essay_id
stringlengths 7
7
| full_text
stringlengths 712
20.5k
| score
int64 1
6
|
|---|---|---|
96a2966 | Am I against or for the driverless cars?
I in my opinion am against having driverless cars. I have decided this because I love to drive, I injoy driving and going in and out of plces.
The reason why I have chosen this is because havind driverless cars could be a big terrible deal. For example , the car has a mind of its own but what if some day it has a glich and you are inside the car, the glich will seel the doors and windows. When you know the whay to go, turning right at a stop but the glich or mistake it makes the auto go to the left.
I injoy driving, I would not like to be lazy and not learn the street names or where my destination. The driverless cars learn everything for you, how are you going to invite a friend from outside who does not have a drierless car. You cannot help your friend get to the destination if you do not know the streets or dirrection to go to.
I for sure am against the driverless cars.
Are you against having the drverless cars or do you agree for them? | 2 |
96a93ed | Did you know there was a face on Mars? We have known the face was on Mars since 1976. This could tell us that there is other life on other planets than just Earth.
The text in paragraph one says, "An enormous head nearly two miles from end to end seemed to be staring back at the cmeras from a region of the Red Planet called Cydonia." This shows that they found something that looked similar to a face on Mars. But the text in paragraph eight states, "Thousands of anxious web surfers were waiting when the image appeared on a JPL web site, revealing . . . a natural landform." This shows that they assumed that there was life on Mars just by seeing that landform that looked similar to a face.
The evidence from paragraph eight shows that you can't always believe what you read anywhere, because it may not always be true. People just saw something that looked like a face and assumed it was, but didn't really know. | 2 |
96aa32c | Limiting car usage is not bad at all! It benifts everyone in a specific way.
As stated in the article 'Car-Free Cities' Source 1: Heidrum Walter, a media trainer and mother two quotes "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much more happier this way" Heidrum being a mother two you can only imagine the car trips she would have to make. Going place to place can cause a lot of stress to some people and it makes it harder for them to drive. For example, someone could be stressed to the max with all the traffic and driving around that it could create accidents along the way. No one should ever feel stressed while driving. Driving should be a privellege and good one.
In Paris they have banned driving due to smog. Diesel fuel was balmed since France has tax ploicy that favors diesel over gasoline. Diesels make up 67 percent of vehicles in France, compared to a 53.3 percent average of diesel engines in the rest of Western Europe. Paris has more smog than other European capitals. Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London. Certain things like this can help save the environment without the usage of vehicles.
With no car usage it prevents teens from getting into accidents and or drunk driving. The safer way to go is to walk or stay with a friend somewhere safe than being on the road. Many accidents could be prevented but it wont if limiting the car usage is not available. Death rates will decrease and many people will be safer this way. A study last year found that drving by young people decreased by 23 percent between 2001 and 2009. Without transportation many young people could make other main priorities. For example, they could organize their summer jobs and social life around where they can walk or take public transportation or car-pool with friends.
Up above I have given my reasons why we should all limit car usage. It would relieve stress from on the road, saves the environment and takes the smog away, and young people would be more socialize and up for doing more than what they already do like jobs. | 4 |
96ac275 | Luke wanted to join the Seagoing Cowboys program because he knew it would be an opportunity of a lifetime. When Luke went he would be helping horses, young cows, and mules being shipped over seas to a new locatation he had to help gather suplies, animals and many other things supplies to help out things that had gone wrong also 44 nations joined together to help them out.
In one of Luke's trips there had been more then 335 plus enough hay to feed all of them. By time Luke had turned 18 he had arrived in Greece which meant he could go into the military service. When Luke had been discharged he had maken more then nine trips, that is the most any Seagoing Cowboy has ever gone in this service. It took the Seagoing Cowboys two weeks to cross the Alantic Ocean from the United States, and on top of it took them a month to get to China.
