full_text stringlengths 737 20.5k | score int64 0 5 |
|---|---|
Removing the Electoral College and instead using popular vote would be much more fair to the citizens. Instead of having a vote not matter at all in certain states that are always going to vote for the same party, we could have everyones voice be heard. There are cases where a canidate won the popular vote, but still had less electoral votes than their opponent. In 2000, Gore won the popular vote. This alone should be enough to put him in office. However, Bush won more electoral votes, and he was voted as president. It is clear who the majority of the US wanted as president, but the Electoral College interfered.
With the Electoral College system, instead of voting for a canidate, we are voting for someone to vote for the canidate. The people who are representing our votes don't have to vote for who we choose. The electors can vote for another canidate, one that their state didnt vote for. In 1960, people who were against John F. Kennedy almost replaced the electors in Louisiana with electors who would vote against JFK, no matter what their people vote for. This could have easily swung the votes and changed the outcome of that election.
"Perhaps the most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. In that case, the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives.." In this case, each state would have only one vote, which means a small state would have just as much of a vote as a big state, even if they have a much smaller population. | 2 |
In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile" they had a computer software they can tell how she was feeling when she took that picture. Prof. Thomas Huang, of the Beckman Institute ... Had created this software on detecting people on how feel when they take the picture.
The new software that they are making is getting better and better as the world goes on,like this new one"The facial expressions for each emotion are universal," so humans can a old picture of some wonder what they feeling was so take a picture then proof the faces scanner do te rest of the magic. Like they did on Mona Lisa.
On how to use the new software step 1 raise your lips at the corners of your mouth, step 2 then squint your eyes slightly,to produce wrinkling("crows's feet") at the corners of your eyes. step 3 Holding that, raise the outer parts of your cheeks up,toward your eyes u can do this at home and you can see how u where feeling that day and .
So we know that we can scan some face and pick up how they are feeling because of the muscle on your face can tell you everything you need to know about the person cause the software they just build tell you all about so next time you wanna see whats wrong with people you this new software they just invented.
In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile" we leared about a new software that can identifed on how you was feeling also u can go back into your old stuff and figure out how u was feeling too which is great cause no we get to know if people was lieing and stuff. This great new discoveres is going to changes lives in the long run. | 0 |
In this article "Making Mona Lisa Smile", the author describes how the FACS enables computers to identify humans emotions, but it isn't that reliable. For instance, you could look as happy as the sun, when the clouds are gone, but be so sad. We rely on technology to do all of these things for us, but computers are not always right. This is a really cool system, but I don't think it's 100% accurate. Some of us will rely on this system to see what their emotions are, but they can't actually tell. There are many advances in this article, that I can't really tell where the disadvantages are.
For example, us humans rely on all this technology when we could just figure it out ourselves. You can't rely on a computer to tell you your exact emotions. It's just like looking something up on the internet, coming to find out that it wasn't the right answer. The internet is not always right, there are many questions, and many wrong answers to those questions. So I don't think that the computer can tell yur emotions. That would be cool, but it wouldn't be right. You could be smiling so hard that your face is about to fall off, and even though it's the fakest smile, the computer would read it as happy.
Secondly, you could be so happy, but look like you're the most depressed person on earth, but the system isn't going to think that. The thing about this system is that we find it so satisfying, because "oh my gosh, a computer can tell my emotions!?", but the answer is no. We want to believe it's true, but in real life, I see the happiest people look so sad but they aren't. We see what the computer sees too. We can see what we look like, just like our computer can for this system.
Finally, if we can't tell what we are feeling, how is the computer going to? It's not. In the article, it tells you to look in the mirror, raise your lips at the corners of your mouth, then squint your eyes slightly to produce wrinkling at the corners of your eyes. then holding that, raise the outer parts of your cheeks up toward your eyes. After the it asks if the mirror can give you a suggestion of your emotion, or can your partner. Honestly, the answer for that is no, only you know how you're really feeling.
The FACS is not valuable for many reasons. Computers can't tell how you're feeling, nor can anyone else. Also, the internet is not always reliable, which it has gave people wrong answers. You could be so happy, but look like you're just a mess, and the computer wouldn't say you're as happy as you are. | 2 |
Driverless cars has been something that the movies have glorified and try to make popular. Driverless cars could be useful of you start to get lost or tired but your safety and well being is going to be at risk.
Driving is something that you can never be too careful about wether it is reckless driving, an animal running out into the road, or construction gone wrong. Today there are alot of dangers that come along with driving and that make it more dificuly for drivers to commute safetly.
Everything has it's pros and cons but in this situation there are more cons than pros. With a car that has a mind of its own you can never be too careful when it comes to your safety and well being and making sure you and everyone around you will be safe. First of all the cars will drive on their own and that might make you very tired and cause you to start to fall asleep, but the cars haven't been able yo drive through road damage, wrecks and there are alot of those everywhere and if your asleep you cant assist your car through the damage.
Driverless cars are most likely to be really small and in a small car you are more likely to get hurt in the case of a wreck.
There will be people to drive these cars but the car won't be a household car it will be the type of car that celebrities drive around and the price will probabily be through the roof.
Personally I dont think these cars would be a solid investment just for the simple fact its un realistic. There will be a select few to buy them but most of them will stick to the manual driving. | 2 |
The authors says that it is important to go to venus and explore. He feels that yes it is dangerous but he thinks we should push through that. because theyre will be alot to learn on venus. He shows this by saying all the dangers with going theyre. Then goes on why they should and go travel to venus to explore the planet.
He states that some importances of going to venus. Like along time ago it was probably the closest planet to earth. And that venus is the best optin to visit because it is close. He states thes things by saying." The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar feature such as valleys, mountains, and craters, furthermore.
He also states that " recall that venus can sometimes be our nearest option for planetary visits, a crucial consideration given the long time frames of space travel. He says the travel would be very neccesary for science that could learn alot of stuff if theyre were to go vist venus.
On the other hand theyre is alot of risk if they were to go there. That people could get hurt because pof the harsh elemenst on venus and the harsh terrain. He sates that by saying. " NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of venus would allow scientists to float above the fray. imangine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling venusian landscpe.
All in all he feels like venus would be a good planet to go explore. Because it was like earth at one time and still is. It will let us learn alot of stuff. He does understand the danger that will come with this mission. But he is ready to go through that danger. | 2 |
What do you think the face on Mars is? A natural landform or made by aliens? Most people think the so called "Face on Mars" is formed by aliens. I believe otherwise because, landforms on Earth are like that and these assumptions are made by conspircy theorist not by NASA officals. now here are my reasons.
The face on Mars is made by natural landforms and not by aliens. One thing of evience by a picture by Mars Global Surveyor, in paragraph 7 it says "...anxious web surfers we're waiting when the image first appeared on the JPL web site, revealing...a natural landform. There was no alien monument after all" That's a big piece of evidence that it's not made by aliens. Also, my second piece of evience that supports that the face on Mars is not made by aliens in paragraph 12 is "What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa-landforms common around the Amerian West". "It reminds me most of the Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho," says Garvin. "That's a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars." That's my first reason I believe that the face on Mars is landform made.
The fact that conspriacy theorist make the assumption of the face on Mars is made by aliens. You have to understand that those remakes are not all true they are just theories which is just provided by evience but, not always right. In paragraph 5 it says "Some people think the Face is bona fide evidence of like on Mars-evidencd that NASA woud rather hide, say conspiracy theroists." "meanwhile defenders of the NASA budget wish there was an ancient civilization on Mars." That evidence was never what NASA said that's conpiracy theorist said and it's not true. So, mark these words and think about your decision, i think you should change you're mind about the alien theory to a natural landform with this information.
The "Unmasking the Face on Mars" from the evidence is that it's a landfrom instead of aliens making these faces on Mars. Don't always go by what the internet or media says, go by what real experts say. Maybe, you people that think that it's made by aliens I hope my reasonings and evidence is strong enough to change you're mind. Now what do you think of my evidence did it change your mind? | 3 |
Dear State Senator,
The Electoral College process should be kept because of its many purposes and the fact that it was established for a reason since it's easy and simple and has absolutely no hassle for counting up the votes and adding up the individual votes made by the people of the state.
Since the electoral college process only consists of 538 electors that are selected, meeting of the electors who vote for the president and vuce president, and the counting of the electoral votes by the congress. This is a easy and simple process that causes no hassles since it has a sense of democracy and organization with it.
The electoral college process is very fair since which ever candidate running gets the majority of 270 electoral votes. It's a organized sysytem that doesn't base off of popularity which is fair because if you vote by popularity and have a president in office that everyone voted for but is running the country into the ground because of terrible reasoning and democracy the people and the states are to blame for voting for a president who wasn't guarnteed to keep his or her word about solving the country's problems.
The electoral college process does need a few tweaks here and there but that's something to take up to the president or congress. The electoral system needs fixes in place such as what would be good for the state and changing its laws and the system being able to work with the boundaries that certain states have with their own different voting process and its laws how the voting process works.
It may also need work on how the system supposed to work instead of voting for the people who will be in the electoral colleges to vote for the president you would like to vote for. The voice of the people should be heard instead of casted out by different state electors and representatives that may see his or her own views differently than the people of the state do. | 1 |
Car-Free Cities
The advantages of limiting car usage is extremely worth it, because the car brings stress to you and your not that social. Walking or jogging or riding a bike can increase your lack in your social life. Driving can increase the pollution in the air. In source 2 (Paris bans driving due to smog), Robert Duffer says "cold nights and warm days caused the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions." Also in source 1, Elisabeth Rosenthal states "while there have been efforts in the past two decades to make cities denser, and batter for walking, planners are now talking the concept to the suburbs... Vauban, home to 5,500 residents within a rectangular square mile, may be teh most advanced experiment in low-car suburban life."
Car-free day in Bogota is set to spread to other countries, a day millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work. This day has been going on for its 3rd straight year, violators faced a $25 fine. Reducing car usage helps stress and lowers air pollution. In source 1, (In german suburb, life goes on without cars) says "In this new approach, stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along some distant highway." Alot of places are seeming to want to reduce car usage, for the better of peoples daily lifes and the air source full of pollution.
In source 4, some people to the age 19-21 have no license or even asked for one even though they live in a place where it could come in handy, they are interested but its not a priority. Also "there has been a large drop in the percentage of 16- to 39- year olds getting a license, while older people are likely to retain their licenses as they age, Mr. Sivak's research has found." This section has also states "a study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009.."
At the end of source 4, "The end of car culture" it says.. "He proposed partnering with the telecommunications industry to create cities in which "pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and in prove safety." Having a car comes in handy but driving somewhere you could have walked to is pointless in gas and expecially gas prices you need to consider and it causes stress to the human mind. These 4 sources in text evidence have proven that cars and driving will cause stress and air pollition. To limit the air pollution and stress level of your life, start walking to close stores and communities that you may have to go too. Reduce your car/ driving use and maybe your stress level will be maintained by your way in how you choose to change how you live. | 2 |
Cars are used everyday, and all around the world. Car usage is one of the leading causes of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. There are great advantages of limiting car usage, such as it would take away the stress of driving, reduce air pollution, and promote more outdoor activity.
Reducing car usage is beneficial because it takes away the stress of driving. Driving comes with a lot of responsibility, and with responsibility comes stress. Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two states," When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier [not driving] this way"(Rosenthal). When people don't have to drive it takes a lot off them, they don't have to worry about parking, filling up their tank, or traffic jams. For excample, David Goldberg, an official of Transportation for America agrees that there needs to be a change in the way people depend on soley on cars for their main source of transportation. He says," All of our development since World War II has been centered on the car, and that will have to change"(Rosenthal). The more we limit the usage of cars the less tense everyone will be. So, limiting the car usage is very advantageous to everyone involved.
Limiting car usage is also has positive advantages on the environment, such as the reduction of air pollution. Cars are one of the main reasons why there is pollution. Author Robert Duffer says," Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after five-days of intensifying smog...[The smog] rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world"(Duffer). Fewer cars being used means that there is little pollution, and people are more likely to go outside and enjoy the non-polluted air. Carlos Arturo Plaza, a businessman said," It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"(Selsky). Limiting car usage is more than just beneficial to the environment, it is also beneficial for the community as well.
Not only does limiting usage of cars help reduce air pollution, it also helps promote more outdoor activity. | 2 |
In the article, "The Challenge of Exploring Venus", the author suggests that studying Venus is a great idea despite the dangers it calls for. Venus may be safe from Earth, but the closer you get, the more dangerous it is. Temperatures at Venus are averaged at over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than Earth's. These conditions are very extreme, but the curiousity of humans will go above and beyond to find out as much as they can.
NASA is working on some solutions to help people study Venus. Due to such hostile conditions, their idea is allowing scientists to float above the fray. By hovering over thirty or so miles above the Venusian landscape, it would help NASA avoid harsh ground conditions. Hovering over Venus would be survivable for humans, but it wouldn't be easy. The temperature would still be very toasty at 170 degrees Fahrenheit. Getting that close to Venus would help them get more insight on the planet, but most forms of light cannot penetrate the dense atmosphere, so the forms of photography and videography may not be effective.
Scientists are trying to think of a way to get up closer so they can gain more knowledge about Venus. Researchers are trying to engineer a design that would allow our machines to last long enough to better understand our knowledge of Venus. | 1 |
Are you looking for something to do in your life? If your are then you should join the Seagoing Cowboy program. At first you will have a meloncoly demeanor,but you will get use to traveling and being away from home. The animals you take care of will give you an exubernt feeling. Also, you will be able to vist many different places around the world. You will have alot of fun with to people you meet on the ship. We have alot of things you can do when you get off the ship like you can have fun by doing sports.
You will have to take care of animals from all over the world. You will have to feed them and make sure that they have water. You might have to be a little adacouis when you go and feed the animals. But, you will make them as happy as a person who got just what they want for Cristmas. And when you see them like this you will have an I -am - a - good -person felling. You will also have to help unload these animas off the ship onto the harbor. You will also have to clean up after them and after your self.
It will be a good experence for you. You will make new friends. You will learn how to take after your self. You will also learn how to take care of an animal. You will learn some new things. It will help you mature on taking care of your self. It will help you learn how to handle responce ability. Over all it will an opportunity of a life time for you. | 1 |
The author does not back their idea that studying Venus is worthy of pursuit. The author only has 3 paragraphs that supports their idea out of 8. The problem the author has is that there is not enough reason to go to venus besides curiosity.
The main things fighting against the authors point are how unhospitable it is on the surface of Venus and that the only reason we would go there is to say that we did go to the planets suface.
The second paragraph states "each previous mission was unmanned, and for good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours." The vary next paragraph then states "a thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus." This very same paragraph also says that the temperature on the planet is over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience onour own planet." The only thing that backs the author up is the three ideas they said could work in paragraphs 5, 7, and 8. The author states the reason for use to go to Venus is curiosity, but fails to tell us what the cost or the reward to fuel the want to go to Venus
The author does not give enough information to support their idea that studying Venus is rewarding enough with the many reasons the point to us using to much effort and resorces to get a good payout. The author does not give any facts that support their idea. That is why the author`s idea is not fesiblely supported by their effort to prove itself. | 2 |
Technology is becoming a bigger part of our lives. As time goes on, we develop new technology for different purposes. One such purpose is to read emotions. This technology will benefit our society in different ways, like in education. The technology to read students emotions is valuable to our schools.
The first way in which this technology is vaulable to schools is by improving lessons. Often times, many students of different calibers are thrust into the same classroom. While some grow bored others become confused by the content of the lesson. In the article, Dr. Huang is quoted saying, "A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored," and then "Then it could modify the lesson, like an effective human instructor. If we implemented this emotion recognition technology, we could help students of all levels grow and reach their potential.
Another reason why technology that can recognize emotions is vaulable in schools is because of fighting and bullying. In paragraphs three and four of the article, it discusses how the technology works and what it can do. It claims that it can dectect mixed emotions and even, in paragraph 8, detect fake smiling. This technology could be used to detect when students are angry and wanting to fight or even sad from being bullied. Teachers cannot always detect these things from students, especially if they are trying to hide them.
In addition to stopping fights and helping bullied students, this emotion recognition technology could assist in identifying students who have problematic home lives and need help. Although this would not always be 100% accurate, it could help faculty see those students who might be depressed or angry, and need help. This would aid in making schools a happier place. It could also negate problems that they could have later in life. Installing this technology in our schools would be highly beneficial.
Schools need the technology to read students emotions. It would fit in with other technological advancements that have improved our education system. Advances in technology helped to improve not just our education, but our overall lives. Numerous people in our world cannot live without technology. Technology is important to our society. | 3 |
The author presents a postive impact on driving because, driving will be safer with the smart cars. driving will be much easier with the smart cars, and people will have a better time driving.
Driving will be safer with the smart cars. In paragraph 5 the author states, "The imformation from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better responce and control than a human driver could manager alone." This statement from the author of the article shows that the smart cars sensors detect things faster than a human. Another example states, "There are sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor." After reading that statement it makes people feel safe being in a car that can basically detect everything around them.
