why should we study Venus if its one of the most dangerous neighbors you could ever have? The author who wrote this article claims that Venus's surface can reach over 800 degrees fahrenheit , and have an atmospheric pressure 90 times greater than Earths. The author emphazises, though, on the fact that Venus "may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system." The author then proceeds to elaborate on this, stating that Venus may have once covered with various lifeforms and may have been covered largely with oceans, and that studying Venus could solve some of the biggest planetary mysteries . Paragraph 4 states, "Today, Venus still has some planetary features analogous to those on Earth. The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters." The author then proceeds to state how The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has been exploring some ideas to send humans to Venus for studies. Paragraph 5 states, "Imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape... a vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly ground conditions by staying up and out of their way."
In Paragraph 8, the author then concludes with stating that , "meeting the challenge presented by Venus has value." The one thing the author did not clearly address in the article is why studying Venus' landscape would be benificial , and worth risking lives. The author states, "Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation." | 1 |
I am against letting computers drive for us. Computers are smart but they are not humans driving. If a compuer drives for you and you dont have enough time to grab the wheel or arent paying attention, you will end up in a crash. Humans are meant to drive not computers.
Another thing is that these cars that drive on their own need so many different sensors. What would happen if one of them came off?Would you car stop driving? Could it cause you to crash? These questions are very important because people could lose their lives.
The cars drive themselves to a certain extant. They don't drive through accidents or traffic. What is the use of a car that doesnt drive all the time. With the car not driving all the time , there is a greater chance of a wreck.People should just drive themselves it's much more safer that way.
Cars do not have the impulse we have;therefore,they would not know what to do if we were to lose control. They would simply stop controling the car. There are many reasons as to why you would crash or wreck. It just isnt safe.
My conclusion is that people should drive not computers. Computers do not have impulse and could easily malfunction. We are more safe driving ourselves than with a computer. Many things could go wrong with a computer. They could shut down or they could lose control. You just need to think about that. | 2 |
I am totally against driverless cars. It seems like a waste of our resources. Creating driverless cars can waste a lot of money too. The car isn't completely driverless , some help is still required. You'll also need to create new roads , so the car can pick up on the signals.
Creating driverless cars can waste a lot of money. Everything a car has now you'll need triple that amount. In the passage it states "they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply to expensive to be practical." Its so much that would have to go with those driverless cars. Plus cars like that the average person wont be able to afford it.
As stated before those cars aren't completely driverless. In the passage it states "they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues." Its things the driver has to do to key the car in the right direction. I don't believe that their would be a time where a car is completely driverless.
In conclusion, I think driverless cars are not safe. People should just stick to regualr normal driving cars. Getting a driverless car is just a form of being lazy. | 1 |
Just like the Google cofounder Sergey Brin, I too also visualize a future where cars just aren't much of a use to the world much anymore. I envision cats being used with less gas and being much more functional than other public transportation systems. Driverless cars were an option that was invented because the option of ideal roads were objectified, leaving only the option for smart cars. Smart cars perphaps are definitely seen as "Smart Cars" because they have apparent anneminities such as sensors that further promote the name of a "Smart Car." The spinning sensor on the roof of some smart cars is an ideal invention that is an important part of what makes a smart car smart. The combination of sensors allow the smart car to mimic the skill of a driverless car. Sensors have become more advanced allowing for a significant signal of apparent danger which in some cases is btweer than what a human can do alone. Sensors add for a safer and more productive car which has the qualities of keeping drivers and other passengers safe.
Smart Cars also have the capability of obtaining the antilock brakes. Sebastian Thurn believes that the technology of this generation compared to generations before us have come a long way, and that before Smart Cars, the was interesting qualities of cars we used before Smart Cars such as the absence of sensors, computers, and navigation.
The "Traffic Jam Assistant" was invented in 2013 which allowed the car to handle navigating at speeds higher than 25mph. This invention was a breakthrough, but also allowing for the driver to maintain control at all times. The "Traffic Jam Assistant" allows for the car to be capable of practically driving itself but also allows for the driver to take control in areas where humans are necessary for driving.
Cameras, drivers seats that vibrate when a vehicle is in danger, and flashing lights on windshields see all components that are possible to add to the already sustainable Smart Cars to make them more interesting, effective, and productive.