When Luke was younger he used to help out on his Aunt Katie's farm, this helped him to learn his hardworking skills but never trained him for the dangers at sea. He had decided that helping out in the Seagoing Cowboys and all of the animals, and food services was worth all the help that him and his pals had given. It was real rainy one night after making his hourly check up on the horses to report to the captain when he had slipped down a slippery ladder ship cracking some of his ribs so then he couldn't do his job for a couple of days.
Luke also had a lot of fun on board with all of his friends. When the animals had been unloaded they played baseball, volleyball, fencing, table tennis and a lot more sports and game. Luke said that being a Seagoing Cowboy was way much more then an adventure he had opened up the world for Luke. He was very grateful for his jouney, it mad him more aware of the other countries and there needs.
Luke had learned everything from helping out animals to teamwork. Luke thought seen that helping other countries is fun but you do have to learn teamwork and much more. When he had broken some of his ribs he had to stop working his job for a while. When he got back on the job he was feeling very happy for what he had just accomplished for the world. | 2 |
96addd4 | The driverless car is a great invention for the public and offers a whole new perspective on driving. Most might believe the dangers of this vehicle but overall the positives outweigh the negatives. Google has had an independently running vehicle for years and the technology has only gotten better and the idea of this car would cut emmisions and crashes around the world. The vehicle also alerts the driver if there is a accident or road work that requires human skill.
In 2013, BMW announced the development of "traffic jam assistant." The car still drives itself but makes sure the dirver still has their hands firmly on the wheel. GM has developed drivers seats that vibrate when the vehicles in danger and the Google car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over. Other options under consideration are flashinglights on the windshield and other heads-up displays on vehicles. Some companies consider using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road.
Some might suggest that why would you want a driverless car that still needs a driver? wouldn't drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive? Some manufacturers hope to bring in car entertainment systems that use heads-up display. These displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over. In this sense the entertainment system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern.
Most laws focus on keeping drivers safe and away from harm. Lawmakers know that safety is achieved with alert drivers. Because of this fact in most states it is illegal even to test computer driven cars. California and a few other states are leading the country in allowing limited use of these vehicles. Most believe that other states will follow as it is proved more reliably safe.
Manufacturers continue their work assuming that problems ahead will be resolved. Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving 90 percent of the time. Other companies plan to have driverless cars by 2020 but we get closer and closer to driverless cars every day. | 3 |
96b0039 | I disagree that the use of this technology to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is valuable because why should we care if this kind of technology knows about our emotions, It is a waste of time and money, worst things could happen if FACS becomes the next big thing.
First, why should we care if this kind of technology knows about our emotions. Technology is basically making life easier to work. For example building constructions with cranes, using snow blowers to get the driveway cleared up faster, building wind turbines and solar panels to harvest energy from the earths elements. This type of technology does not need to know how we feel. Technology should only envolve if it is going to greatly effect the future in a positive way.
Second, it is a waste of time and money. There is no benefit of having Facial Action Coding System but one, reading our emotions. It is the peoples' job to know how all of us feel. People who are into technology should only spend money if and only if they are making life easier. FACS should not be pattented, it is a waste of time, and no benefit but one and that is reading our emotions.
Last but not least, worst things could happen if FACS becomes the next big thing. People out there already making androids that speak like humans, look like humans, and eventually act like ones. What is next? Androids doing their own job by doing curtain actions, or maybe taking our everyday jobs so that we can sit on our couch being lazy, and get fat because we are no longer proactive. My history teacher said,"When is helping hurting?" You don't realise it until something bad happens.
In conclusion, the use of technology to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is "not" valuable because we shoud not care if FACS knows about our emotions. It is a waste of time and money because it does not make life easier, and worst things could happen if this kind of technology becomes the next big thing. | 3 |
96b1038 | Transportation by a vehicle like a car is very common these days. It's an efficient way to travel for the most part, and has been used as an option for traveling since the early 1900s. Although cars have many upsides, they also have downsides too. By limiting car usage in more places, there could be many advantages. First, it could improve safety. Also, it will conserve resources. And lastly, limiting car usage will allow a tremendous decrease in pollution.