Driving will be much easier with the smart cars. in paragraph 7 the writer states, "All of the cars are able to steer,accelerate and brake themselves." This statement is a big help to drivers who get tired of steering all the time when driving. The writer also states, "The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph." This would be great for drivers. It would help them get around town. Especially for people who live in small citys.
People will have a better time driving. In paragraph 8 it states, "Some manufactuers hope to bring fun to driving by bringing in entertainment and informational systems." This would make driving a lot better." Another example states, "Drivers will be ables to text now with the smart car while driving."
The author presents a postive impact on driving because, Driving will be safer with the smart cars. Driving will be much easier with the smart cars,
People will have a better time driving. | 2 |
The limiting of cars in our community can help us significantly reduce pollution, save money, and improve health.
To begin with, the amount of pollution caused by cars has dramatically effected the enviroment. Acording to the text the capital of France in only five days of car smog. The amount of smog riveled to the smog capital of the world Beijing, China. That was only five days of car smog. If we keep this up, the first the sky will turn black and then it will fall and world will end! Hopefully nobody wants the world to end because of smog. To reduce the amount of smog and pollution caused by cars we can all reduce the usege of our cars. Therfore, the limiting of cars can significantly reduce pollution.
Next, limiting cars can help us all save money. To illustrate, we all like that "Cash Money". And all cars need gas to work, and the funny thing about gas is it cost money; alot of money actually. So if the limited useage of cars happen then, is we save that "Cash Money". As you can see the reduction and limiting of cars can save us that "Cash Money".
Lastly, the limit of car useage can and will improve health by making people walk. You see people every where are getting over weight. So by makeing them walk or use other modes of transportation we can lose weight and improve health. Thus, the limiting the useage of cars can and will increase health.
To conclude, the limiting of cars in our community can help us significantly reduce pollution, save money, and improve health. | 2 |
Dear Senator
I am writing this letter to you to tell why i think we should change from Electoral College to election by popular vote. See the thing is Senator the Electoral College seems like a biais to me, its unfair to the people. Many Americans dont vote because they fair that that votes won't go to the right person because in truth and in facts when the American people vote they're not voting for who's to become president they vote for the electors and not knowing that the electors dont always vote for the same person the voted for so all Americans are doing is meaningless voting because they dont really have a choice they may think they voting for Obama and the electors voted for Romney. And thats why most Americans dont vote.
I feel it wouuld be best if all voting is done by popular vote , because either way all of the American people dont get a say in the voting rules but at least they know that there not being cheated.
Because when they vote by electoral college most states dont even get the chance to vote because its small or under populated , which is unfair not because you know a state is small and it might not make a difference doesn't means they dont have the right to vote its totally unfair. | 1 |
Many things on earth's surface have been formed based on other things. Not everything is made by someone or in this case aliens. To what the passage tells I think the Face was created by something other than an alien. There are many possible explanations to how it was formed or created.
One explanation on to how this was formed could simply be the weather. Throughout the years of the world, many landforms be been formed due to the weather and nothing else. The text tells of how scientists flew over to where the Face is located and clearly stated that this Face was a natural landform and that there was no monument made be aliens after all.
From what I have read and heard about mars, there is no such thing as life on that planet. Many may argue that there is such thing as aliens on mars and that they did create or form this landform. The text states that due to the time of season, skeptics may believe that alien markings were hidden by the haze. Little do they realize that with the technology the scientists could make the photo bigger to see closer in to what the face looked like up close and the markings or anything that surround the area of the Face.
In the last paragraph of the passage, the text states that this picture show the equivalence to a butte or mesa.
Also according to the text that there are landforms common to this one in the American West. On of the reaserchers, Jim Garvin states, "this landform reminds me most of the Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho." He also shares that that's a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height of as the Face on planet Mars. This clearly shows that this landform was not formed by aliens.
The paragraphs above show why I believe that the Face on planet Mars is not formed by aliens. | 3 |
The use of the new technology that can read emotional expressions would be good in classrooms because if you are doing work on the computer yit can scan your face too see if you are bored or happy. For the first example it woild improve the way students worked or if they are having a bad day it could scan there face and show like happy/positive things on the screen. Antother example is it will improve everyones attitude and some people could change.
For the first example If classrooms had this technology kids might start doing their work and they wont feel bored because if the computer read there expression they could make the work they have on the computer fun by making it into a game or like showing postive quotes or just outgoing stuff in general. From my experince work does get boring on the computer if you are there for a long period of time so this technology could help improve how kids work.
Another example would be how any persons attitude could always change if they are just in a happier mood. If any student is having a bad day and they are working on the computer this technology could scan this persons face and make them happier by putting good stuff on the screen. It could also cange how they act so for example in paragraph 6 it says "if a student is confused or bored it cold modify the lesson and make it fun so they arnt confused or bored".
Those are some reasons why this technology could help out in classrooms it could improve the way students learn and help them if they are sad, in a bad mood, or anything else. | 2 |
When you seen that face what did you first think of? There isnt a clear reasoning for natural landfrom. I believe that the Face is a symbol of aliens.
The pictures tell it all. They all change drasticly. And it looks as if the middle face the mouth is open, But the last one there isn't one.
Thats a sign. Someone is trying to talk and say something. And it isn't just a natural land form. That shows in the change in the second to third one.
What about weathering? That could have been that reasoning for happening.
Yes it could but weathering take hunderds to thousands of years so thats not possible between 25 years.
There is no right or wrong just yet but more reasoning pointing to non-natural landforming than there is alien civilazation. Reading the entire story was almost wasteful because i didn't need it for my claim. My thesis is still an ancient alien civilization. | 0 |
The Dangers of Venus
Venus is the second planet from the sun. The surface temperature is over 800 degrees Fahrenhiet. In that's a fact. Venus has a thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. The planet is simple to see from the distant but safe vantage point of Earth.
Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system. On the plante's surface temperature is average is over 800 degrees Fahrenhiet. A human wouldn't survive there. It's extremely hot.This is why spacecraft don't last a few hours on Venus. The planet is just like walking on lava and it's dangerous and hard for scientist to study. Scientist can't take samples of rocks gas, or anything else from Venus surface cause of the heat.
In the article it says, "No spacecraft survived the landing from more than a few hours. Maybe this issue expains why not a single spaceship has touched down on Venus in more than three decades.", meaning Venus is a chanllenge planet that the scientist are studying. It also means spacecrafts can't last and there reseach is difficult. In Venusian geology and weather they go through impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes.
The challenge is presented by Venus solar power it would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth levels. Not easy conditions, survivable for humans. Human curiosity should not be lmited by dangers and doubts, but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and novation. | 2 |
In the article "Making Mona Lisa smile"
talks about how they have a new system and it can detect how a person is feeling. This new tecnology can be very helpful for students. I believe it can be helpful to students because there are some people who feel depressed and it is complicated to tell if they are happy, depressed, or angry.
This can help students and adults to see how they are actually feeling because some people don't even know how they feel. Some students might say "that computer doesn't know how I feel" but the computer FACS(Facial Action Coding System) comes from a good sorce. The people who created "FACS" were Thomas Huang and Prof. Thomas Huang was from the Beckman institute fo advance at the University of Illinos working woth Prof. Therefore, they the system "FACS" is a trust worthy computer to identify your emotions.
This system can help students with their lifes. To demonstrate, in paragrapg 3 it states "Eckman classified six basic emotions happyiness,suprised, anger, disgusted, fear,and sadness." when a student is feeling depressed (no students should feel like that) a teacher doesn't know how the student is feeling out of the six basic emotions that Eckman descrided. Thus, the system will help teachers know how the student is feeling ;and if the student is not feeling good the teacher or the adult can ask why are they feeling that way and build a conection or a bond with the students.
Teachers can find this system useful because when they are teaching they can see if their students are confused or bored. To illastrate, in paragraph 4 it states " Using video imagery, the new emotion-recognition software tracks these facial movements" which means that using video or images is a new way to find out how people are feeling. Therefore, teachers can see how their students are feeling and see if their class is boring or not and they can see if their stuents are learning anything. This is an example of how this new system can help students and teachers.
All of these are examples of how this system "FACS" can help students and that is is valuable. | 2 |
After reading "Driverless Cars Are Coming" I began to think it was a good idea to have driverless cars. After going back and re-reading the article i dont think that so much anymore. Let me start by saying that this seems like a not too bad idea, but i have things to support that its a bad idea as well. Cars thst can drive by themselves cool ! Here's what i thought didnt make sense, Its a car that drives by its self but you have to be in there also watching the road. I thought that was a waste of an invention. A driverless car shouldn't have to be watched after by a human. The name says it all DRIVERLESS CAR. If really a "driverless car" than why also watch the road ?
Here are some details from the story supporting why i feel this way. In paragraph 7 the author talks about the car " They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills" clearly we see here that these cars require human skills or techniques. Not a so "Driverless" car after all, in my opinion. If we continue reading it also says " The human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires". In my opinion if you have to watch the road no matter what, than you should just drive the car yourself insted. This car requires us to still not be destracted watch and the road i would get bored of waiting and would just want to drive the car my self, wouldn't you ?
Finally i want to conclude by saying I would not buy a car like this. I would not buy a car like this beacuse there would be no point of being inside a car that you would have to watch after but not do anything. Driverless cars would be cool, if in fact they would be driver less. Overall this idea is not bad just not ready enough to come true. I am against this idead beacuse of this. | 2 |
Knowing how people feels can be very helpful. Knowing what to do or what to say, comes from that the fact that, we know who i in the bad mood or even in a good mood. The technology might be advance today, but in today's world, it can't tell us, as humans, how we truly feel. Technology isn't as good as it seems.
"In fact, we humans perform this impressive 'calculation' every day" (Par. 5) We, as humans, know that we can do anything we wish upon to do, if we tried hard enough. We, as the people, have different emotions when it comes to similar problems. We, sometimes, don't know exactly what to do when it comes down to some problems that is being thrown at us.
In some useful ways, technology may be helpful, but in other cases, it's really not at all. I do agree, that, technology can be helpful in reserached things, but when it comes down to just verify what humans think, know, etc., it's not very resourceful. I'm against techonology telling us how we feel, because it could be false. Life should be known to be unique and different, not the same and being turn out to be something we not. | 1 |
Cars nowadays are a big part of our lifes, they take us to where we need to go and help us go to far away places. Even though cars are important in our lifes, there are alot of advantages to limited car usage. Some places such as VAUBAN, Germany have given up their cars. "Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two places to park--large garages at the edge of the development, where car-owner buys a space, for $40,000, along with a home." This results in less people owning or having cars and reducing green house gas emissions from tailpipes. "Passangers cars are responsible for 12 percent of green house gass emmissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some car-intensive areas in the United States" (source 1). Private ownership of cars are slowly choking our cities, if we limit our car usage little by little it may have a huge effect in our ecosystem.
In continuation, there have been situations where the air pollution got so bad that they had to ban driving so they could clear the air. For example in Paris, "after days of near-record pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of global city"(source 2). The drivers were fined a 22-euro fine if they did not leave their cars at home. In the end the smog cleared and the French party recinded the ban for odd-numbered plates. This is one of the many examples that proves that just by having less cars driving around it eventually changes the way the atmosphere looks and cleans the atmosphere a little.
Smog is a sign of high air pollution, it indicates that the air is not healthy and this can be harmful to our enviroment. "It was the third straight year cars have been banned with only buses and taxis permitted for the Day Without Cars in this capital city of 7 million. The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog." As indicated in the passage(source 3), "Car-free day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota", just one day without cars can reduce smog imagine if we go weeks without a huge number of cars driving around. This idea might sound crazy to some people but it has suprisingly helped the enviroment. This however is not the only advantage of reducing car usage. Some other advantages are that if we go to our jobs in a bike everyday or just go for a walk instead of a drive we are also being more productive and active, hence making us healthier.
Although some people might find leaving their cars behind is a bad idea, studies have shown that people who do so gets used to the idea and find less reason to resume the habit of car commuting. For example instead of driving to the beach we should ride our bikes or take public busses to get there. Without cars we learn to appreciate the beauty of nature more and notice things about the place were we live that we have never seen before. I have came to notice that when you are driving you really dont notice things because you are to busy focusing on the road, but when u have a walk around your neighborhood or anywhere for that matter you see things you have never noticed before and you leaarn to appreciate nature more. The idea of leaving our cars behind is hard for some people, but if you think about the effect it will have on the enviroment it is worth it.
In conclusion, car-free cities might sound like a joke to some people but it is helping out in clensing our enviroment increasingly. As indicated in the passage, "The End Of Car Culture", "If the pattern persists--and many sociologists believe it will--it will have beneficial implications for carbon emmissions and the enviroment, since transportation is the second largest source of Americas emissions, just behind power plants." We are responsible for how our enviroment is going to look like in the future years, wouldnt it be better for it to look like a beautiful clear sunny day or a foggy grey fuss? Quiting a habit like driving is very hard but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. | 3 |
One reson to join this program is that you get to travel around the world to help people. Think about all the families that don't have a place to live anymore because of a war or big storms. Think about the childrens' education and health. The families that work so hard for their kids. If you were in that position right now you would want someone to help you. All of these people hope to have someone save them. Things will get better for them if you just sign up for this program.
Another reason to do this is that you can play games and visit places where you never been before. Maybe you can visit China and go see amazing artifacts. You can visit some castles and go on a tour. Go to Venice, Italy and taking a gondola ride. You might be lucky enough to go to Greece and see the Acropolis.
If you want to join this program you can. Think about all the people you can help. People will look up to you for joining this program. This program will benifit your life and others. You will be thanked by many people. Think about all of this and join this program. | 1 |
The Electoral College is a place. In the passage, they are deciding wether or not to abolish the Electoral College. It was originally made as a compromise in the election process for a new president.
Based on the information given in this passage, the Electoral College should be kept. It makes it easier to decide on a new president. The normal citizens vote for who they want, then those vote go to the electors. Those electors then vote for who they think should be president. If the Electoral College is abolished, then it would become way more diificult to decide on a new president .
Although over sixty percent of citizens want a direct vote, it still has its upsides. For example, the Electoral College is widely regarded as an anachronism. Each state selects a group of their own voters to decide on the next president. Using the Electoral College, this is a certainty of outcome. The winner-take-all method froces candidates to focus on not only the large states, but also the smaller ones. The Electoral College also helps to avoid run-off elections.
In short, the Electoral College should not be abolished, because it makes the voting process much easier. | 1 |
This face on mars? Not exactly a sign of aleins. We can prove it. How you might ask? Well its simple if it were made by inteligent creaters would it probably still be ther. Well yes it would. Unless it were like a carnival and it travled around. But it was a giant rock. In this paper im going to prove to you that this face was not made by "aliens".
Twenty five years ago we found what looked like a face on mars. We didnt know if this were something caused by aliens or just something that was natural. Well that was untill we came back to take more pictures of this so called "face". We came back around twenty two years later. Just to find out we caught the face at the right time when we took the first picture. We found out the picture was takin in winter on the planet and it was a cloudy day.
But it has to be alein life form that created this. They can easely destroy what they make. us humans do it all the time. And why would you guys at NASA put something like this out in the world for people to see? If it wasnt real life on anouther planet. Do you like playing games with us.
So we also know that there is no life on mars because we have cameras that can capture the smallest of sheds. On camera so if we saw a little house on the camera we would think there is life on this plante for sure(11). at NASA we didnt know exactly what caused that face at the time. We realeased it so we could sow you guys we may have found something. Now we have proven that we didnt find anything. We can also tell you the "Aliens" didnt destroy anything because this rock is still there.
This artilcle was givin to you to prove that aliens didnt cause this "face". We know that there are no aliens on mars. Here in 2016 we have rovers up on mars we know nothing is up there. I was using the article to prove my theroy up above. and how could you think that a giant face is caused by aliens? People. I dont know what goes through there mind sometimes. So Thank you for reading and have a nice day.
"Proof"
By: PROPER_NAME. | 2 |
The development of driverless cars has been going on quite some time now. I think that since they have already wasted all this time and money trying to build a self driven they should keep on working and trying to build a car that is completely 100% self driven. There are many positive aspects of having a self driven car, but there are also some negative aspects.
One of the positive aspects of having a self driven car is you would no longer have to suffer trying to stay awake on long car trips. You could just set the destination for your car climb in the backseat and take a long nap until you reach your destination. Or you could watch a movie until you get there. Another positive aspect is you would be able to text while the car is driving. You would be able to do that because the car is driving itself so you don't have to have your eyes on the road the entire trip. One of the most positive aspects of a self driven car is there would most likely be a large decline in car accidents. If there's a decline in car accidents that would also mean there would be a decline in deaths because of car crashes.