I feel that driverless cars would be a great addition to our society benefitting drivers in numerous ways. Smart Cars have sensors, antilock brakes, a built in Traffic Jam Assistant", and other anneminities such as cameras, vibrating drivers seats, and windshields with lights. These are all great contributions that would benefit drivers in numerous ways. | 2 |
Smog, acid rain, high carbondioxide levles, all of these things are due to pollution. In many contries the leaders have put a ban towards cars. Paris France, Vauban Germany, Bogota Colombia, and even the United States of America have/are thinking about putting a ban on cars or other transporting objects. Their are many advantages to limiting car usage; limiting pollutians in the air, saving money, and having a healthier life style.
Cars can cost a pretty penny espically if their new, and many low/middle class family's have trouble keeping up with the bills that come with a car. Car payments alone can run up to $300 a month. Then theirs insurance, and if your car happends to need a change of oil, or breaks theirs another 200-300 dollar payment. That's why people are starting to buy fewer and fewer cars each year. After the peek in 2005 car percheses have droped tramendiously, with less people deciding to get a license.
Not getting you license dosn't mean you cant get around, it just means that you have to find other means of transprotatin. Biking, walking, even riding on your skateboard can get you from point A to point B. Cars are bigining to become obsoliet, not being used in larg suberbs, or highly populated cities. People have started to walk to work and that has a large impact on health. With people having privet cars they dont feel the need to have phisical activity every day. This could be contrabuting to obeasity. With cars being out of mind people are starting to get exersize just by walking to work. Cars have also contrabuted to many deaths all over the world. With new technology comming out many drivers get distracted. Wether its talking on their phones, trying to pick up something thats' dropped in the back seat, or even trying to dig something out of your purse. Not all drivers are a fault tho, many other accidents happen because of padestrians not paying attention. These accidents could be prevented though, by just getting rid of the use of cars.
Passenger cars cause 12% of greenhouse gass admitions in europe, and up to 50% in some car-intensive areas in the Unites States. If we got rid of most privetly owned cars though, it world bring that pecentige down tramendously. In Paris the record high pollution finally had them pass a partial driving ban untill the thick smog cleard the city streets. congestion was down 60% in the streets of paris, and after 5 days of intensifying smog it had finally cleard.
Cars all over the world are slowly becoming less and less used. This could help the pollution, health and save money. these advantiges to getting rid of cars is going to become a topic thast we will talk alot about for ages, until cars become compleetly and totaly obsolite. | 3 |
Value of Face Action Coding Systems in Schools Today,
I believe that in some cases face recogniton in classrooms could be slightly valuable but overall I think that there would be more negative effects than positive effects when it comes to Face Action Coding on school computers. Some negative effects of the Face Action Coding System could be things like innacurate face readings, more difficult or ineffective way of learning, or minimization of comunication and decreased likelyhood of relationships between students and their teachers. These examples lead me to think that facial recognition is not important for schools to have for their students.
If the face coding software was inacurate, your work would be effected in ways you might not want it to be or you could come off a different way than you are really feeling. In the text it state that the software can detect if a person beomes confused or bored with something if you make a certan facial expression. Once this happens the information would get relayed back to your teacher so he or she can make ajustments for your assignment if needed, but what if the facial expression that was made was totally erellevant to your assignment. As I do assignments I sometimes think about other things and make facial expressons about my thoughts. Maybe the expression of confusion or bordum might cross my face and get relayed back to the teacher when the facial expression made was not made because of the assignment. These are examples of how facial recognition could be giving incorrect information back to teachers.
If the computer could tell ever emotion you had towards your assignment you would never need to actually communicate face to face with your teacher. The author shows in the text that as the emotions are detected, the teacher would give modifycations to the assignment without you even asking them to or asking for help. Most communication between teachers and students is done by asking questions about assignments and how they feel about something in the class. I believe that students should be able to speak face to face to the people assigning their work instead of turning away from most communication between students and teachers.
To me I can see the Facial Coding System effecting the learning of students. In the text it states that it can modify the assignmets just like a teacher would if it detects signs of being confused or bored. If a student is neither bored or confused but the computer detects that by their facial expression, then it could change the assinment even if the student didn't need the assignment changed. This would either give the student a break by making the assignmet too easy or it would push the student out of where they need to be by making the assignment harder. This would then effect how the student learns.