Limiting car usage will improve safety in a number of ways. By limiting car usage, there will most likely be a decrease in deaths since many car accidents result in fatality. It is not only cars colliding with other cars that is the issue; it is cars having the power to destroy most things it comes in contact with. Cars are not toys but rather death machines. They have the ability to cause major damage which is why if limited usage is enforced, there will most likely be less accidents resulting in major/minor injuries or even death. There are many options for getting around besides using a car. For example, there are electric scooters, mopeds, skateboards, rollerskates, bicycles, and even good old-fashioned walking. While some of these could potentially be dangerous, they are probably not as dangerous as driving a car.
Another reason limiting car usage could be beneficial is the conservation of resources. Cars are heavy machinery and need an abundance of fuel to keep them going for years and years. What powers most vehicles currently is fossil fuel. Fossil fuel is not an everlasting resource and will be gone someday. Now there are some cars that run on electricity, but for the most part, cars around the world run on fossil fuel. Considering that there are about one to two cars per household nowadays, that would mean both cars are probably getting filled with gas or even being charged with electricity (which could run your electricity bill through the roof). Since this applies to most people around the world, think of the resources being used daily. This usage of resources could be lessened by just limiting the usage of cars.
The last benefit of limiting car usage is less air pollution. Cars run on fossil fuel, as I stated in the previous paragraph. When a car is being driven, that fuel exits the car in a gas state. This gas form of fuel is very harmful to the environment. With so many cars on the road today, the atmosphere is already polluted a great deal.
Usually you will see signs that read "No Idling" outside of a store or any public area where cars are allowed which means that when you are parked, and are going to be parked for an extended period of time, you should turn your car off so that it does not let out gas. In Paris, a partial driving ban was actually enforced so that the amount of smog in the air would decrease. That is how much the usage of cars can affect an environment.
Overall, setting a limitation on car usage in more places can have benefits. It could improve safety, conserve resources, and allow for less pollution to the environment. With these reasons, I don't see many reasons for people to frown upon this idea. | 4 |
96b30ed | It isn't fair to let someoe vote for someoe and then for said someone that that they voted for swing and vote for someone else that the person didn't lean to vote for. In my own opinion, we should get rid of the Electoral College, because we sometimes do not get what we voted for.
Why have electoral votes that may not get the president you want? In paragraph nine of Source Two it states how over sixty percent would prefer a direct election. So the question is, why not do it? Sixty out of one hudred percent would prefer it, so why not atleast give it a try? Having a whole state have to decide what party to choose from doesn't seem fair. Ifwe had a direct election, then the President with the most votes out of the whole country would be the rightful President. It seems as if the Electoral College isn't quite acurate.
Getting rid of the Electoral College would change the U.S. a lot. It hopefully would be a good change. If it was gone, we could all hope that we would get whom we wated in office by a direct election. In paragrapgh four-teen, Source Two, it says that "The Electoral College is unfair, outdated, and irrational." The outdated part of that sentence is true. The electoral College was enforced in 1888 and has since been used by voters today. It's time for a change and a direct election should be that change. What is so bad that could happen?
The Winner-Take-All method would be gone. Voting in an Electoral College is like voting for your vote to have the most votes, like in school, you want to pick what game you play so you vote and whatever has the most, you play. Except in voting for Presidency your vote goes to whatever your state has the most of. Which seems unfair. You basically just vote to vote, so It's only a big win for you if what party you voted for is what your state goes with.
The staes determine who is the President during an election. The electoral votes have an effect on the state. 538 electors throughout the whole country. A majority of 270 electoral votes are required to elect the president. According to Source One, your state is entilted to how many members in cogress you have, plus two for each senator. So you the voter have no say on what party they all decide to lean towards. But in a direct election, your vote counts.