Now for the negative aspects. One of the negative aspects of a self driven car is there would have to be a ton of law changes. The laws would need to change because like the passage said "traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times". Because of that most states don't allow self driven cars to even be tested. That is one law that would need changed because if you continue to develop the car and its still illegal to drive then you have just wasted a lot of time and money to make a car you can't drive. Another negative aspect is someone "driving" a self driven car and they get in an accident and someone gets hurt, who should be at fault, the driver or the person who made the vehicle? Another negative aspect is that the car still isn't 100% self driven. The human in the vehicle still has to take control sometimes to navigate through certain situations.
Like I said in the beginning there are both positive and negative aspects of a self driven car. I think they should continue to develop the car because it could be very useful in the future. With that being said I don't think I would ever want to own one because I like to be in control of my vehicle, but I would like to test one out someday. | 3 |
In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile" the author describes how a new technology called the Facial Action Coding System enables computers to idenify human emotions. Yes I agree that the use of this technology to read the emotinal expressions of people and students because some people are scared to show they fears and even things that borther them.
In the Text "Making Mona Lisa Smile"
I notied alot of vaulid points and and good reasoning behind the idea of the Human Emotion things I feel as if it would slove promblems around and help people thats suffuring from addiciton, depression "happiness, anger, disgust, fear, sadness" and other things that they are going threw . It will help out wsith people that dont like speaking up or that is swcared of what other people will think or say about them if they ask for help or even reach out for help. And ill support my answer with "A Classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored". and " Most human communcation is nonverbal, including emotional communcation."
My conculsion for the text is that they should not only be in school it should be in hospitals , schools, and places that deal with clients of common emotion problem or even health . | 1 |
I believe that he's saying the truth in some parts. He is correct in how we can get to places safer. Im going to tell you why it's a bad thing to have smater cars, driveing less,sensing the world. Also my conclusion on what i think why this is a bad thing.
I feel like having smater cars is nice but at the same time its not. Have you thought of, what if the car doesnt funtion the way its suppose to and it causes an acident. Also what if you command it to take you some where and it gets you lost. What if the police tries to pull you over and the car doesnt stop.
Im going to talk on why driveing less is bad. Well for 1 reason when you are kind of stress you can go out for a drive to distract yourself for a little. Also if we wont be able to drive as much people won't like that because they like to control the car while driving. Also like if you want to take somone on a date it wont be as romantic as if it is for you to drive.
Im going to talk how it wont work for part of the world sensing the world. First of all some people are poor and they wont be able to afford a smart car. Second of all there's people the like to be able to control the car rather than driveing less. Also its very expensive for the people to put new roads and that means the taxes are going to be higher.
In conclusion i think we should stick to normal cars. Its to much money to do all that. Also its going to be a waist of time if it doesnt work and a waist of money. I feel like we should be able to control the car because you dont know what can happen. Also its a way to get out of the house if your stressed . Also not every one will be able to get a smart car. | 1 |
While the idea of a computer being able to reconize the emotions of sudents in the classroom is an intresting one, it simply wouldn't work well enough when put into action.
When it tells of how it could modify the lesson when it recognizes a student becoming bored sounds reasonable, when you think about it, having a computer changing a lesson simply due to possibly a single student becoming bored with it, would not only make the lesson longer, but maybe even worse off than it might've been.
There is also te question of what if the computer gets something wrong or has a glitch? what if it accedentily misinterpruts sadness as anger for example. Not only will this cause a plethera of complications, it may also lead to the computer making other mistakes in the process.
While it is an intresting idea, it really needs to be utterly perfect in every way or else it could cause many problems. | 1 |
Dear State Senator,
I am arguing in favor of changing the electorol college to election by popular vote for the preesident of the united states. Over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have know. Basically, in this process, voters vote not for the president, but for a state of electors, who in turn elect the president. The electors could be anyone not holding public offifce. Voters cant always control whom their electors vote for. Voters sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate.
A tie in the nationwide electoral vote is possible because the total number of votes, 538, is an even number. It is highly unlikely but one day if we dont change this, it will happen. in 1960, Hawaii sent two electors to congress, it could of ended in a disaster, luckily vice president Richard Nixon validated only his opponents electors. If their ever happened to be a tie, each state would only cast one vote, so it is not fair that say Wyoming would get as much as California which has seven times the amount of voters Wyoming has.
The election is only a few swing voters away from catastrophe. Candidates dont spend much time in states they know they have no chance of winning. During the campaign in 2000, 17 states didnt see the candidates at all, and voters didnt get to see a campaign ad. The best arguments in favor of it are mostly without much basis in reality. Abolish the electoral college! | 2 |
Seagoing Cowboys
There is some many reasons why you should join the Seagoing Cowboys program.
1 You get to see really unique places. So many countries that you have never seen in your life.
2 If you join you get to help out people, who need help and you will be like a angle to them and others.
3 You get to take care of animals, you do that every day then it will be easy for you.
4 When you travel there it is harder, but when you come back it so much easyer. Because all the animals are off the boats, and you get to play games and other things.
5 Being a Seagoing Cowboy was more than that to other people, you help them out and you get to have fun, it openes the world for you and others.
6 You now know more about Seagoing Cowboys, after reading this articl that it is all not you it is you and others. | 1 |
Unmasking the Face on Mars is a good way to figure out how and why the face is there. People think it was a type of form of aliens but it wasn't it was put there for attention on the planet mars. NASA wants to hide the fact that they came up with the whole idea of putting attention on mars,and making the whole "research" fake and all a lie.
The face is a natural landform because it was there to draw attention to mars which it did. "The author's reasoned it would be a good way to engage the public and attract attention to mars which it certainly did". The face on Mars became a pop up icon. It starred in hollywood films, books,magazines, radio talk shows, even haunted grocery store checkout lines. Evidence that NASA would rather hide, say conspiracy theorists. Meanwhile, defenders of the NASA budget wish there was an ancient civilization on Mars.
That's how the face and why the face showed up on mars. It was not any form of aliens. NASA wanted to bring attention to the planet mars,which they did by saying that the face was form of aliens. There was no type of aliens involved, but attention from public was given and all eyes was on NASA and the planet Mars. NASA tried to hide it and it seem as if it didn't work. | 1 |
In the story, "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" the author talks about what Venus is like and what NASA needs to do to get a machine on Venus so they can study it despite Venus's harsh conditions. Venus has a surface temperature of 800 degrees Fahrenheit and the atomspheric pressure is 90 times greater then earth. That being said, the goal to get to Venus is still highly influenced because their are so many upsides. The author did a excellent job explaining how this trip is a worthy pursuit.
One upside to this trip if it works, is Venus is the closest planet to earth in terms of density and size, occasionally the closest in distance too. A example the author used on why its a worthy pursuit is, "Venus is the most earth-like planet n are solar system. Today, Venus still has some features that are analogous to those on Eath." The author is saying that we need to keep exploring no matter how hard it may be. Venus is the closest thing to eath that their is. Maybe one day people can live on this planet.
In conclusion, making a trip to Venus, whether flying above it or landing on it is going to be a major challenge. NASA is already making incredible strides in making a machine that can withold Venus's conditions. As of right now all NASA wants to do is land on Venus or fly above it and grab a few samples off of Venus and go test it. The author did a great job of explaining why it is so important to pursue going to Venus. The author gave many advantages of the trip and disadvantges of the trip. | 2 |
Venus is a challenging plant to explore but who doesn't like a challenge. However Venus
is the second plant
from our sun which makes it a little challenging to expoler. but also Venus nickname is a evening star becuase of it bright light points in the night sky. Now why
wouldn't you want to explore Venus?
Venus is Earth twin because of the camparison about how the size and density are the same. also that Venus it the closest to the earth. Venus speed is different from the Earth because of how the Earth, and Mars orbit around the sun sometimes the earth gets more closer to Mars than to venus which causes the speed difference. Venus is sometimes right around the corner in space. So our NASA friends had sent several spaecarfts to land on venus which none of the survived execpt for a few hours or some didn't even make it. but it also makes Venus more interesting to explore the plant and how to make the spacecarft last longer then a few hours.
The NASA sent somes humans to study Venus about their hostile conditions on their surface by hovering or a ship orbiting over Venus. Venus limited the ship to insight the grounds conditions so they wouldn't get rocks, gas, or anthing else from distance. so the scientists are trying to seek conduct mission to understand Venus but there are risk they have to take but they are not go to think of them as risk but challenges.
NASA is working on study Venus by building the ships to last for three weeks or more. so they are looking back at their own old mechanical computers and trying to fix what they did
wrong. They can now build
ships that flexible, powerful, quick, and they can handle the strong physcial conditions down there.
Venus is a challenging plant to explore but who doesn't like a challenge espcially when they came up with more ideas and built better ship to explore Venus. Venus has this curiostiy about it so i dont see why wouldn't want to explore Venus even if there challenges you have to face. | 2 |
The face wasnt designed by aliens. There isnt any proof that alienseven exsist. The face is an illusion, you have to catch it at the right angle because if you catch it at another angle you ont be able to see it. You can see that aliens didnt make it because when they took the picture in 1998 you couldnt really see the face, but in 2001 you could see it 3 times better than the first one. When taking pictures you always have to get the right angle because either something gets left out or something dosent shows up. If there were any aliens we would have seen them due to the fact that we have spacecrafts taking pictures of it and we have been on the planet ourselves. If aliens did make it why are we just noticing it why didnt we notice it the other times. or better than that why havent we seen any aliens working on it. If aliens did do it why is that the only thing they made why havent they made other things why just a face? We all know that aliens dosent exsist so stop saying that until we have evidence that aliens exsist. | 1 |
This article is at the "The challenge of Exploring
Venus."
"Evening Star" this article state in, venus is one of the brightest points of light in the night sky,making it simple for even an amateur stargazer to spot.
"Twin" this article state in, venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size, and occasionally the closest in distance too.
"The venus blanked." The article state in the venus atmospere have almost of 97 percent of carbon dioxide.
"Venus surface." the article state on the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greateer than what we experience on our own planet.
The article essay, thia articlo explain about "The challenge of Exploring Venus"
venus is a planet nd look like a star because brightes points of light in the nigth sky, and tambien is a "twin" is the earth's twin, venus is it really closest at the eart and tambien look similar in the size and in the density, tambien look are similsr in the distance. | 0 |
Everday, wether we are in a classroom, at our house, or out in public, we are constantly decoding the emotions around us. For example, when your friend walks up to you with a stern face and squinted eyes, you will most likley assume that he or she is angry with you. Recognizing facial expressions is something we as human beings have done for the past thousands of years, sometimes involuntary. With that being said, we do not need a computer software to tell us everything we already know, a frown means you are upset, a stern face means you are mad, a lopsided eyebrow means you are confused, and a smile means you are happy. Creating a new computer software system capable of recognizing different compoenets to a persons emotion is useless, a waste of money, and completey unessary for students and teachers in a classroom.
Being able to detect exactly how other people are feeling, even when they are trying to hide their emotions, may sound like an awesome idea. However, this program is 100% useless. A system that can decode a humans emotion is udderly pointless, for no one needs to know the exact compostion of a human face and their emotions. As stated in the article, "In fact, we humans perform this same impressive "calculation"every day." I mean just think about it, what would you do if you knew the exact percent of happiness in someone, or maybe the percent of saddness? Exaclty, you would do nothing. That information is useless and a waste of time and money. We don't need a machine to exemplify the percise decimal of happiness, sadness, or confusin in any one person.
Whenever you buy a new computer, a new software, or even basic technolgy needs, the prices are always far above then what you predicted. That same concept includes this new software called FACS (Facial Action Coding System). This devloped and intelligent program will cost a pretty penny, without a doubt, for both the producer and the consumer. Not only will you need to forfit you money for this program, but most at home computers are uncapable to withold the magnitude of this program. The article states, "Your home PC can't handle the complex algorithms used to decode Mona Lisa's smile." Spending money, time, and effort on a skill humans have already learned is pointless and fruitless. The development of the technolgy industry has allowed for billions of dollars to be consempated, allowing for the goverment to go in debt, among other things as well. Introducing this program to the population will allow for money that has been worked hard for, be thrown down the drain.
Incorporating this new software program into classrooms around the globe is unessary for the development of students minds. Being able to detect specific emotions in a school setting is useless and a waste of time and money. Teachers are going to college, getting a degree, and expandign their teaching limits in order to be able to correctly investigate and discover the emotions of their students. As a teacher, that is their job. Introducing this technolgy into classrooms will not be beneficial, for knowing exaclty the percent compostion of one persons emotion is pointless, useless, and a frutile attempt to expanding the technology industry.
FACS is a new, intelligent, developed software system that allows for the emotions of any one person be decomposed into specific percent numerals. This evolving program incorporates new and imporoved technolgy functions into a redily avalible software. However, introducing this program to the world with cause nothing but useless and pointless results. Creating a new computer software system capable of recognizing different compoenets to a persons emotion is useless, a waste of money, and completey unessary for students and teachers in a classroom. | 4 |
The author supports his story very well i think. He knows what he's talking about to be able to wright a story over it. It's something that he's probably always been into in his life! There weremany facts in there i had no idea about. It was just interesting to read about how it was so much different then what is on Earth then it was on Venus. Venus is 90 degrees more hot then what it is here. In that case the heat up there is definaly more powerful then what it is on earth. The author was testing many of different kinda examples to test them. The author has put everything in the right order so that it easyer to understand how it's going. This planet is more so off by it's so that its not so close to I think it would be interesting to read more of his books to see if he's that intot it with those too or it's just that one book that they have! | 1 |
Presidential election is held every after four years on the first Monday of the month November. We decide who's going to be our next leader, the President. Electoral College is kind of unfair for some people because they think that whoever got the most popular vote should be President. But to think, what if the people we vote to is not right to be the next President and she/he got that most popular vote? Wouldn't that be a disaster? I say we should keep the Electoral College.
Electoral College process in consists of the electors that have been selected by the people. The ones who got selected are the ones with great intelligence and with great sense of leadership. In the first passage it mentioned that "The Electoral College has a total of 538 electoras and the majority of electoral votes are required to have 270 electoral votes." This means that for you to be one of the candidates you atleast have to have 270 electoral votes and this is a good way of picking our candidates to run for us for President.
Remember the election between Obama and Romney? It was close but, not that close. Our President, Obama got 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to 51.3 percent of the popular votes for him and Romeny. Almost of every states electoral votes is on a "winner-take-all" basis. For every slight of pulrality in each of the states, it creates a "landslide electoral-vote". This means that a tie would be possible because the number 538 votes is uneven but, it's mostly not to happen and this is because of Electoral College.
Electoral College avoids the problem of which didn't receive a majority of the votes. In passage three it gave an example about how Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had 43 percent only in pluraity of the popular votes and the winning number of the Electoral College is 301 and 370 electoral votes. Because of Electoral College the pressure that happens in electing the next President to lead us for four years is reduced and it also tells us which is the winner of the election.
If we elect our President using popular votes it migh be a disaster. Because not all of the candidates are that great of leading the whole country and If he/she got selected to be our next leader for the next four years our country would be in a huge chaos. I slightly agree with electing that person and making him/her the next President because they got the most popular votes but, then again I don't think it's the right way of picking our new leader. | 3 |
My postion is agaist Driverless cars. From the article they are reliable. The saftey sensors could not function properly due to all the movement on the wrong also with the changes of directions. A GPS may be capiable of this but the GPS is not also controling the car. A GPS is basicailly the same thing as a sensor they work very much the same. The name doesnt even soud safe "A driverless car" it soiunds like an idea without very much put thought into it. Only
three states dont make to it illegal just to test the Driverless Car. That tells us that they are dangerious from all of the possible outcomes.
The biggest reason to be agaist this product called "The Driveless Car"
is because the human is not in control of the vehical at all times. Yes the car has motion seniors b ut there is a lot of activies and movement on the road. On e crash from another vehical and motion seniors can be unsure what to do and where to go. For example what will the motion senior do at a 4 way road. there are too many risks and danerious possiblities.
Other big factors that could effect the technology is weather, water, wifi, the brakes could be second too late before hitting an object. One the first Driveless Cars model is a BMW that can reach up to 25 Mph. Now a car going 10 mph can put someone in the hopstial. A BMW not totally controled by a human at 25 mph can seriously hurt someone. those add to the big number of dangerious possiblities.
Overall just testing this car is dangerious. We can only trust our phones to get the job done only 75% of the time. It would not be wise or "Smart" to trust some technoigly that is in the same boat to drive us around at 25 mph speeds. | 2 |
Do you think that driveless cars are really bad things to have? I don't believe that they are. I believe that any kid would enjoy to have one of these for fun. People would enjoy to have fun. Do the law really want to take that excitement away?
In the article, "Driveless Cars Are Coming, I believe that driveless cars should be a better development. First of all, I don't think they are dangerous at all. To be really honest, I think that driveless cars sounds like a lot of fun and from learning what they are capable of, they don't seem bad. Second of all, the passage stated, "Driveless cars interpret the driving fun in a new way. " Which means that driveless cars were already fun, but now they are trying to find a more quick and enjoyable ways to have fun. They also don't want to lose customers so they are trying to invent more and more driveless cars that everybody can enjoy for themselves. Thats why I can't believe that the law doesn't want to keep the driveless cars. The cars work with computers. Whats so wrong with that?