In conclusion, facial recogniton in classrooms will lead to more problems than it would help by bringing it into schools. I would rather share my emothions to a teacher when I felt the need to instead of a computer telling emotions back to my teacher that may be innacurate. I also would rather have a teacher giving me modified work so It would help me in learning. This is why I disagree with Facial Coding Systems in schools today. | 4 |
Venus is the second planet from our sun, its referred as earths twin. Venus is the closest planet to earth in terms of density, size and distance. Venus is one of the brightest stars in our solar system. Venus is easy to spot since its so bright.
But earth wants to study the plant to try to find life. Long ago Venus had oceans and maybe had life just like Earth. But now it's probably to dangerous and I can tell you why.
On Venus the temperature average 800 degrees fahrenheit and the pressure is 90 times greater than Earth. Earth sent mutiple spacecrafts to Venus but they only last about a few hours. Earth hasn't even had a single spaceship that touchdown on venus in over 3 decades. Venus has a thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide the blankets over Venus.
You may think why Earth wants to study Venus even though it's dangerous. If anything happens to Earth. Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary vist. | 1 |
Do i think that the Facial Action Coding system is valuable or not?
I do believe sometimes it may be valuable because some people and students or teachers may look at a student n not notice they are unhappy and if you use the technology the machine can tell weather if the student is upset or not throught their facial expressions. Yes it is truely easy to tell how someone is feeling through their facial expressions but sometimes people can't tell.
And some evidence from the articale to support my statement are "the computer constructs a 3-d computer model of the face"and also "ususing video imagery, the new emotion-recohnition software tracks these facial movements-in a real face". " the software can even identify mixed emotion" "a classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored".
And in conclusion those are all the reasons i think it is valuable to have technology called Facial Axtion Coding System and also it dosent really hurt to try because you have nothing to lose from it. | 1 |
Many people strongly believe that the face that has beem discovered on Mars was created by aliens. Others say it was just a natural landform that was unitentionally created to have the appearence of a face on Mars. NASA unveiled the image for all people to see. In that case, the image really convinced many people that the face was created by aliens. In fact, the face on Mars has even starred in movies, talk shows, and magazines. As a scientist, I strongly believe that the so called "unmasking face on Mars" was just a natural landform.
On April 5th, 1998, Mars Global Surveyor had flew over Cydonia and Michael Malin and his Mars Obiter Camera team snapped a picture that was ten times sharper than the original Viking photos. Thousands of anxious web surfers were waiting when the image first made it's appearence on a JPL web site, revealing that it was just a natural landform. There was no alien monument after all!
In conclusion, what was strongly beleived to be a human face that was created by aliens on Mars, turned out to be just another natural landform. | 1 |
FACS or Facial Action Coding System is a new technology that enables computers to identify human emotions so when they used it on the Mona Lisa it said that she was eighty three percent happy, nine percent disgusted, six percent fearfu, and two percent angy, in which I dont think is true. What I think about FACS is that we dont need it and that what is the point of using it when we can just figure it out our selfs. So for that I think that FACS is not needed and that it should have been invented for something else.
There are many resaons so why I think that FACS should have not been invented to figure out the emotions of pictures or humans. One reason is that they have to begin by making a 3-D model of the face in order to figure out the emotions which I think is a waste of time and the use of the 3-D printer and because all fourty four major mucles in the 3-D printed model must move like human mucles. Also it says in the first paragraph that when they found the emotions of the Mona Lisa that they say " at least according to some new computer software" which means that theya re not one hundred percent sure.
My second reasons is Dr. Paul Eckman has classified six basic emotions which are happiness, surprise. anger, disgust, fear, and sadness, but then Dr. Huang has said that the facial expressions for each emotion are universal which make the whole thing confusing because Dr. Eckman said six and Dr. Huang said that their are many more in those six which makes it more complex because they have to had figure out those other ones.
Another reason that I think that we can just uses our brain and eyes for find out there emotion or just tell them which is better that using a computer to figure that out. In the artical its says " Perhaps Dr. Huangs's emotion algorithms are different sort of " Da Vinci Code" which mean that they probable have not figured it out yet which can lead to having wrong answers.