To conclude, we should all consider to try and make direct election happen. It would help your chance of the candidate the you vote for become President. | 3 |
96b41cb | The facial action coding system is an astonishing idea developed by proffesor Dr. Huang his invention has many contributions that would benifit us in our society today. The way that his system works is abrilliant idea that could not only tell us if a person is happy,sad,or angry but, those identifications of charechter can help us prevent many things from happening in our society today. One of the major contributions that this amazing machine would put fourth to the table could prevent mass shootings, that we have in today's society. By setting these facial action coding systems in our schools,banks,government build,e. t. c. to keep inocent citizens safe on the street. If we inplament these facial action coding systems in many of our buildings we can prevent mass shootings from happeinig if the computer analizes that persons charachter.
However, the downside to using the facial action coding system is that it can malfunction at ny given time. The facial action coding system seems like a creepy concept but, think about it this device could help our society through many ways other than just preveniting mass shootings . As proffesor Dr. Huang states in the article this machine could tell us how a person is feeling about certain things by using this computer. If we used this state of the art technology today companys and buisness could also use this through marketing so that they know what their customers think of their products and what needs to be done to make their company succede. Besides in today's world we already have facial recognition on most phones how cool would it be for our pones to tell us what mood we are in and what we should do to make ourselves live a happy life.
Would the facial action coding system be safe to use? We as a society always want what is best for us and we know that no such product would be released to the product without proper testing and collected data for the next 5 years or more. However, in the near future such technology might exists in many facilities if it doesnt already exist for testing.
We all want to know how our friends are feeling when they facetime us and they tell us they are okay but they are really not the facial action coding system can help us by telling us that their is something wrong with them so that we as a good friend can help each other out.
The facial action coding system will play a major contribution to our society those who support this project stand up for your beliefs as it is your freedom to support what is good. We need to stop things that can be prevented from happening sucha as suicide help us make a better society and support our foundation to make a better America. | 3 |
96b79d0 | This is
Dianee and she is going to eplain to you why the "face" was not created by aliens. It all started in 1976 when Viking 1 took a photo of the "face". The face was located in Cydonia it is two miles long from end to end. It looked like a face of an Egyptian Pharaoh. It is actually a mesa. Then,in 1998 the MOC wanted to take another picture because many people were saying that it was created by aliens. This picture would be in movies,books,magazines,radio talk shows and even in grocery stores for twenty five years.
When NASA let the public see this picture they believed it was created by aliens. We went back in 1998 and took some more pictures and it had still looked like a face but it was not. My people said that we (NASA) would rather hide then say that there was life on Mars, many conspiracy theorists were saying. We wouldn't hide we would tell the public so that we could get more money to be able to go to Mars and see these aliens.
What some people wanted was aliens and other people didn't. Mostly all the scientists at NASA including myself did not believe that the"face" was created by aliens. So in 2001 we went again to Mars to get a picture of the "face". It would be a clearer picture because the cameras were ten times better than the cameras in 1976 and in 1998. It was very hard to get to that exact spot on Mars. The face on Mars was 41 degrees north martian latitude. On April 8,2001 it was summer in Cydonia when we had taken the picture in 1998 it was winter and it was very cloudy. The camera was 1.56 meters per pixel in 1976 it was 43 meters per pixel.
So if there was objects on Mars like a plane of a pyramid we would know because we would be able to see it. We said that it was either a butte or a mesa. They are commom in the American West. It's kinda like the Middle Butte in the Snake River of Idaho. They are basically lava domes but the one on Mars had looked like a face becasuse of the shadows. So,in conclusion the "face" is not created by aliens based on these facts. | 4 |
96b7cea | Travel, exploration, and new destinations are all things that have lead to mankind creating new ways to get from where they were to where they wanted to be. We have made some fantastic tecnologies in our desire to move more quickly and extensively. Not many could have dreampt of a day when mankind could ship large cargo from Mexico to Greece, fly large planes full of people across the atlantic, or even what seems so common today, drive in comfort from state to state in short ammounts of time. We enjoy the ability to drive so easily from place to place that almost every single American family owns at least one car, but there in lies a problem.