In conclusion, driveless cars are not at all dangerous to me. I believe that the government or laws feel like they don't want others to be happy. They want everyone to be miserible. I'm telling you, teenagers love to drive and if we had driveless cars now, I promise you that everyone is going to have one. I believe that driveless cars would be just like our phones, hard to stay away from. | 2 |
Many people on Earth can argue that the Face on Mars is an alien artifact. Others can argue as well with the explaination of why the Face is not an alien artifact. In a way, there is no such evidence of this formation to be an exact subject of matter of an alien artifact. This is not bya any case true because there is no absolute evidence that there is an ancient civilization living on Mars, the Face is just a natural land form (and what is called a meas), and the pixles on camras have improved over the years than what scientists used twenty-five years ago.
In the case of a conspiricy therorist, they can give you some facts and ideas to support their idea of aliens and that they were the ones that created the Face, there is just not enough evidence to support their claim to that. There is not even a single drop of evidence that there is an ancient civilization living on Mars. In the text in "Unmasking the Face on Mars", it stated that few scientist belied that the Face was an alien artifact because the MGS was sent into Mars to take photos eighteen years later after the Viking missions ended.
There is still more reasons to say that the Face is not created by aliens because the Face is just a natural landform. Like here on Earth, there is many and many landforms. In the text, it said that when the MOC snapped a picture of the Face, it revealed a natural landform. There was no alien monument after all. What the picture really shows is the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa- land forms that are common in the American West.
Even before when the space team took pictures of the Face, their technology was not as sophisticated as it was eighteen yearas later when they took another picture of the Face and reveling a Martian mesa. There is better technology with camaras
in 2001 then there was twenty-five years ago. In the article, it says that MGS flew over the first time, Michael Malin and his MOC teeam snapped a picture ten time sharper than the original Viking photos. This indicated that the team had better equipted camaras than they had when the original photos were taken. Although, some conspiricy therorist might give off some logical information that ther could be a civilization, there is still no sign
nor any evidence that
gives off of aliens living on Mars and or even creating the Face.
Over all, in that case, there is still logical evidence and reasons why people must think over twice before concluding the idea of another civilization living in our solar system. Who knows? Maybe one
day there could be beings that we
would encounter someday. | 3 |
In 2001 an image captured by NASA finally put all of our theories away, explaining why there was a face shaped rock in the red planet, or did it? Many people have came up with many theories but the most talked about one is that there is an ancient civilization who used to be in the red planet. That theory was quickly put away after NASA captured an image in 2001. The reasons why that theory was put away are, the picture that was taken in 2001 used the absolute maximum resolution, so if there were any objects in the photo such as Egyptian-style pyramids, or even a small shack you could've easily seen what they were. The picture tooken in 2001 showed that the face on mars is the martian equivalent to a butte or a mesa- landforms common around america west. If there was an ancient civilization NASA would like to tell everyone and not hide it because its better publicity for
NASA to make such a great discovery.
First of all if their was an ancient civilization that would mean they had to make shack or pyramids to live in and in the image taken in 2001 did not capture any pyramids or small shacks in photo. If it did you would've been able to see it since the image was taken with the absolute maximum resolution so it would've been easy to see what the objects were, but there were no objects. In the photo you can only see the face not any other objects and it would be really hard to live without shelter so if their was an ancient civilization there had to be pyrmaids or shacks near that face but like I said the camera did not capture any of these things.
Secondly the image taken in 2001 showed that the face on mars is martian equivilent of a butte or mesa which are landforms common around america west. Now this could be true and may explain why the face is their. Since these landforms are common around america west it wouldn't be suprising if this is just a landform of the red planet. Many scientist have came up with this theory which is the one that has more credibility.
Finally NASA would rather it be true that there was ancient civilization living in mars since they would gain publicity. NASA would not hide this information if it was true because this would make them more prestige because they would be the ones taking full credit od the discovery and would get higer rates economically speaking. They face on mars since has become a pop icon and more when it was first discovered snd even though NASA had already said thst they figured it was a lanfdform, imagine if they say there was an ancient civilization many people would give them more publicity.
In conclusion the reasons why the face is a landform and not a whole story of how their was and "ancient civilization" living in the red planet are because, the picture taken in 2001 used it absolute maximum resolution so it would've captured any pyramids or shack in the background, but it didn't, also becaus ethe image taken in 2001 showed that the face on mars is martian equivient of a butte or messa which are landforms comon in america west, and finally because it would be better for NASA if there was an ancient civilization in the red planet since all the credit for the discovery being made would go to NASA ad would potentially give them more publicity and higher rates econmically speaking. So what do you think? | 3 |
Driveless cars are cool and very furtristic, mainly appleaing to a handful of people. Driveless cars don't use much gas or any at all, there for helping the enviroment. They have to run on something though, and that is battiers or rail ways. Many people are blinded by the fact that they are driveless cars. They don't see what is really happening with the cars,
My statement is that I don't think they should be making driveless cars. There are so many things people haven't consiterd. For example Google hasn't mastered the driveless car yet, it could take them years or even centiures. When they do "master" it they'll have to make more and more cars. If they mess up on one little thing the car wont be able to go or get into an accident.
The cars don't run on gas, which is good for the enviroment but then how would we get around? Google would have to rebuild all the roads, which will cost thousands maybe even millions. They would probably go to the big cites first and then forget about small towns, leaving them with regular cars.
The sensors are probably very fragile, not to mention the most important thing for the car. What would happen if one of your sensors broke? You couldn't just run to the auto store and ask them to fix it, they wouldn't know how or even have the part. There you would be missing important things.
They're so many things that could go wrong with with these cars, but that's also true with regular cars, Since regular cars have been around though we know what to do when our car breaks down. We also have built all the roads so we wouldn't be spending trillions of dallors on that, Plus with these new cars we would lose jobs and millions of people wouldn't be able to go back to college to learn about these new cars. There for I don't think we should get driveless cars. | 2 |
As time goes on, there are many aspects of life that change, technology being a huge factor in today's world. A lot of things come from technology, the advancement of it has helped people in many ways possible, but many people ask what the downfalls are or if could we take technology too far. Scientists today are experimenting with driverless cars which doesn't always rely on a person to control it. While it is a cool thing, some people fear that this could cause a lot of accidents in the community and be a negative thing rather than it being positive. I personally think it is a good thing and there are many reason to consider advancing into it.
The first reason I think driverless cars should be a thing is the convinence of it. Technology has proven to be more reliable than people in a lot of cases, such as a taxi. With driverless cars, you don't have to worry about getting into an accident because of the efficency of the technology used in the car itself. I think it is safer in most ways because of the smart sensors and brakes to prevent wrecks that are put onto the car. Overall the response on smart cars can out do any of that of a human driver.
Another factor that comes into play with smart cars is how it compares to humans. Lawmakers say that the best safety is from an alert driver. Today there are a lot of people that aren't so alert, such as people that are intoxicated or just tired. Wrecks as we know are a big issue and a lot of them come from people that aren't alert because of them drinking or using other drugs, now I'm not saying this is most people, but quite a few. Another thing is roadrage, people tend to get mad behind the wheel because of slow traffic or other causes thar cause accidents or incidents that cause the law to come into play.
The last reason I think we should consider driverless cars is efficiency. In the passage, driverless cars would have sensors that cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, which in general allows for better response. Imagine if you were driving and got distracted, something bad could happen really fast. That would never happen with a driverless car since the main goal of the car is to get to any destination. The efficiency comes in to where the person in the driver seat could take over at any time in case of something in the way or just bad traffic issues. There are many ways for the car to notify the driver to take over such as vibrating seats or sensors to tell the driver what to do.
In conclusion, I think that driverless cars are a thing that we should continue to strive towards. They are convinent to use, are considered really safe, and compared to humans, will be better overall. Traffic issues would go down as well as accidents originally caused by human drivers. You also wouldn't have to get bored on the drive since they have ideas of having a screen to watch entertainment on while the car is driving. Driverless cars in conclusion would be a good idea to improve on in the future. | 3 |
In our world today Google has made very few driverless cars, that have succeeded very well, actually. I would have to say I am all for the Driverless cars that will coming into the world more often. I think it would help us on a few different things. As stated in the text, there has been a lot less wrecks since they welcomed very few of the driverless cars. Also, the dirver hasn't lost all control of the car, the driver still has responsiblities. As stated in the text, "while the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver." Lastly, these driverless cars are being transformed into public transporation.
The first reason why I am all for driverless cars is because wrecks are a big deal for everyone. Having driverless cars that would decrease the amount of wrecks that happen everyday. That would also be a good thing for new drivers, or even people that have been driving for years! Having driverless cars would not totally take out having wrecks completely, but it would be good to see the amount of wrecks decrease.
Secondly, the driver has not lost all control of the car in case of an emergency. The driver still has to guide the car through heavy traffic, wrecks, and also in and out of the driveway. I think this addition onto the driverless car is actually a great idea. I say this because it keeps the driver from doing other things while he/she is suppose to be watching the road. Also, this doesn't put all of the pressure on the car to do absolutely evrything while the driver is doing whatever he/she is not suppose to be doing.
As stated in the text, "while the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver." I think that is also a really good thing about the driverless cars, because if the driver is not watching the road there will be vibrations sent to the drivers seat to alert them to watch the road. Having this little alert could be a very good thing to neew drivers as well, because sometimes young, new drivers get destracted and have to have a little alert to put their focus back onto the road.
Lastly, these driverless cars are also being used as public transportation. That could really benefit the taxi drivers, or even the public bus drivers. This could benefit them because that's their job and that's all they do all day, everyday. Driving a car and or bus around can get boring, and could make you really tired. It's always good to be able to take a break but also get your work done at the same time.
Finally, I would say that having driverless cars would be a good idea. It would be a lot safer, and effecient for everyone. Driverless cars may have some downfalls, but there are certainly more pros about them. | 3 |
Everyone assumes that the best way of transportation is by a car. Teenagers dream of getting their license on their sixteenth birthday and maybe even getting a car. Most adults use cars to get to and from work, drive their kids around and do fun activites. But what people don't understand is that there are so many other alternatives that ultimately result in a happier and healthier planet. There are so many downfalls with driving and owning a car that many are now believeing that it is much more reasonable to just not own a car.
"When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way" (Rosenthal, line 6). Having cars stress people out and people don't even realize this. There are so many responsiblities that come with driving. No one enjoys sitting in long traffic jams. It is annoying and quite bothersome. Everyone gets so frustrated, nevermind the amounts of accidents that lead to injury and death from it all.
In Colombia there is a day once a year in which cars can not go on the road or they are served with a fine. This effort is to try to bring stress levels down and stop air pollution. "Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a car-free day yesterday, leaving the street of this capital city eerily and devoid of traffic jams" (Selsky, line 23). This idea promoted excersize and got people out and doing things in the community. The citizens clearly were not against this day or else they wouldn't have been acticve. "Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city" (Selsky, line 28). This just goes to show what driving does. It isolates people. Without all the cars, one is more willing to spend time outside and interacting with other people and since people were out and about more and enjoying the community, the area has gotten more presentable and pleasureable to be in. "...uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks; rush-hour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic; and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up." (Selsky, line 29). Officals and shop owners are making more of an effort because everyone is more active and caring.
In Paris, the officals made an effort to try and clean up the cities pollution rates. They assigned a day where even number licensed plates could not be on the road and a day for odd numbered plate cannot be on the road or else they will be fined. "Congestion was down 60 percent" (Duffer, 14). If anything, it goes to show that the amount of cars on the road is absurb. 60 percent is more than half, that's a lot of traffic. Paris primarily uses diesel, causeing a lot more pollution in this busy city. "Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals" (Duffer, line 17). Paris is a very touristy area and people go in hopes to see a beautiful city. This project went so well that officals planned to continue it. "The smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling french party to rescind the ban for odd-numbered plates on Tuesday." (Duffer, line 19). If officals planned to continue this idea, than it must be benifical in some way. If citizens just made an effort to not drive everywhere, than restrictions would not have to be mad. It's because of the amount of driving that is going on that officals have to get involved.
"...transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions..." (Rosenthal, line 37) Motor vehicals cause so much danger to Earth. The amount of pollution is so high and dengerous. It is much easier to prevent than everyone believes. One could simply take the bus, ride a bike, only drive to work and needed places, walk, and even car pool. There are an abundant amount of ways to prevent so much pollution and stress. It's all over the world that this is an issue; Paris, Colombia, the United States, and many other places. "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. " (Rosenthal, line 11). That is a lot. It isn't difficult to help prevent this.
In the long run, not driving would result in happier people anyways. Cars are so expensive that is would cause less aggravation and economic stress as well as the basic stress of just driving and being in traffic. Society could make the world so much cleaner and safer for the next generations. It starts now. Get a bike or a pair of walking shoes and start getting active in the community. Start making the changes now so it isn't forced by officals later. make the effort and show the next generations how life should be. This could lead to a much happier and healthier life style. | 3 |
STREET_ADDRESS
CITY_STATE_ZIP_CODE
STREET_ADDRESS
CITY_STATE_ZIP_CODE
Dear Senator,
Today I have been thinking about how we elect our prisedent. I have done some reseach and found out that we use the Electoral College. Some people thing the Electoral College is good. Other not so much, like Bob Dole and much more. Well I also think the Electoral College should be abolished. The Electoral College give people the allusion that they have no chance and give bigger populated states more power.
To start off, "people in the United State of America vote for president". When in realaty they attualy vote for slate of electors and then that goes to the president. " Under the elictoral college system, voters vote not for the president , but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president." says in Source 2 (What is wrong with the electoral college). Giving the feeling to people that the president they want will not win. Let me give you an example from source 2 "thanks to the quirks of the electoral college -won the popular vote, but lost the presidency , over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direcet election". This mean the voters voted for him ,but he still lost. What if eveyone in you state vote for that guy and still lost, doesnt that give you the allusion that your vote has no chance?
Talking about states , did you know the electoral collegs also works on state population? Each state has a population, giving them their electoral votes. President will target the bigger populated states to win their votes. Giving the more populated state more power to do what they want." a larger state gets more attention from the presidential candidates in a campaign than a small state does..." in source 3. Since the president wants to win and needs the electoral vote he will go to the states and do thing for them. Like donate money for schools or help with businesses so they can have their votes. Some state that get more attention/power have are Texas(38), Florida(29), and Califonia(55). Saying in Source 3. "Obama , who won that vote, got 29 electoral votes" from Florida said in souce 3. You know why? Because a week before he came to schools in Florida and helped them. I know because he came to my school.
The Electoral College should be abolished. It make people think they have no chance of winning and give more populated state more power. I think Dole was right we should of abolished the Elctoral College along time ago. Can you do something about it Senator? | 2 |
Alot of people might think that aliens have lived on Mars and formed a face of an alien artifact on Mars. But I think that the face is just a natural landform.
The reason I think that it was created by a landform is because on JPL web site it showed a clearer photo of the face on Mars. Most landforms are around the American West. So we can look at the landforms around the American West as a guide line to compare photos alot easier. It reminds me most of Middle Butte in the Snake River of Idaho, says Garvin. That's a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars.
By the looks of it it seems like the Face on Mars looks like it was created by a natural landform on Mars by the looks of the photo graphs. | 1 |
Dear , state sentor
I do not agree on how the election is happenening or how it is run. It is very unorganized and not very fair. I think if the votes are close then everybody should vote again not just one person outta ten people the state has to choose. Also it is not done professionaly like it is supposed to be. Some people deserve a shot at it but no you guys think that the presidents from the last election should be put back in well no because that same guy who won it last year has the chance to win it again and its not fair if he wins it again.
The first reason i disagree with the way the election is done is that it is not done fair. The first thing is that everybody should be able to vote the second time not just ten people from each state. If those five outta ten people choose the same then that state wont count and thats not fair at all. Some of the people outta the ten that were chosen either didn't vote the first time or they have no idea what they are doing what so ever and they could possibly mess up the system or they could mess up the votes.
My second reason is that it is not orgonizes at all. First they chose ten random people to vote in the second round of elecion. They won't give anybody else a chance to vote during the second election. MY second most important reason is that in the first election their are more than twenty people on the ballet and now the second election only has two people on the ballet i think theor hould be atleast three or four on the ballet. My last reason is on how they vote for the people of he second election. The way that they do it is not fair they send out a list with twenty names or more on it and they have to check at least two names and send it back and then they count the votes and then the fist ten for each state get to vote for that state do it is like a drawling and they even send it to the people when theor name is on the ballet.
My overall reason is that it is not done professionaly like it should be. The same people should be running for president again especially the one who won before because he has another shot at winning again. That means that they change to many things. Like the school food and drinks the food is now healthy and the drinks are diet some kids and teachers have to have sugar or they will not do so good through out the day like if the have diebetes they might need some sugar well they wont get it because all the food is healthy and the drinks are diet now.