In conclusion I think that FACS is a thing that we do not need because you have to go through many steps which can be a waste of time and also that they may have not completed to figure out all expressions which can be tough and because we have the ability to figure emotion out our self and not in need of a computer to help us. That is why I think that we can just use us and no computer because we have the ability to do what we can do. | 2 |
Twenty five years ago an enormous head almost two miles end to end has been seen to be staring back at the cameras from a region of the red planet called Cydonia. For some conspiracy theorists, they thought that it was a sign of life on Mars, or it may be from some kind of ancient civilization that was there millions of years ago. Some of them say it almost looks like the ancient egyption statues built on Earth.
Global Surveyor arrived at the Red Planet in September 1997, after the viking missions ended. Chief scientist explained "We felt this was important to taxpayers." So on April 5, 1998, when Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia, Mars Orbiter Camera snapped a picture ten times sharper than the original Viking photos. They've got new technology so now the picture has more detail in it, it even shows some rocks on the Mars surface. When the picture was released to the public, it was now revealed a natural landform, no sign of alian civilization or any type of mark.
Not everyone was satisfied with the Face being ruled a natural landform. Some say the camera on board Mars Global Surveyor had to look through clods to see the Face. Skeptics considered alien markings were hidden by the clouds. The Face is a very interesting much more can lay behind the discovery but as the Global Surveyor pass through it when it is all clear they take a picture that is very vlear for all to see. The extraordinary photo was the best photo they have ever taken of the face ruling it a natural landform.
The Face is a very popular among Hollywood films. It has appeared in books, magazines, radio talk shows, and more, It is truly a pop icon. SOme people think that that face a very good evidence for life on Mars. Evidence that NASA would rather hide, say conspiracy theorist, Meanwhile, defenders of the NASA budget would rather wish that there was an ancient civilization on Mars.
The Face resembles a human face like the statues in our ancient civilzation built by egyptians. Our ancient monuments are very and amazingly common to the Face. What if this was ancient civilization at its best. After the cloudless summer picture the world has ruled The Face a natural landform not ancient monument in any means, Some Skeptics still believe however. So as we go on there may be more discoveries that lay behind the monument maybe proof of ancient civilization. Mars is a very indistinctable place, NASA may stumble upon some proof that life beyond Earth exist. | 2 |
Dear Senator,
The electoral college was a perfect way of electing, in the 1900's. Now, we should be allowing the people of the United States decide who they want to be their president. Not only is this inequality, but it is decieving and unfair. I know people say "Life's unfair." and while it is, we should be doing our best to keep our country in line. We are already in a steep pile of debt. Obama has only made this worse. Why was he elected? Mostly because he is part of a minority. Inequality much?
U.S. citizens are being put to shame by every elector in the electoral college. We have the right to vote, for electors. And these electors barely ever follow suit. Not only do they stray from what the people want, they also take away our authority in the government. If we have the right to vote, then let us vote on wether or not to keep the electoral college. I'm pretty sure i'm not the only one who has these thoughts. I understand that I am simply a child and that you have no reason to listen to me, but if not me, listen to the rest of our country.
Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president.
(passage 2, paragraph 10) As stated by Bradford Plumer, we do not elect our president. If we did, Al Gore would have been our president in 2000. If all men are equal, then why are you choosing certain people over the U.S. population. It is utterly decieving to take our votes and throw them away, to make us think that our votes matter when they really don't. If this is who you want to choose our president, then don't have us vote.
Although people say that the electoral college takes away the chance of majority, that's how the system works. How do you think the president wins? They like to call it winner-takes-all. That is a nice way to put it. The president is decided by the majority of votes in the electoral college. What puts these electors above me? I am young, but I have a working mind just like my parents. Why do my parents votes get pushed to the side and ignored? The reason is because the U.S. is a lying and unfair country. They tell us that we are the ones who control the government, yet they put our own people above us.
America has been going downhill and that is all that will continue if we dont change something. Getting rid of the electoral college will allow us to prosper. Why listen to a young teenager? Well, I know how it feels to be put on the bottom of the ladder, even if you are the smartest. America knows what is best for us. Not a few people chosen in each state to represent what they themselves want. Let us choose the president once, and if it doesn't work out, then you can continue your way. Just remember, if you never shoot for the moon, you will never reach the stars. | 3 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.