Seince the big boom of industrial car manufacturing in the early twenteith century America's use of the vehicle has spread from transportation of the high class, to a tool of public transportation, construction, delivery, and overall everyday use. This relationship between man and machine has been a part of our scociety for so long it is practically a part of our lives, but this relationship has taken a toll on the world it was brought into in the form of polution. The basic way an automobile functions is by putting fuel into the system to run the engine and then emmiting that fuel as a gas biproduct, and with such the wide spread use we have of these machines, the ammount of gas biproduct has realy built up. Harmful chemicals in these gas emissions from our automobiles have provided the second largest source of our emissions with only power plants contributing more to the polution of the environment.
There are however some easy ways we could help fix this problem. In other parts of the world this effect is being felt, such as Beijing, China, which is facing a huge problem with polution smog, and certian places have decided to make a change by limiting car use. This limitation of car use can be done in many different ways, and has helped curb a smog problem that arose in Paris. Other places have done this by means of car-free neighborhoods in Germany, or a car-free day in Columbia, and the reaction has been most positive.
These ideas of change for a clean future are helping communities in different parts of the world, so whose to say we can't do it too? We should contribute to the healing of our environment before its too late for the choise. This oppurtunity for change is not one we should let slip by, and it could be a refreshing, enjoyable change. Lets not sit down and watch as our environment becomes a smog-ridden disaster, lets get up, walk around, and help heal the world. | 4 |
96ba96c | When it comes to automobiles they can provide us with numerous benefits. However, it would appear that limiting car use has far more advantages than thought of before: it can help the enviorment, provide easier means of commuting, and it can cut down on traffic congestion.
To begin, it would appear as though that limited car usage is a enviorment saving technique. For instance, within the article "In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, it states of the exsistence of a small suburban city names Vauban, Germany that has nearly obsoleted the use of automobiles. Within the fifth paragraph of the article they talk of why it is so necessary for this to become a trend,"Automobiles are the linchpin of subarbs... And that, experts say, is a huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes...Passanger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe...". This bit of information informs those that drive of the harmful effects that our cars are creating upon the enviorment. However, if we are to limit our uses of cars, and like the residents of Vauban, and find alternative means of transportation then maybe we can reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that are being given off by cars. Similarly, Paris has taken up a similar idea. In Robert Duffer`s article, "Paris bans driving due to smog" he talks of the percautions that France has taken to driving and why. Paris has created a ban so that those who have a liscense plate that begins with an even number cannot drive on a certain day, and the next day those who have a liscense plate that starts with an odd number cannot drive. This all began because, "...after five-days of intensifying smog... [The smog] rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world."(paragraph 14). Paris`s efforts to create less smog was a success and they now implement the ban on Monday`s and Tuesday`s. Due to less drivers, they were even able to reduce the amount of smog polluting the air. Limited and restrictive usage on cars seems to be very helpful when saving the enviorment.
Next, the near obsolete use of cars has made for easier modes of transportation. For example, in Elisabeth Rosenthal`s passage " "In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars" she tells of the many benifits that limited car use have upon their community. In paragraph six she states that suburbs are beginning to be,"...more compact and more accessible to public transportation, with less space for parking. In this new approach, stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along some distant highway." This meaning that there will be more of an ease when traveling and everything being closer together. No longer will people have to drive miles away for some groceries, they will simply either walk or ride the bus to their destination. They will no longer be stressed as to what time they have left to reach a store that is a distance away. Along the same lines, soemtimes it can be easier to not drive at all. In the article "The End of Car Culture" the author, Elisabeth Rosenthal, states how many people have found diffrent means of getting to where they are going. In paragraph thirty-seven she says," New York`s new bike-sharing program and its skyrocketing bridge and tunnel tolls reflect those new priorities...". From the information given, it appears as though finding easier means of transportation have become a new popular trend. Since prices to travel by car are soaring, the cheapier solution appears to just be walking, or as stated, riding a bike. Leading people to belive that the near extinction of car usage has left us with easier means of travel.