Those are the reasons why i dissagree. | 0 |
Dear Florida State Senator,
The Electoral College is an unamerican, and unfair voting process. In America we believe in the people living in our country having the right to vote for their leaders, but what if they're not directly voting themselves? The electoral college is an inacurrate way of determining the leaders of our country compared to the other actually accurate way of voting, a direct vote election. The method of The Electoral College cannot always be controlled by the voters from their state, and is unfair to states with lower populations whereas the population of that state might not understand what exactly they're voting for. This doesn't seem exactly the way things are supposed to be in our nation since "...over 60 perecnt of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."(source 2), does it?
Though it is highly unlikely that a choosen elector from a state would not vote towards the chosen side their state decided and voted upon, they still have the opportunity to. This opporitunity is unfair to the voters of the state as they are not directly voting for the president, such as how things are in a direct vote. A direct vote allows the candidate to be choosen and voted for directly by voters knowladgebly voting, then the highest popularity perecentage from votes are then to have the candidate be elected, not by a group of people that have a chance to be bias from the voters in their state. This problem can occur by things such as state legislatures picking electors that may not vote in favor of the states population's choice, but their and state legislatures choice. Even though "...almost all states award electoral votes on a winner take all basis,.."(source 3) not all states electors must do so. They can and have the chance to choose whoever they want as the power to pick is in their hands, and out of ours.
In smaller states such as Hawaii and Alaska they are only given a total of 3-4 electoral college votes as their population is not as large as somewhere such as California, New York or Florida. This does not only matter due to the low number of votes awarded, but it also effects how much they may know about the candidates running for the position. A lot of candidates only choose to go to "swing" states (California, New York, etc.) in order to recieve more votes in the electoral college. "...candidates don't spend time in states they have no chance of winning,.."(source 2) this causes a lot of people in areas not visited to be unknowledgable about eligible candidates in the voting process, and what they could be voting for. These "swing" states help candidates reach their goal of the winning 270 majority votes out of the 538 possible. 538 may seem like a large number but compared to the population of the United States its not really all that large of a group of people. The population of our nation and the votes of our voters is much more larger then the decisions of 538 electors.
Now hopefully it is clearer to see the many problems of the current electoral college system, as it is unfair and irrational. Our nation's voters are the ones who should be voting in a direct vote in picking the president compared to the electoral college. As the method of the electoral college cannot always be controlled by the voters from their state, and is unfair to states with lower populations whereas the population of that state might not understand what exactly they're voting for. These are only a couple of the large problems caused by the electoral college. As far as these problems I believe as Bob Dole said: Abolish the electoral college!
Sincerely,
Anonymous Student | 4 |
The Facial Action Coding System could be valuable in classrooms because it could make a sudent's work more easy for them to do because it could tell if the student is having a hard time on the work or just does not like the work they were givein like it says in the article.
Another thing it could be valuable for is how a students is feeling lso like if the system see's that a student is feeling unhappy the system could tell the teacher or another student that this student is not in a good mood and that they might need some to go chcek on them.
So those are the resion's why I think the Facial Action Coding System would be valuble in classroom's is that it could tell if a student is having a hard time doing the work or just does not like the work they are doing and another thing is that it could help the teacher or other stundet's know that one of the stundet's is unhappy and that they might need someone help like they are haveing a bad day or they are feeling sick. And so thats why I think the Facial Action Coding System could be valuable for. | 1 |
Have you ever been in your car and thought I wish my car could drive by its self? Well you must have a fairy godmother because your wish just came true. They have started to design driverless cars now, they are very efficient. They are a lot easier to drive as well. Driverless cars make everyones life easier and they need to be manufactured.
These driverless cars can actually limit your risk of having an accident. The cars have a sensor and they sense when an object is too close. The author shows this by "Those sensors had become moe advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers." This shows how these cars can better keep not just you but also your family safe. These cars also have auto brakes which can better prevent collisions. The author gives examples of this in " Can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine." This shows how the car can prevent accidents from happening.
On top of that these driverless cars are a lot easier to handle or control. On way they are easier is by being able to navigate through work zones by itself. the author shows this in this excerpt " They can steer..." This shows that they can steer by themselves. Another way is by going around accidents. The author states that the veichle will be able to go around a proplem it faces.
If that's not enough to convince you its a good idea then they also make drivers more alert when they're on the road. One way they do this is by quickly getting the drivers attention when there is an issue. Another way it make driver more alert is by having driver seats that vibrate to alert the driver. The author shows this by "GM has developed driver's seat that vibrate when the veichle is in danger of backing into an object." This shows that drivers will stay alert even if they are not driving.
These cars are very useful in every day life. They help you have less accidents so less money you need to pay on your insurance. Also, they are very easy to handle or function. Driverless cars also make you as a driver more alert to prevent injury to you or your car. Driverless cars can make everyones life easir and need to be manufactured. | 3 |
The author of "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy dispute despite the dangers very efficiently and clearly. They clearly explain the argument in the second paragraph. They also properly list all the advantages to exploring Venus and then weighed it out with the challenges and risks that would stand in the way. They finally finish by stating their claim once more in their concluding paragraph.
To start their article, they begin in paragraph 2 by stating some facts about the planet and a bit of history to go into it, which helps us understand Earth's history with Venus itself. In Paragraph 2, it states, "Because Venus is sometimes right around the corner - in space terms - humans have sent numerous spacecraft to land on this cloud-draped world. Each previous mission was unmanned, and for good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours... ...not a single spaceship has touched down on Venus in more than three decades. " This explains that we have tried to land spacecrafts onto Venus to study the planet before, and have failed, therefore causing us to give up until now, which is where our argument comes into play.
The argument for this article is simply "Should we try to study Venus again?" and the author believes we should, after they weighed out some of the challenges that were in our way then and are in our way now. Paragraph 3 states "A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfric acid in Venus's atmosphere. On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater that what we experience on our own planet." These facts are about the surface of the planet, and as the author also states in paragraph 3, "these conditions are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth; such an environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans and liquefy any metals."
The author then asks at the beginning of paragraph 4, "if our sister planet is so inhospitable, why are scientists even discussing further visits to its surface?" Then proceeds to explain, "Astronomers are fascinated by Venus because it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth." This explanation tells us that Venus could have been exactly like Earth, and may even still be in certain ways. Their explanation continues with, "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 planetary visit, a crucial consideration given the long time frames of space travel." Using this information, we could theoretically use Venus as a second Earth, or maybe a pitstop on the way to other planets, or as a way to research for other lifeforms, which is worth the risks that come with it, and that's what the author is trying to say when asking, "The Value of returning to Venus seems indisputable, but what are the options for making such a mission both safe and scientifically productive?"
The author explains that, "The... ...Administration (NASA) has one particularly compelling idea for sending humans to study Venus. NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray." The author continues to go on and explain that NASA has a plan to make a vehicle that would hover over Venus and observe from above, where the conditions would be less severe. they continue, "At thirty-plus miles above the surface, temperatures would still be toasty at around 170 degrees Fahrenheit, but 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." This means that their solution would be managable, but not perfect.
For their final paragraph, they restate their claim, saying "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." This proves that they believe it will lead us further if we listen to our curiosity versus when we don't follow through due to risks. They also state "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" which backs up their claim. | 4 |
Driving a car is not a necessity in life and countries are starting to realize that. A car is merely "just a means of getting from [point] A to B" (Source 4). The stress and pollution caused by these vehicles is not worth it for some countries. They would rather have less stressed people, less pollution and less traffic accidents and congestion in the streets.
Germany believes that the lifestyle of driving a car is not neccessary. "There are only two places to park - large garages [] where a car owner can buy a space" (Source 1) These parking spaces cost $40,000, and the car owner buys this space along with a house. As a result of this phenomenon "70 percent of Vauban's families do not own cars" (Source 1) and 57 percent of people sold their car and chose to move to Vauban, Germany. Cars are "responsible for 12 percent of greehouse gas emissions in Europe" (Source 1). Yet there have been efforts to lower the greenhouse gases, Vauban put a stop to cars to make the citites nice, and better for walking.
Paris is one of the most known tourist destinations in the world. People cluster in from around the world to see the Effiel Tower, which stands straight into the sky. Their main tourist attraction is a monument that goes into the sky. No wonder they want to cut down on cars' pollution. "Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals" (Source 2).
A home to 7 million people, Bogota, Colombia is trying to spread their program globally and reduce the pollution from the once nessecary cars. "The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog" (Source 3). Violaters are faced with $25 fines. In a car free day, "the turnout was large" (Source 3). It is believed to be a great oppurtunity to relieve stress and lower air pollution. Bogota's program is "generating a revolutionary change" (Source 3) and the idea is spreading across borders.
"America's love affair with its vehicles seems to be cooling" (Source 4). The United States is one of the top most prosperous countries in the world and the culture revolves around transportation. Americans depend on their cars to help them preform their daily lives. The explaination of the "cooling of vehicles" is a result of unemployment and the recession. Many Americans are "cash-strapped" (Source 4), and cannot afford new cars. If the pattern of car ownership continues to decrease, it will benefit the environment with less pollution and car emissions. But, a negative results for the car industry's.
Pedestrians, bicycles, cars, commerical and public transportation all play a crucial role in the lives of people across the globe. They are "woven into a connected network" (Source 4) to save time, resources, pollution and promote safety. | 2 |
Today I am going to tell you why you should go to Seagoing Cowboys program.
Seagoing Cowboys program is a program where you go out on a big boat and you go on the seas and travel to different crountries.
I am first going to tell you why you should go. You should go to the program because you get to see all different kind of countries like Greece, China, and Europe. Why would you not want to go to different countries. Other people might say it's way to dangerous because you might run out of food or the boat might sink and you might get lost while you are out in the seas. You will not run out of food because the person who is encharge packs 6 months of food. If the boat does sink, there will be another boat behind us. You will not get lost because there will be other people there with you and there will be maps.
When you get to a country like Venice,Italy there will be a city with streets of water so we can stay in the boat. What you can see at the different countries is where people live, what kind of houses does the people live in, and you will be aloud to take pictures so you will never forget your time at the countries and the boat.
So that is why you should go to the Seagoing Cowboys program. You will have alot fun while you will be on the trip. So make sure you pack alot of clothes and pack your bag for a avdevture. | 2 |
When it comes to deciding wheather or not driverless cars should be used is up to everybody's own opinion. It is a pretty nice idea thoguh, having cars tat can drive for you while you also payattention is a fantasic idea. For example, take from paragragh 2, on how we have been fasintated by driverless cars. There have been at least more then twenty or so movies that have that idea, look at the movie called "I Robot". The cars can actually drive itself, but when it can't do that or when the drive wants to drive it shuts off with a smooth transition from one to the other. In addition, having a car that can drive itself but also have the sensors that need a human touch is a great idea, it makes sure that the driver it paying full attention, but also gives the driver some lee-way room when on the road. In addition, it is great that some cars like the BMW's can drive up to 25 mph when the car is in a area where there could be road work or traffic jams.
But in contrast, paragragh 9 made perfect a statement when saying/asking who will be at fault if the car crashes. If the car has a technology problem, does that mean the manufacurer is to blame or if the car is switching to person driving and it glitches out who is to blame then. In addition, when driverless car start to make advances in the world, does that mean we will no longer need to get driver licences, no longer need to have back ground knowledge on how the roads work and how to operate them if the cars system doesn't work. Will we no longer need to have any background on how to drive and how to operate them. In consculsion, it is a great advancement in are socitiy today, to have driverless cars, but down in the long run it make not ne the advancement that everybody will want to have for the future gernerations to come. | 2 |
The Disadvantage of Facial Action Coding System
According to TechGen, about 72% of students in the United States get distracted from a technological device, this can be a cell phone, computer, smartwatches, and more. Everyone has at least on technological device. Schools worldwide should not invest in Facial Action Coding System because they are a distraction to students, they are a waste of money, and certain students do not want to show their emotions without being told to.
First, schools should not invest in Facial Action Coding System because they can be considered a huge distraction for students. Students worldwide need to learn the materials that is needed in order for them to graduate, the Facial Action is not going to help them at all. Students will also be distracted by it, and they will have a hard time focusing on what is going on in the classroom. If schools put the Facial Action System in all of their classroom, then it's going to be harder to the teacher and/or professor to get the students engaged in the activity. This technological system can be a big waste of money for classrooms.
Next, schools should not invest in Facial Action Coding System because they are a waste of money. According to TechPort, technological devices are increasing every single day with more things being imported to them. Schools have better things to spend their money on, such as sporting equipment, new choices of food, and extension of school building. Putting this Facial Action Coding System in all classroom can be schools go in debt because they'll have a difficult time paying materials off. There are certain students who do not want to show off their emotions.
Finally, schools should not invest in Facial Action Coding System because certain students do not want to show off their emotions without being told to. The article states, "A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored," Dr. Huang predicts. "Then it could modify the lesson, like an effective human instructor." Most of the time students do not want their classmates or teachers to know how they are feeling because it can be embarassing for them to know. Students can be going through a rough time, and it can be discouraging for them to go to classroom knowing that the teachers know how they are feeling.
According to Techop, 62% of all classrooms in the world have at least one computer or technological electronic in their classroom. The majority of the students have at least used a device in their classroom. Schools should not invest in Facial Action Coding System because they are a distraction to students, they are a waste of money, and certain students do not want to show their emotions without being told to. | 3 |
Hello, I am a scientist from NASA I am here to tell you that the Face, found on Mars, was not created by aliens, the face is just a natural landform. We have new high-resolution images and 3D altimetry from the NASA's Mars Global Survey spacecraft reveal the Face on Mars for what it really is. The Face is just a mesa created by natural landforms. I am sorry to tell you but aliens do not exist, we haven't found any evidence proving that aliens exist.
Twenty five years ago NASA's Viking 1 spacecraft was circling the planet Mars taking some pictures of the possible landing sites for its sister ship Viking. While it was taking the pictures for the possible landing sites, something funny had happened, it spotted the shadowy likeness of a human face on the plant. It turned out to be an enormous head nearly two miles form end to end. No this was not created by aliens. Us scientist have been working as hard as we can to see how this "Face" was created. We haven't found anything about it being created by aliens. The Face is just a natural landform. Us scientist at NASA figured it was just another Martian mesa, common enough around Cydonia, this mesa had unusual shadows that made it look like an Egyptian Pharaoh.
A few days later us at NASA released the image to the public to see. The title of the image was "huge rock formation ... which resembles a human head ... formed by shadows giving an illusion of eyes, nose, and mouth." A few of us scientist believed the Face was an alien artifact, but it was talked about with the scientist of NASA and we decided that it wasn't created by aliens because there is no sign of life on Mars that we have found. On April 5, 1998, is when a Mars Global Surveyor flew over the Cydonia for the first time. Michael Malin and his Mars Orbiter Camera, also known as (MOC), team snapped a picture 10 times sharper than the original Viking photos. The pictures revealed that it was a natural landform. There was no proof that it was created by aliens. Aliens do not exist they are just made up and scientists, like me, at NASA have never found evidence about aliens existing.
Not everyone was satified with the picture. Everyone thought that the weather conditions were different because the Face on Mars is located at 41 degrees north martian latitude where it was winter in April '98. Since it was winter in April '98, it was a cloudy time of the year on the Red Planet. The camera on board, MGS, had to peer through the wispy clouds to see the Face, so people thought that the photo that was taken was not a fair photo. The people wanted a fair photo that they could see in almost the same weather condtions. We gave people what they want and we went to look for it again. Mission controllers prepared to look again but it was not easy. The face is very hard to track and get a picture of. The Mars Global Surveyor on Apil 8, 2001, went to take another picture, and it was a cloudless summer day in Cydonia. The Mars Global Surveyor drew close enough for a second look. The spacecraft had to be 25 degrees to center the Face. Each pixel in the best 1976 Viking photo had 43 meters per pixel, but when it was compared to he 2001 image it spans 1.56 meters. The picture was easier to look at and they got a closer view. They came to the conclusion of it just being a natural landform.
In conclusion, the image from NASA, known as the Face, was not created by aliens. The image is just a natural landform. According to scientist, like me, at NASA there was no proof that the Face was not created by aliens. Thanks to the technology that we have it is very clear that the image is just a natural landform that created itself. | 3 |
I think that the face is just a natural landform. Sure, it was insane to discover a face on Mars, but couldn't it be some work that God had Created? The face is quite the story teller, and it will absolutely bring the attention to conspiracy theorists. But God is the creator of the universe, this could very well be some random thing that's just on Mars.
There are a lot of random items just like this all over Earth, things that make scientist believe that there is life on other planets-which could possibly be true-but these questions are unexplainable to science. God is the answer to all the questions we need to know. So this face on Mars, could simply be something very random.
The article expresses that the face is indeed false, and just an ordinary natural landform. Sometimes there are people who try to figure out how and why these kind of things happen, such as this face on Mars. but sometimes science can't answer these questions. | 1 |
I strongly believe that the use of this technology to read students' emotional expressions is a good idea. This use of technology can be very useful and valuable for many reasons.
The first reason why would be because if a student does not understand the material effectively, the computer can identify this and try to make the problem a little easier for the student.
In prargragh six it states,
" A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored," Dr. Huang. " So computers need to understand that, too."This could help students pass classes because the teacher can not know if everyone is understanding the material all at the same time. The second reason would be because this technology could prevent suicide or other serious case senarios. ."In paragragh six it also says, " Imagine
a computer that knows when you're happy or sad." This means that the computer would be able to indicate if a student was sad or angry. If the computer indicated this kind of feeling upon the student everyday, then the teachers would be able to talk to the student to try and figure out why they are so sad or angry. These talks could prevent a student from making that bad decision. The final reason would be because it could prevent a sickness from occuring. Sometimes you can tell when a person is about to have a seizure or heart attack just by their facial expressions. By the computer being able to indicate that, it could save someones life. In paragrapgh one it states, " Dr. Huang and his colleagues are experts at developing better ways for humans and computers to communicate." When a person is sick or having a health issue they may not be able to talk and tell you that they are having an issue, so this technology could identify this behavior and give the teacher a sign or warning that there is something wrong. Some people may not want their teachers to know what their emotions are, but I strongly believe that having this new technology will keep kids safer, and smarter in a various number of ways. | 2 |
Dear State Senator,
Please take into consideration the following message.
I think that it would be better for our nation if the Electoral College was taken out of our system and instead let popular vote decide who wins. There are two main reasons I bring this argument to you. First, we pay taxes, we work hard, we put food on our tables, and we put a roof over our future voter's heads. We have absolutely no control of anything in this world. Letting us choose who gets to boss us around is something that we earned as US citizens. If you're going to kill us, atleast let us choose the weapon. Second, letting the popular votes decide who's president is a great way for all of us to get to know each other a little better, we may disagree but alteast that way we share our opinions and feelings and that is the foundation to a very happy nation and world.
Please consider all that I asked for, and I hope to see changes in my favor very soon.
Sincerely, PROPER_NAME | 1 |
"Driverless Cars Are Coming" introduces the idea that driverless cars are almost ready. My argument of driverless cars is, are they ready? Who is to blame if an accident happens? The manufacturer or the owner? Which the narrator also asks, "If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault- the driver or the manufacturer?" The premise of my argument, is that the driver, should in no way be the one at fault. Unless they themselves wreck the car.
Driverless cars are a very unique sort of car. For one, they do not need a driver. In most cases, that is. Driverless cars have one factor that many car companies are working on: they also need a driver. Which makes them half driverless and half driver... full? BMW driverless cars can only go to about 25 mph (miles per hour), "The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph,"
before needing assitance by the driver behind a wheel. GM has driver seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger, "...driver's seats that vibrate..." Also, the Google car just says whenever the person is required to take over. "...simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over."
What if a special needs/ disabled person uses one of these cars? Are the manufacturers going to blame them for not being able to use their own hands and feet on the vehicle? This is another scary thing that could very well happen in the future. At least a person without some kind of disability would have control of the car if the autopilot did indeed fail. My counter-argument to my argument would be that there are plenty of sensors around the car stated in paragraph 4, "...they needed a whole lot of sensors," but, what if the senors failed? What if every single sensor failed and someone was incapable of controlling the car? Who is responsible?
My argument is not one that can be answered right now. It is just a question that many could use an answer from. The well-being and capability of the car is an important aspect of said car. Many bad accidents could happen and whether or not the accident is pinned on the car maker or the car driver is to be disputed. | 2 |
I choose non-driverless cars over driverless cars because the fact of how much nonsence that is put into cars to make them better " Google's modified Toyota Pruis uses positoin-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. Ther most important bit of technology in this system is the spinning sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR, it uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of ther car's surrounding. " " They can steer, acceletate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as nagigating through work zones and around accidents."
I choose that making driverless car's are a waste of time. Making driverless car's are pointless because humans already have everything that is being put in these drieverless car's.
" If the technology fails and someone is injured who is at fault the driver or the manufacturer? " no one would have to worry about the accident and injuries bc as a human we have eyes and ears to see what is going on the road and how to avoid that and all that the new driverless cars have are sensors and GPS, sensors can not see when a child is crossing the street, a GPS can not tell when a group of kids or an inncent pedestrian is in the road to get the other side to go to his or her destination. This world needs to stop trying to make car's smarter than humans because humans have natural instincts to tell them when and when not to do something unlike driverless car's.
Driverless car's will never be smarter than human instincts, so there is no need to try and make car's smarter becuase all that is going to happen is the driverless car's will get banned and not trusted to be on the roads. | 2 |
Life without a personal vehicle may seem very hard of a challange, but in some areas of the world everyday life does'nt require a personal car. In many cities around the world, personal transport is less than a necessity. Cities have taken action to reduce the green house emitions that cars give out. Many large cities are providing alternet modes of transportation. These alternet modes of transportation can reduce smog over the city and contribute less to co2 emitions.
In a German suburb named Vauban cars are a rare sight. Personal garages and home driveways are not commonly seen. Only 30% of famikies in this suburb own a personl car, everyone else walks or rides a bike as their daily comute. City planners are working on ways to better suite sidewalks for citizens that do not hane cars. Life is said to be "much better this way" by people living in this community.
In Bogota Colombia is a program that is expected to spread to other countries. On one day all personal car transport is banned with voilators faccing a $25 fine, this day was proporly named the day without cars. Only taxies and buses are permited vehicle transport, while most people will either walk or ride a bike to work and to complete the days tasks. The goal of the day without cars is to promote alternet forms of transporn and to reduce smog output by the city of 7 million. Many people are welcoming to the idea and are happy to participate in it.
The city of New York is a large and bustiling city, and anyone who has ever been there will tell you of the extreme road congestion. A large amount of people in the city do not own cars and will use public transport to get to their destination. Using the subway, sky rocket or a taxi/bus people are able to move around on their own two feet sometimes faster than a car. In the whole United States the amount of 16-19 year olds getting their license has dropped since 2006. Along with the amount of cars being sold each year. This has made people wonder if the driving peak in America has passed and that more youngsters will resort to public transport like in New York.
Places around the world are now taking action to reduce co2 emitions in the atmosphere. Places like Germany, Bogota Colombia and places in America are now relying on public transport more than before. Bogota Columbia is so dedicated to this idea that they have reserved a day in which nobody drives a car and only walks, rides a bike or takes the bus. In Vauban Germany a suburd has shown that you don't need a personal car to "survive" in this world where only efficiency matters. Also in New York people have adapted to walking and using public transport to get to where they need to go. It has been proven that life isn't imposible without a car. | 2 |
Studying Venus is a dangerous pursuit but could be very helpful for gathering knowledge about the plant and about the solar system. We could learn how Venus works and what the planet could have been like long ago. Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of size. It is also the closest planet to Earth and can be seen without any powerful equipment. Venus should be studied in greater detail and can be with the use of the new ideas that NASA is coming up with. I have good reasons why we should attempt to study Venus in closer detail. With new technology we can get closer to the planet, learn how the planet works, and learn what the planet used to be like.
Venus is the hottest planet in our solar system despite Mercury being closer to the sun. What makes Venus so hot is that its atmosphere is 97 percent carbon dioxide, the clouds are made of sulfuric acid, and the temperatures on the surface average of 800 degrees Fahrenheit. Something else that makes this planet dangerous is that the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than Earth. These conditions are to harsh for humans to explore but NASA has a possible solution that would help us get closer to the planet. We could fly a blimp like vehicle 30 miles above the surface. That way we be at about 170 degrees and air pressure that is like what sea level is on Earth. There would be enough solar power and normal levels of radition so that humans would be able to survive these conditions.
Getting closer to the planet could help us to understand more of how the planet works. This planet has many volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and lots of lightning. If we could get a sample of some of the rock on Venus, this could help us better understand these conditions and what has happened to this planet. Long ago Venus could have been like Earth and this could tell us how.
People think that a long time ago that Venus maybe used to be like Earth. It was covered in oceans and supported life forms. Venus is alot like Earth because it has a surface made of rocky sediment, valleys, mountains, and craters. Venus is the closest and most like to Earth and I think that we should explore it to learn more of what it used to be like.
Venus is a dangerous and hard planet to study put I think if we can get close enough to it to study than it is worth the risk. Venus is alot like Earth and it would be cool is we could what it was like a long time ago and if it had life forms on it. We would also get to learn how the planet works and why it is so hot. I think that we should explore Venus more and that we should try NASA's blimp idea. | 4 |
Can you imagine living in a time zone where no one buys cars because they are no longer needed ? The world depend on nothing but technolgy. How would you spend your time? Although there are positive apsects to having a car that drives itself there are also negative aspects to this car. The cars can drive themselves but are unable to drive through traffic jams or raod work . Therefore I am against cars that drive themselves.
Even though the cars are smart enough to drive themselves they are not smart enough to drive on non-smart roads. In the late 1950s GM ,General Motors created a car that could run on a speacial track but the track was enbedded with an electrical cable that sent radio signals to the car. Therefore all roads would have to require upgrades and this is something that is too expensive. The passage says that the cars can't drive through traffic jams,road contruction and when the vehicle is around danger . So if the driver is not paying attention to the car , the road and others around it then how can the car ,the car would be unable to save itself from crashing. With this being said I believe driverless cars are dangerous and would be way to expensive.
As i said there are benefits to this driverless car , while the car drives it self it provides enteratinment such as sound but when it is time for the driver to take over it turns everything off. This is a great idea because it creates less distraction for the driver.
Imagine driving a driverless car and it shuts down in the middle of traffic ,there is a person driving behind does not notice you are having car troubles and hits you. Whose fault is this accident ? Whose going to pay for the damage?
I feel that there are more downfalls with this idea than great ideas .It is dangerous , too expensive , and takes as much energy and time as driving yourself around. It sounds like a disaster waiting to happen . | 3 |
It's a once in a lifetime oppurtunity like I knew for people to help others and explore around the world. When you join the Seagoing Cowboys program you will get to take care on not just animals, but also people in need. As I said "Besides helping people, I had the side benifit of seeing Europe and China," I said. Also in Venice,Italy it was "A city with streets of water." As you travel to theese far away places you also haft to take care of animals along the way.
Caring for theese animals willl sure keep you busy, but it is quite easy all you do is feed them, water them, and clean stalls. This experience is also good with connecting with people on the ship. I had fun on board with games such as baseball,volleyball,tabel-tennis,fenncing,boxing,reading,and other games past the time. With this journey it made me aware of people of countries and there needs. So join not only the Seagoing Cowboys for helping people, but also the exsperience.
Even though on the Seagoing Cowboys program you get to see cities and have fun, but it is also a tremendus amount of work. As you said taking animals is actually hard dependig on what animal. You need to clean,feed,and give water to animals every single day. Sure you have breaks but it is still a lot of work for one person. Not to metion this exsperince is on a boat. Most people either have sea sickness on boats as well you have a extreme chance of crashing,sinking,drowning,and also falling off board into endless ocean.
While travilling all over the word you haft to deal with climate and time change. It will take some getting use to constantly changing weather and sleep schedules. Also its very hard to even sleep on a boat with sailing on dangerous waters in the dark every night. While caring for people is a great deed to do it is aslo hard watching people suffer everyday even though your helping them you can still think of other people in that situation as well. | 2 |
The author uses Many ways to spport his claim that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit depite the dangers it presents.
First, the author explains that how Venus is the closest planet to Earth. For example, "Often reffer to as Earth's 'twin,' Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size and occasionally the closest in distance too."(2). The author is using many evidences to support his claim logically. By telling how Venus is close to Earth specifically, the author supports the idea effeciently.
Second, the author is using counterclaim to support his claim not just showing benefit points. For instance, "However, peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely afar above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions because most forms of light cannot penetrate the dense atmsphere, rendering standard forms of photography and videography ineffective."(6). By using counterclaim, it is easier to understand how the author's claim is important for readers. The
author supports his claim by telling reader's emotion.
The author uses pathos and logos to support the idea that studying Venus is good thing for us even the danger presents. | 1 |
Driverless cars
Driverless cars are a interesting subject to speak about, they are said to come in the near future, as stated by Sebastian the founder of the Google Car project, but are they really safe. Driverless cars have always been a fascinating idea in televison, but they seem to be dangerous, expensive, and interface with the law.
Driverless cars are amusing to those who look forward to this new technology, and its unreal and amazing that a car drive it's self, but is it safe? "Driverless cars" at the time seem to already struggle with the navigation and attention of the driver to prevent accidents from occuring. As stated by the article, " This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires." Driverless cars today aren't all that beneficial and requiredue the attention of drivers, how can we be positive that the new cars said to come will be ready to prevent accidents without the requirence of human attention? Not only do these cars seem to be safeless, but due to all that worl that is said to come and all the new technology, dont they seem expensive and out of reach?
The driverless cars are said to come, but with the technology that will be invested into this project, it seems to be out of reach from those who are interested. As stated by the article, "...but how much smarter did the cars need to be? For starters, they needed a whloe lot of sensors." This shows that the "driverless cars" today needed a lot of work put into them, and gives a view of how these cars were made and now compared to the soon to come real driverless cars, how much will be invested for someone who is interested.
Driverless cars amuse the world with the idea that they will soon be here and will require no human at the wheel, but say it doesnt turn out well and the car is invlolved into an accident what will happen? Who will be responsible for the occurence that has happened? As stated by the article, " If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault--the driver or the manufacturer?" If all fails, what will the law say and who is to be blamed for? Laws will need to be undated with the upcoming driverless cars, as stated by the article, " ...in order to cover the liability in the case of an accident." Even with laws updated, not every state is allowing the testing of the new cars to come, knowing that they are unsure of the safety of others.
In conclusion, the subject of driverless cars has always been a fascinating idea in televison and amuse thos interested and curious, but are they safe and is it also safe to safe they are? What will happen if they fails and cause someone's life? Driverless cars are said to be safe, but are they really? | 2 |
Emotions are hard to read. You think you know what someone is feeling by their facial expression. Just take the Mona Lisa for example. What precise emotions is the woman trying to potray? That is why Doctor Thomas Huang invented the new software that can detect emotions. The new software should be used in the classroom to determine the emotional expressions of students.
Dr. Huang said "The facial expressions for each emotion are universal." This means that trying to understand what someone's facial expression is saying or how they are feeling is hard to understand. "Using video imagery, the new emotion-recogntion software tracks these facial movements." The software reads every muscle in the face and its position at the time of the expression. It then determines what the person is trying to communicate through their facial expression. This could be helpful in the classroom by seeing if someone is confused, happy, bored, or tiresome.
" 'A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored,' Dr. Huang predicts. 'Then it could modify the lesson, like an effective human instructor.' " This says that the software is capable of keeping the students attentative to the lecture and can help a student understand the subject.
The software is also capable of spotting when someone is lying. "To an expert, faces don't lie; these muscle clues are sometimes used to spot when a 'smiling' politician or celebrity isn't being truthful." The software could be used in the classroom in the following ways: to see if a student really understands a subject, can be used as a lie detector, or can be used if a teacher knows what they are teaching. Going back to the facial movements, a student could say they understand something but really they do not. Just listed above, the software will detect if the student is lying about that.
While some would oppose this software, it would be beneficial to be used in the classroom. This would be the same thing as adding computers to schools. Many were against adding computers into schools, but now they are used every day by every student. The government could use this software on interrogation and in the courts; stated above, it could be used as a lie detector. | 3 |
Would you like to go to Venus? Venus is the second planet from the sun which makes it easy to see it's a beautiful sight but is still dangerous. The author stated that "Venus has proved Challenging place to examine more closely". There are many examples of the dangers of Venus.
Venus is not a safe planet to land on or to get near and the author explains why with two reasons. Venus's clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid is dangerous and is why we cant go there. The author stated that " On the planet's surface, temperatues average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmosperic pressure is 90 times greater than what we expierience on our own planet". Venus has the most hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system. An example of this is when the author says "Venusian geology and weather present additional impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface.
The author says that it is dangerous to travel to Venus because of the Surface temperature and the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid. The author makes some good points on the dangers of going to venus. After reading this do you still want to go to Venus? | 1 |
Dont you get tired of driving sometimes, Get sleepy or just dont feel like driving. well theres a solution for that in the future.''Driverless cars are coming''.Driverless cars are great for many reasons like proventing cars accidents, GPS's so you dont get lost, and letting you relax on the road.
Driverless cars provent accidents because the cars have sensors thats will stop the car before it even comes close to hitting something.The artical states that ''In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheels in the creation of antilock brakes. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out of control skids or rollovers.'' This allows drivers to drive more safely on the road.
Driverless cars are great with GPS because you can get were you need to gothe quickest way possiable.GPS is a navigation system that directs you in the direction you need to go to get where you wanna get.Driving with out a GPS can get you lost if you dont know your direction.Thats way you need a GPS.