Lastly, choosing to not use cars more frequently has left us with less traffic. In Andrew Selsky`s "Car-free day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota" he talks about the reasoing for this. "...millions of Columbians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a car-free day yesterday, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams."(paragraph 20). Due to the enviormentaly safe means of travel, traffic has become a thing of the past. This can also mean for the residents, a faster, safer way of traveling if they take a taxi or bus to their destination. Even Bill Ford, executive chairman of the Ford Motor Company had input to this. Elisabeth Rosenthal was able to incorporate a statement into her article "The End of Car Culture" when on the subject of the decline in car usage. Mr. Ford had to say that, "...pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety." (paragraph 43). This statement can inform the general population that from the drop in cars on the road, it can improve our safety and save time because of the fewer motorist on the road. That traffic is nearing an end which can be a new age in which traffic is gone. Which is why, when people choose not to use cars it can help to reduce traffic.
In conclusion, when it comes to automobiles they can provide us with numerous benefits. However, it would appear that limiting car use has far more advantages than thought of before: it can help the enviorment, provide easier means of traveling, and it can reduce traffic. | 5 |
96bdea7 | Hello, I am writing to you about the Electoral College and why that I think it should be removed. Why I think we should remove the Electoral College is when voter selects the president they want they are really just picking for a elector who elects the president for them. Also this makes a single rep from Wyoming of 500,00 people has as much say as 55 reps for California who represents 35 million people. The last reason behind this is also being unfair to voters, the winner take all system where in the state the winner of the votes gets them all. So in effect a candidate would spend no time in that per say a swing state. which the may have a chance of winning.
When you vote for the president you really are not voting for him, you're voting for a elector who really elect the president. Also the question is brought up, who picks the electors? This also depends on the state could be the state party's central committee or the presidential candidate's people do. Also another question is what controls the elector from electing the wrong candidate, nothing.
Also why does a single reps in Wyoming with 500,00 people have as much say as 55 reps in California with 35 million people? That is just unfair to the voters, how could that in anyway represent what the majority of the people want. The other way the electoral collage is unfair is the winner take all system I mentioned earlier with majority votes in a state is the state vote, such as if 46 percent of people in a state voted one candidate and 54 for the other insted of just giving the candidates their votes the majority decided one would have them.
The Electoral College is also not a democratic system of voting because the people are really not deciding, and when it is said you are allowing each party to pick a trusted slate of nominees it is not true because the state's central committee not the presidential candidate's reps who are the people really needed to vote for such. In 2000 Gore had more popular votes than bush but less electoral votes, though rare to happen this the president who runs the country for four years at a time so that one rare moment could mean the future of the U.S.A . Also a president does not need to be trans-regional, they only need to appeal to swing states and not ruin relations with their states.
So that was and is my reasoning of why I think that the Electoral College should be removed from our political system. Between the being unfair to voters through voting for electors not even the president, reps not even being scaled right also the winner take all system making the system unbalanced, and the presidential candidates not even needing to appeal to most states just the swing states. I hope this passage convinces you that the Electoral College should be removed in place of a better system that is not out dated. | 4 |
96c09c8 | Why people should go to the Seagoing Cowboys Program
Introduction
People all over the world should go to the Seagoing Cowboys Program because of how fun it is and they could found out so much about the wolrd. Some people ask how would that be fun, it would be fun because some people can't always go and see new place in the world that they have never seen and I say from the article Luke Bomberger was so excited to see new things like he went to China and he loved it he went to Venice, Italy and he loved it. My another reason was because all the stuff you could found out like is the great wall of china really great and does Italy food really good.