And last driverless cars can allow you to relax.You dont have to keep your eyes on the road.You wont tire your self out. And you wont have any worrys.This is way you should get a driverless car. | 1 |
Would driverless cars really be helpful to people if they were successfully made? They would probably turn out to be something great if manufacturers succeeded in making these cars. Cars like these sound just as good as flying cars in the future. However, driverless cars do not seem to be a good thing for society. There could be a few problems if this type of car was created and here are some of those problems.
Driverless cars are not good for the society if they are made. Firstly, people would be more lazy than they already are if introduced to this. We already have sensors to help us with driving, so what more do we need. People are already lazy enough today because of technology. This idea would not help society at all if it were introduced to us.
Secondly, in paragraph nine, they state that if one were to be in a car accident, on one will really know who is at fault. In addition to that, people could lie, saying that it was the car's fault, thus people would blame the manufacturers. There could be a lot companies sued because of car accidents and of people who do not want to tell the truth. Also, what happens when a driverless car hits a pedestrian? Driverless could do a lot of bad things and it would all fall on top of the company.
Lastly, there is truly no point in making driverless cars because the driver is not doing a lot in the first place. People know how to drive already and there is no point in making a car that does everything that the driver can already do. This goes back to the laziness part. People also know that there's no point, but yet they decide we should have it because of their laziness. These are some reasons on why driverless cars are not good for society.
Driverless are not a good idea and should not be introduced to society. Honestly, it would step up our game with technology, but we should not waste with something like a driverless car. We can do so much more with this kind technology and should not take it for granted. We should be using our brains for thinking of a way to stop global warming or even the flying car idea sounds nice. To cnoclude, creating driverless cars is not a good idea. | 2 |
The use of this technology to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is not valuable beacuse i don't think the technology can tell how someone is feelings 100 percent correct. Technology can't read humans minds nor humans face so i think the use of this technology is not valuable to read the emotional expressions of students. It won't be good for some people who want a private life feelings if the technology is showing how they feel every time they get happy or sad.
Technology are always not smart,technology can hurt humans too they're not always helpful. Just because you enjoy using it does'nt mean others do. I think that this technology to read emotional expressions of humans is bad to use well it's my oppion i don't know about others people but im pretty sure they'll agree with me.
What if this technology brng harm to some people,its not a good idea to read people feelings some might like it but some might hate you. So i don't think this technology is valuable. It might be helpful to read students's emotional expressions but what if the students dont want that like they want they private feelings,they don't want to share with anyone only themself or maybe friends. Who want someone to going around and use technology to see what they feelings? Nobody. | 1 |
Cars have become a part of our modern day culture since the invention of the first model. Many countries around the world have an abundance of car buyers and users, however others are taking into consideration alternatives. The advantages of limiting car usage include relief from stress of cars upon individuals and reduced emissions in the environment.
Cars put forth a lot of stressful trouble upon users. These vehicles are designed to transport a person or people from point A to point B, however cars are for personal use that can cost an immense amount of money. "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way," said Heidrun Walter about her new "car-free" lifestyle (Rosenthal,3). This ideaology is spreading throughout all Europe as more alternate transportations are provided by the government. As Selsky mentioned in Source 3, locations, such as parks and sports centers with uneven sidewalks, have been replaced with broad, smooth ones for citizen's use. Moreover, many cities have provided a bicycle program to promote less usage of cars. These steps towards change help convince people that there are alternatives out there, and that we aren't limited to just buying a car and license to go to places.
Additionally, the limitation of car usage help establish a better and healthier environment for everyone. Cars emulate lots of dangerous gases that may harm our precious earth, many of which are responsible for the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect causes gases to be trapped in the atmosphere which harms our ozone layer and creates a smog-like appearance on our cities. Paris is an example of a polluted city as civilians battle against threatening smog from emissions of diesel cars in France (Duffer,8). Many actions towards progressive behavior have increased the likelihood of limited car usage, such as tolls throughout cities and fines up to $25 for violators of laws. These enforcements will ensure that the environment is capable of maintaining generation after generation at a stable pace.
To conclude, many countries are pondering choices of opportunites to promote less usage of cars, while some are on their way to solve these issues, limitations on car usage have a variety of advantages for ourselves and the environment. These limits help reduce stressful situations, as well as provide a healthier ecosystem to live and prosper. | 3 |
Technology all around us is evolving, we're now to the point where we can tell how exactly Mona Lisa was feeling when her famous picture was painted. Due to new technology such as, the Facial Action Coding System, professionals can tell exactly how someone is feeling in a picture, or even in class during a lesson. This new application will have a massive impact on how teachers educate kids. This will help out teachers with how to teach a lesson and improve how engaged kids will be in class.
First, classroom computers could use this program to recongnize when a student is confused or bored. The computer would then modify the lesson so the student will hopefully become interested again. This program could really get kids to learn and become interested about what is being taught. This would ultimately lead to higher passing rates and better futures for kids.
Secondly, this technology can make video games or video surgery alot more expressive. Some faces in videos are really bland and boring. If the faces were better detailed and more expressive the viewer will be interested and will pay more attention. Expressions on animated faces are really important, these features draw the viewers attention and will interest them.
All in all, this new technology is very valuable in a classroom. It would durrastically change how kids learn and would make them way more interested than they currently are. Most kids do not learn the same, this technology could change that so each student can learn the way that best helps them. This application will help out teachers tremendously and could really improve passing rates! | 2 |
Hello fellow debater! I see you believe that the rock formation on mars may have been created by aliens.As exciting as that would be for us in NASA that is sadley not the case.Here are my reasons why. My three reasons for why the rock formation on mars was not created by aliens are: one the formation has the same structure as a mesa,two the picture evidence,and three if aliens did make it would a be benafical to our belief theirs alien life and b theirs lack of evidence to support this theory.
Reason one! The formation is a natural mesa! Through out the artical we are given hints to the formation being a mesa. In the intro it even says this.Evidence in the text ( paragraph tweleve) suggest that the face on mars is mostley related to the 'butte in the Snke Plain of Idaho says says Garvin'.This means the face on mars is closely related to rock formations found here in on earth.
Reason two! Picture evidence! Picture evidence from the various NASA
spacecraft show us that. As the years went by and our technolagy we were able to get better and better picture resolution and were able to see the picture better. The picture taken by the viking 1( in1976) was a 43 meter per pixel while the picture taken in 2001 had a 1.56 meters per pixel which allows us to take better pictures to see what the rock formation really looked like which is a common day mesa.
Reason three! lack of evidence The lack of evidence about aliens on mars making the rock formation is evident. With little proof that the rock formation was made by aliens makes it hard to say aliens made it. This makes it even harder to prove aliens did this because the same struture of the rock formation can be found on earth in america also given how mars also has about the same size as earth and also having the same gargaphy its possiable that the tectonic plates under the surface of the plant did this. In short we wish it was created by aliens but it most likely wasn't.
This is the end of my statement on why the large rock formation on mars wasn't created by aliens but instead was a mesa a rock formation we can find in modern day america. To recap my reasons on why i dont believe it was created by aliens :one its a mesa, two picture evidence , and three lack of evidence it was made by aliens. | 2 |
I dont think the facial action coding sytem is worth all the trouble of designing. It can supposibly detect emotional expressions from facial recognition. But what if that person really isnt that emotion? Many people can just fake being happy by smiling or they can act like their sad just by putting on a fake face. You can only truely know how they are really feeling by the way they act, or if you know this person very well. Why let a computer tell you that your sibling or somebody is actually moderatlely happy when they may be really depressed but doesnt want to show it. Instead of the computer scanning faces, why not have something that takes time to observe the way people act and feel. Theres no guarantee that Mona Lisa was 83 percent happy. What if she was just smiling for the painting? Theres no way a computer can solve peoples emotions like that. It would take way more work and progress to accuratly see how a person feels. And until something of the sort is designed, we should stick to the people who help with the people having problems with emotions and can tell whats wrong with them, like therapists or in some cases doctors. Anyone can just say theyre happy, and all they have to do is smile. Thats all it takes to fool an expensive computer thats honestly worthless. I think this is a human problem that technology cant really help out with that much. Emotions are a human problem that needs to be dealt and helped with human to human, not human to machine. | 2 |
Dear State Senator,
The election should be changed to popular vote instead of using the Electoral College for the president of the United States. The Electoral College is unfair to voters and is an outdated system that needs to go.
In Source 2, the article states "Consider that state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and those electors could always defy the will of the people." The people vote for the president they want then the state counts the votes and picks majority then the Electoral College has the final desicion and picks the presidet, which is unfair to the people because even if they win majority vote it is up to the electoral college to decide. The same article also states "In the same vein, 'faithless' electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's canidate and cast a deciding vote for however they please-". It is almost ads if the people have no voice in elections.
The Electoral College is also unfair because of what is stated in Source 2. Again, the article says "Consider that state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people." The people have no opinion in elections it is all up to the Electoral College to decide the president of the United States regardless of what the people want as their leader of the United States of America.
Although the people have no voice in the elections but instead the Electoral College, sometimes it is better to keep the old method. In Source 3, the article states that it is is less likely to have a dispute over the popular vote. "The reason is the winning canidate's share of the Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote." Saying that the Electoral College sometimes tries to go along with the popular vote to best fit what the people voted for.
Even though the Electoral College has been around fro a really long time, it is time to change and go with popular vote elections for the president of the United States instead. That way the people actually vote for the president themselves and they get what they want.
Thank you for your time. | 2 |
All we talk about is being able to be our own person and to be able to do things on our own but having electoral college isn't gonna help with that. Electoral college is when you select a group of electors to chose who they want to be president and you choose the group of electors which you want. Every group of electors will have their own opinion on who they want to be president so you have to be very cautious on who you pick. Popular vote is a more independent way of letting us citizens know that we can be able to vote without the help of our electors. Senator, it would be outrageous for us to be so dependent on the electors when its unnecessary and we can vote on our own.
There have been times when people choose the wrong electors and they can't go back to change it, so why not just vote on your own and have the ability for clarrification and honesty on who I vote for. I feel like having an electoral college is a waste of time and it's only making things more complicated. If you should have a system it should be one that makes peoples lives easier not even more stessful. Also the voters can't control who the electors vote for so you make be telling the electors one thing but they will be doing another. These are the things that us citizens need to thing about. Should we have to doubt our electors? no, we should trust that they will vote for the president that we asked them too.
Voting for president is very serious because, that president will be representing where we live and what we stand for so it can't be something that we slack off on, it needs to be something that we are proud of and the only way thats going to happen is if we choose our own president without our electors to do that for us. Us citizens should be proud and honored that we have the opportunity to choose our president because not most people have that chance and electoral college will be taking that for granted. Popular vote assures that our vote counts and it gives us the independent character that we need to be strong.
Senator, I think that if you want everyone to fell secure and trusted then you should keep using popular vote. | 2 |
Many places all over the world are starting to become "car-free". This can have a lot of advantages. Air quality will improve, people will save money, and people will have less stress.
A major advantage of reducing the amount of people driving is that the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted from those cars will be reduced. In paragraph 5 of
Source 1:
In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars , it is stated that 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe come from passenger cars, with an even greater percent in large cities. If these cities were to stop using cars, the smog surrounding the cities would be able to clear within about a week. If all of the major cities in Europe would limit the use of cars, then the air would be much cleaner. In
Source 3: Car-free day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota , the article talks about how cities in Columbia have had a car-free day for three years in a row. The goal of this day is to reduce the levels of smog throughout the country. It is also to try to get other countries around the world to have a similar day. If every country were to participate, the overall air quality would be able to improve drastically.
Another advantage of becoming car-free is shown in
Source 4: The End of Car Culture , where it describes that "Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer liscenses as each year goes by." The article also says that in 2005, the number of miles driven in the United States peaked and has gradually lowered since. With less cars being bought, people are saving lots of money they would be spending on repairs, gas, tires, and other things that attribute to the price of a car. Not having to worry about whether or not their car will start when they have to go to work will be able to lower a person's stress. As less people drive from place to place, they will begin to walk or ride a bike to get where they need to go. Many people believe that excercise can also reduce stress which can make people happier and more willing to help others.
Whether it's improving air quality, saving people money, or lowering stress, becoming car-free has many advantages. As less people use cars, more good effects will begin to show. | 3 |
I believe that the electoral college should be changed to a popular vote election. The current way of voting is electing the wrong canidate. The populrity way of voting is what the people want. It is less hoopes to jump through. Instead of having people that vote for the state why not just have the people vote then tally up which canidate has the most votes.
In the current way that we vote we decide how many votes a state gets toward the election. It is decided uponthe general population of the sate. This is just adding anoter sterp to the process that be could be much faster. Therehave been many elections were the popularity would hjave wone the election although the elctoral vote was greater therefore the wrong president won the election.
Inconclusion there are many more people like me that believe that there should be apopularity vote electin not based ofof the staes reps or whatever they call themselves. it is not the correct way and it needs changed now. | 1 |
The Electoral College should be kept. It has been like this for a lot of years so why change it now? It is not a complicated system that people don't understand and works well with our country. Electoral College should stay, many would argue it is not a democratic modern sense but this country is a democracy so of course the system of which we pick our president has to be democratic.
The Electoral College should stay because to win it a candiate would have to be popular in states other than the South. It is understading citizens in the South might feel like their vote does not count, but at the end of the day if that was the way it has been done for several years and there is no reason to change it now. "Voters in toss-up states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign" (Source 3, Paragraph 20). If people are starting to pay more attention to the campaign and what is happening around the country then that is a good thing to keep the Electoral College. People start to care about who governs and who tries to make this country better. They all go out and vote for who they think it is best, even if the person that they wanted to win, didnt. This system makes citizens feel like their voices matter and it can make a difference.
"The Electoral College avoids the problem of the elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the cast" (Source 3, Paragraph 22). The Electoral College is avoiding another problem so it should be kept. It is avoiding a problem such as a person getting too many votes and keeps it fair for both candiates. It is important to keep it because voters in presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people who think that a single vote may decide an election (Sourse 3, Paragraph 23). The people that think their political ideas are more imporant than votes, should the person to govern a country. They think about the good things and if their ideas are good enough, they should win.
In conclusion, the Electoral College should be kept the same. It has been the same for years so no reason to change it now. It has more benefits such as, citizens paying more attention to the electoral campaigns, and good candiates who cares more about thier political belifes then votes. | 2 |
The author support the idea of studying Venus is a wroth pursuit despite the dangers really because he explain the reason why it is danger. The author explain to us that what are the explorer doing to find out what is happening and how are they going to go down to Venus to study it.
In (paragraph 2) their is a differences in speed man that sometimes we are closer to Mars and other time to Venus. Because Venus is sometimes right around the coner in space terms humands have sent numerous spacecraft to land on this cloud-draped world but no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours.
The author explain us that they are still trying to find away to go to Venus and study the planet. Then explores are sending spacecraft and find out when can't they land on Venus and testing a lot of spacecraft to find out what are they missing to make the spacecraft land on the Venus. | 1 |
When you were younger about 15 or so didn't you always want to drive? Well for the next generation that dream will be snatched no longer willl they get to experince driving.I am against the building of driverless cars.There are two reasons I am against driverless cars. First off it takes the fun out of driving. Secondly its dangerous.
To begin with driverless cars take the fun out of driving. No one wants to sit inside of a car and do nothing. Getting your driving liscense is like a new found freedom, how would you feel if immediatley after getting your liscense instead of driving yourself you were getting drove around? no one would want that. which is why i am against driverless cars
Also driverless cars are dangerous. They are ran by computers which from time to time do malfunction. Companys are putting entertaintment features in the car which distarcts the driver if he needs to take over the wheel. Another point brought up in the essay is that whos to blame when the driverless car runs into another car. An incident of that nature would cause the blame game. manufacture wouldn't take credit and neither would the driver or should i say copilot. Also computers can be hacked. Say the president was in a driverless car and someone wanted him dead it would be very easy for them to hack his car and send him off a cliff.
In conclusion, Driverless cars should not exist because they can cause conflict and because they are boring | 1 |
When I was young, I was born in a small town in Germany. Everything was nice and refreshing, but then I moved to the U.S and I felt uncomfortable. Everthing was big, lots of buildings, and so many cars with their gas polluting this world. I believe that there are lots of advantages of limiting car usages, like a better enviroment, a healthier lifestyle, and a closer walking distance.
Cars have runind many big areas with their smog, like Beijing, China, and Paris,
France.
"Diesel Fuel was blamed...,"
it said in the article,
Paris bans driving due to smog .
If we limited the usage of cars thing like smogs wouldn't happen. Trees won't get ruined from smog and animals wont die from pollution.
The less pollution we have, the more we get helthier. But its not just pollution,
Heidrunu Walter said,
"When i had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way..."
Having no cars and just walking to the palces you need to go or riding a bicycle is so much healthier than driving a car and polluting the world.
In the past two decades there have been efforts to make cities denser, which isn't bad.
That means everything would be walking disitance. there would be stores placed a walk away and not on distant highway. Kids can be safer crossing a walk way and not in danger.
Limitating car usage is not a bad think at all it's rather a very great idea, and way safer. Envioments become healthier, people will have a healthier lifestyle, and everything will become walking distance. | 2 |
Dont you think that having driveless cars will cause many problems? For instance driveless cars would be like schools that dont teach. Teachers would be there but they wouldnt do anything but sit there. Therefore no student would learn. So i dont think that it is a good idea to have driveless cars.
One reason i dont think that there should be driveless cars is because it would cause problems with the manufacture of the car and the owner of the car. I say that because in the passage it states that " maufactures are aslo considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road." That is invasion of privacy. Therfore the company and the maufacture of the car can be sued. And im pretty sure that no company would want to gert sued for having cameras on the inside of a car that watched the driver.
Another reason why i feel that there should not be driveless cars is because cars would no longer be fun for people to have. By that i mean most people like to divr they say its fun and it gives the something to do. But if there was driveless cars they wouldnt get to drive. They would just sit in the car and wait untill the car gets to the destination. So how is that fun? It would only be fun if there was a button or a switch that the owner could use to change the cars settings so that when they want to drive they can sand when they dont want to drive they dont have to.
The last reason i dont feel that driveless cars are a good idea is because there is no promises yet that there will ever be a driveless car. For example if a person is looking to buy a car and they go to a car dealership and the person trying to sell them a car says it drives on its own and the person buys the car. When they get to drive it they see that it only drives on its own at certain times. Dont you think that is real misleading? I mean there is no way that a company cant get sued for that. I say that because the company sold a car to someone that was suppose to "drive by itself" but it doesnt drive on its own therfore it is misleading and can cause major problems for the company.
And those are only some of the reasons on why i feel that there should not be driveless cars. They will cause to many problems with car companies and the owners of the cars. They will take all of the fun out of being able to drive cars. And if there is no promise that the car will be completly driveless and a company says it is then it could cause companies to loose a lot of money. So for everyone that thinks they should make a car that is driveless dont do it. | 3 |
The author supports his idea in studying Venus in many ways. Exploring Venus can lead up to many ways to improvise. If we study Venus we can learn more about the planet, such as, if it was once an earth like planet . It could also help us even save the Earth in the long run. My final reason why we should explore Venus is because it can lead us in exploring other planets.
First of all exploring Venus has a tough task, but we can learn a lot about the planet if we do explore it. We could even find out if it was once an earth like planet. We could discover new oils or new rocks. If we do discover new oil we could even put a mining system on Venus and have more oils. Exploring Venus can even help us find new minerals as well. We could discover many new things if we explore Venus ,dispite it having challenges.
Second of all Venus could have been an earth like planet." Astronomers are fascinated by Venus because it may well once have been the most Earth like planet in our solar system" If this was true we could make more and more explorations and maybe even find out why it heated up so much and if we find everything out it could help us maybe even save earth one day when the sun expands more. It can help us save our planet .
Third of all If we decide to explore Venus we would have to improvise all of our machinery to sustain that heat on Venus. The heat on Venus averages to 800 degrees fahrenheit and also the atmospheric perssure is 90 times greater than what we expierence here on our own planet. We would have to make our machines and robots heat resistant. These innovations could even help us explore other planets. It would make the innovations easier if we want to explore colder planets in the future. This can spark an exploration of many other plantes. It could even help us reach other galexies and explore there. Exploring Venus can help us invent and Innovate many of our technology and it can end up helping us explore the whole solar system.
In conclusion exploring Venus is worthy pursuit despite the dangers would help us out a lot. As i explaned in the paragraphs above, it can help us improve and succeed. We would earn so much more about the planet, such as if it were actually a earth like planet . We could also discover many new things such as oils and minerals. Last of all it could help us in exploring other planets. It can help our innovations get easier so we could explore colder planets too. This is why exploring Venus would help us , even though it has lots of risks it could still help us out in the future. | 3 |
Driverless cars are a huge step in technology and may workout to be very useful, but there is always that percent chance that it will fail. For example if I were to own one of these Driverless cars I would
Be worried about one thing, and that is running into other cars. I wouldnt want to own one of these because I personally do not trust them.
A huge problem for me would be liability. For example, If I am in one of these driverless cars and a surrounding car near me runs a red light and I go head on with them because this driverless car could not react in time because it doesn't have the senses of a human. If my life was not taken would it be my fault that I got into a wreck or would it be the manufacture's fault? Just like the article said new traffic laws will certaintly be needed in order to make this possible. There is a reason why only 3 out of our 50 states are currently allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars and that is because people do not trust these things. If these companies are releasing these cars in 2020 then they better change the law to make it safe for the driver and the companies by four years. I also do not think that they can make these cars as aware as some human drivers are. For example if the car gets hit it has nothing to lose, but the human inside the car is trying to protect their life.
I personally believe that they should prohibit these cars from coming out in the United States. They could possibly release them in another country and then bring them to the U.S. if they workout in other countries. The reason for that is because our liability laws are not where they need to be yet in my opinion. | 2 |
I believe that driveless car are not good at all because we will have nothing to work for. But at the same time there are postitive effects and negative ones as well . Driverless car would make a huge change in our world today. There would be alot less bad things happening if they were driverless. People wouldnt have to go through the trouble to push the gas to make the care go or anything.
The postitive effects of turing to driveless cars are very high. People want this to happen so they are going to try to find all the positive thing about it and let other people know. The cars that Sergey Brin are creating would use half of the fuek that todays taxes and offer more flexibility than a bus. The cars have been driven more than half a million miles without crashing but the thing about that is that google care arent truly driverless. The cars still alret the driver when they are pullin gin and out of driveways or dealing with traffic suchas getting aroung roadwork and accidents.
The good thing right now is the cars are not completely driveless becuase you can steer, accelerate, and brake themseleves, but they are still designed to tell the driver that the road ahead requires them to something like get through work zones and around accidents.
There are many negitive thing to having driveless cars as well such as making sure that the automatic will happen at all times. What if what its suppose to do doesnt work out and then you do something else and you hurt someone or yourself.
The person would have to stay alert at all times just is case it doesnt do what its suppose to do. Even though its a drive less car you still have to keep your hands on the wheel at all times so you could not do anything that you wanted to do. They said that you had to take over when the car gets into situations and i dont think that is fair becuase its suppsose to be all driverless.
Some thing make me think that driveless cars are good but I don't agree at all. I feel like you have to put in just as much work as you do now to dirve the "driveless" car. You shoudn't have to keep your eyes are the road at all times because its suppose to do what it is suppose to do when its happening. The article said that it will cause less wrecks and i disagree becuase if people are doing what the are suppose to be doing you can get in a wreck so easily. I think that we should be able to control it whenever it is needed. If people dont want to us the "driverless" car they should be able to have an opition to turn it off and on. | 2 |
How do you feel about our voting system today? Today our current voting system consists of electoral colleges that vote for there certain president depending on your votes for president. We have had this system since the begaining of voting for president for our country. Some believe that our country recieves harm as far as our selection for president goes. What they mean by this is that it all pretty much relies on the electoral colleges to vote our president. The problem with this is that people think that the president should be chose from popular vote, not from the electoral colleges. The thing with this is the our favors can be easily swayed due to the smart and cleverly designed ads during there campaign for president. Now see this wouldnt be a problem except that these advertisements arent always true and could sway our vote for the wrong reasons. This where the elctoral colleges come into play, they limit the amount of votes each president gets by the state. The electoral votes are then distributed to each candidate according to the amount of votes each one gets in the state. If we left it to just popular vote, the new president could just be decided by a couple clever ads and not there actual reasons for running, and what there gonna do for the country. all this being said i do think the amount of electorl votes shouldnt change due to the size of the sate so everyone has a fair chance. Honestly i think the electoral vote system works like a charm and would side with it opposed to the popular vote side of things. | 1 |
The article "Unmasking the Face of Mars" talks about a face formation on the planet Mars that people think was a creation made by aliens. Others think the the face is just formation that formed from natural events. Scientists say that the face is just a natural formation and others think that the face is acutally made by aliens. I think that the face on Mars is actually just a natural formation that occured making the face that is shown. Here is why I think that the face is made by natural events.
The face is actually like other buttes or mesas on Earth that are commonly found. According to the article, "What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a butte or messa-landforms common around the American West." The face on mars is almost like areas found on Earth making the face seem like it is just a common thing that forms like a butte. Are the buttes or mesas on Earth made by aliens too if the face on Mars was made by aliens? No. The buttes or mesas on Earth are accually formed from natural aspects.
The face could have been formed because of the weather conditions on Mars. According to the article, "The Face on Mars is located at 41 degrees north martian latitude where it was winter in April '98-a cloudy time of year on the Red Planet. The Camera on board MGS had to peer through wispy clouds to see the Face." The weather conditions on the Red Planet could have been bad on the day that the face was formed. The face could had just been naturally formed because of the weather phenomenon going on in Mars. The planet just could have had bad weather conditions during the time.
When Mars Glodal Surveyor flew over Cydonia for the first time in 1998, a picture was taken and a natural landformation revealed that there was no alien monument after all. According to the article, "And so on April 5, 1998, when Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia for the first time, Michael Malin and his Mas Orbiter Camera (MOC) team snapped a picture ten times sharper than the original Viking photos. Thousands of anxious web surfers were waiting when the image first appeared on a JPL web site, reavealing... a natural landform. There was no alien monument after all." That means that the face found on Mars wasn't actually an alien monument. Just a natural landform. When the monument was taken on a sharper picture, the alien monument was actually just a natural formation.
Now you might say that the face found on Mars is accually an alien monument. However, the monument wasn't actually made by aliens, it was made by natural events. According to the article, "What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa-landforms common around the American West. `It reminds me most of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho,` says Garvi. `That's a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the ame height as the Face on Mar.`" There could have been a volcano that erupted and the lava from it could have hardened forming the face that is on Mars.
In conclusion, th Face on Mars is actually just a natural formation that occured making the face that is shown. The face isn't made from aliens. The face is just a regular formation that occured rom natural events. The face might have been made from aliens according to some people but in reality, the face is made from natural phenomenon. | 4 |
The face on Mars is just a normal landform. The face may be a pop icon, but it does not have proof that aliens made or build the face on Mars. People who were sufing the web , JPL mention on the web that the face is just a natural landform. The planet had to be looked at twice to prove there is no civilazation on Mars.
The face of the pop icon starred in many things. It has been starred in things like hollywood films, radio talk shows, books, magacines, and even frocery stores. It has been in Grocery line for 25 years. People think the face is a "bona fide" evidence of life on Mars. They also think of a ancient civilazation on Mars.
While people were suffing on the web, JPL anounced that the face on Mars is just a normal landform. Not everyone was satisfide with the announcement. They still believe of ancient civilazation on Mars. The camera on boradhad to peer through the clouds to see the face.
Perhaps alien marks were hidden by haced siad by skeptices. Yet there is no proof at all aliens did it.
Mars ws looked at again to prove there is no cilvilazation on Mars. Gavin says is not easy to look for a face on planet. They don't pass over them often. They took a other photo of the pace on Mars. What teh photo actually shows is the Marian equivalent of a butte jor mesa- such as the landform.
The face on Mars is just a normal landform. There is no proof of aliens made it. Also there is no proof that there was a | 2 |
I think the author did a good job of why we should still study venus dispite the risk. He states the risk of sending any maned or unmaned craft to Venus. He says how we can overcome or try to over come these problems.
The author states how sending any maned or unmaned craft ot venuse would be vary risky. He say says that the temp can get up to 800 degrees. hot enfouf to melt parts of a space craft. There is aslo the enourms wight of the atmosphere. The atmosphere on Venus is 90 times the wight of the atmosphere on earth. He says that is more than even the deepest parts of the ocean.
The author also says how we can try and over come these obstcals and get valebile data from Venus. He states an idea about using a hot air ballon like object to study Venus from about 30 miles from the surface. The temp would still be 170 degrees but we could work around that. The air pressure would be coles to that at sea level on earth. There is anether idea about simplified electronics made of silicon. Acording to test NASA did they woulf last up to three weeks. The last much longer than what we use in rovers that we send to the Moon and Mars.
These is why I think the auther did a good job staing why we should contune studying Venus dipite the extrme condations. He says all the dangers we would face trying to send anything there at all. Then he gives ways we can over come these dangers. | 2 |
I worked at a grocey store. Till my friend Don Resit conviced him to go to Europe on a cattle boat. I knew it was a very much an offer he could not refuse. An oppritunity of a life time. Being a Seagoing Cowboy helped open the world to me. It made me aware of people in other contries needs.This awarness stayed with me. My family started to help people and we became international and helped visitors also international students.
Would you want to cross the Altantic? This allowed me to experience many adventures as a boy. I got to cross the atlantic from the United States to China.
When I was just under 18 I arived in Greece! I got to help people, besides that I got the benifit of seeing Europe! I also toured a caslte in Crete. Dosen't that sound like fun? If it does Be a Seagoing Cowboy.
Some reason to join this program is that you can help people like I did. Do you help people? You will be greatful for this opprtunity. You will be happy to be alive! Do you like animals? I feed them and helped raise them. You will never be bored you will be busy the whole time. Are you bored some times? You won't as a Seagoing Cowboy.
Things that you will do for fun is that you will have fun wth your friends on borad to play games with you. Do you play games? You can play baseball and volleyball games in the empty holds where the animals had been housed.You can play table tenneis tournaments in the kitchen or dinning room table. You can also play fencing, boxing, also you can read, and whilttle. The games helped pass the time for me.
I did a whole lot when I was a Seagoing Cowboy. I was really active alot. I did many things with my friends. I was really greatful to have that opportunity my friend gave me. There was some regrets but it was all worth it in the long run now my family helps people so it is a win-win. You should really be a Seagoing Cowboy. You will not regert it trust me. | 3 |
The world of technology is developing to a higher level everyday. From television to having a small computer that can fit into your pockets. We have evolved, so did technology.
Technology is important in our life. Without technology now, would be hard and not easy to live without. But we took it to another level that we can now tell people facial expression. I like the idea that they did but I honestly don't think it would matter or change the way kids are gonna feel in school. Reading students emotions in class would help the teacher or staffs know how the students are feeling, but that wouldn't change the fact that they are in school. Students that are giving work will most likely feel a little angry inside. Teacher and staffs should be able to tell if a student is happy or sad. Not all teacher or staff can tell, but just looking at the students mouth or orbicularis tighten around their lips should show that they are angry or happy. Work is never fun or will make a student happy in school. I'm against the value of using technology to read students emotion expression because to make it through a lesson plan, it wouldn't matter if the students is happy or sad or even mad. In the end we all have to pass the class and make it through whatever the teacher gives us. Even though the technology of knowing other people emotions is cool, there wont be a different on how students in school will change how they feel.
This is only a sample of new technology. There will be more advance technology coming. Without technology life would be difficult. From chalkboard to projector. Technology is a big part of human life and the way they affect us. From solving a problem on your phone or even searching things we don't know on the web. Knowing people emotion will change a lot of people and will surprise them. | 2 |
The Face...something conspiarcy theorist have gripped on for forty years. It is just a rock with shadows, NASA uses a camera so good that it is possible to see an airplane from it, and if it was an alien construction NASA would publicize it just to be able to get more funds for the space program. Come on people, you have got to get over the possibility of life on mars, we have been searching for forty years now.
First thing is, it is just a mesa on Mars. The shadows on it and the concaves give off the optical illusion that it is a face. There is no life on Mars, therefore there is no way it could be artificial. "There must have been a degree of surprise among mission controllers back at the Jet Propulsion Lab when the face appeared on their moniters. But the sensation was short lived. Scientists figured it was just another Martian mesa, common enough around Cynodia, only this one had unusual shadows that made it look like an Egyptian Pharoh." (P. 2) This shows that no matter how people wanted to believe, there was just not life on Mars.
NASA's camera spanned 1. 56 meters in 2001. "So, if there were objects in this picture like airplanes on the gorund or Egyptian-style pyramids or even small shacks, you could see what they were!" (P. 11) This excerpt shows that with a camera as such a high grade as this one that there was barely anyhting on Mars surface that could be hidden.
While there is the smallest chance of the consiracy theorist being correct about the structure being artificially constructed and such, NASA would let this out. Let's go ahead and assume the theorist are correct. Spot on. NASA has been cut off by the government and has to pay for all of their journeys. NASA would bring this to the public in the hopes of getting funds and people wanting to work there for the future that could be. "Some people think the Face is bona fide evidence of life on Mars- evidence that NASA would rather hide, say conspiracy theorists. Meanwhile, defenders of the NASA budget wish there was an ancient civilization on Mars." (P. 5) This quote shows that NASA would quite appreciate the civilization on Mars, if there was any.
People have got to get over the possibility of life on Mars, even if it was there it is probably as small as bacteria this moment. This hump of dirt and rocks is not a face, NASA's cameras are so enhanced we would see signs of artificial construction, and NASA would tell us that way they could get their hands on some money. Come on guys, it's been forty years, give it a rest. | 4 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.