So now you guys can really see how fun and amazing it is to be a Seagoing cowboy. I will give you 2 reason you should go, then I will explain them. First reason is because it is fun, Second reason is all the stuff you can figure out. Details about the first reason it is fun because all the cool stuff you can see. So one cool thing you can see is thegreat wall of China then is Italy food really good you can learn new stuff like new laugaues and bring back cool stuff and like is the great wall of China really great and like what the queen of Englad really look like. So now the second reason is all the cool stuff you could find out like how war zone really like after a war. What city you want to be saving up for. So now all of this brings me to my conclusion.
Conclusion
Be a seagoing cowboy could be fun and cool but its all about what you learn and doing the job that needs to be done so basically make sure you get those horse and young cattle and mules to the place they to be. if a friend offer you to go to another coutry or state go with them you will be amazed about what you would found Luke found a job that let him travel all over the world and that is that job any body could have. | 2 |
96c17fa | The author supports the idea of studying Venus by stating the facts so far known about the planet and explaining what scientists and reaserches will do with them. Supporting this in paragraph 3 the author explains what the planet is like. The atmosphere is 97 percent carbon dioxide, the temperature on the surface of Venus being over 800 degrees Fahernheit, and the atmospheric preasure being 90 times greater than Earth's. With those facts the author then states from the same paragraph an idea for a machine that could be used to get above Venus' surface, but still able to be within its atmosphere. From the text the author say "Imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 miles or so above the roiling Venusian landscape. Just as our jet airplanes travel at a higher altitude to fly over many storms, a vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly ground conditions by staying up and out of their way...". When the author counters that arguement by stating "However, peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limiting insight on ground conditions because most forms of light can not penetrate the dense atmosphere...".
The author then rebutls this by saying how researchers are finding out ways to make machines that can survive long enough on the surface of the planet, and they have also looked back at the machanical computures used in the 1940's during World War II. By looking at these ideas for solutions to the problem, being no human being able to get close enough to the surface without dying, scientists and researchers are coming up with different and new ways to aproach the planet and study Venus. The author also explains how silicon carbide could withstand the intense preasure that Venus has, which in turn could help the exploration and study of the "Evening Star" planet. The author uses the facts they've receved to give an idea of what the planet is like, and then explains what scientists and researchers are doing with that knowledge to create a device, or devices, that could get within the atmosphere, land, and survive oon the planet long enough to study Venus. | 3 |
96c77d6 | I believe that depending on how the driverless cars are made, this could be an amazing achievement of technology. It seems that all or most accidents involve another person, plus the fault of the person that is driving. The drivers seem to be the problem of careless driving, which causes many wrecks, deaths, and insurance bills. Plus, the gas and pollution in the air is awful due to the use of so many cars. Driverless cars could be the answer to all of this.
A big problem in our world today is pollution in the air. Trucks, cars, and taxis are the main factor in that because of the gas used. According to paragraph one, driverless taxis will help us to use less gas, and less gas means less pollution. Most people don't realize how much public transport is used everyday. Public tranport is even used in the smallest towns to help others get where they need to be. So, with less gas used in things like taxis and public transport, the air will be cleaner and the ecosystem will be less damaged.
Another big problem is the fact that so many people are dying in car accidents everyday. Most of these accidents come from drunk drivers, or people who are just not paying attention. In paragraphs four it talks about how the driverless car was made to mimic the skills of human drivers. This paragraph also states that the car will be covered in sensors in order to prevent accidents. In paragraph seven it states that in the past a car was made where the driver had to stay alert in case it needed to be taken over. This paragraph also states that while the driver watched the road, the car watched the driver. This would also lead to less accidents.
Now a days we also find people falling asleep at the wheel, or people becoming bored of driving during long periods of time. Driverless cars could also help with that. According to paragraph eight, drivers could potentially get tired of waiting to drive in driverless cars, which would mean they'd fall alseep. In case of an emergency they would need to be awake in order to take over. This seems like it would be no problem because; these driverless cars would be set up with displays that would show you something interesting, then turn off if you needed to take the wheel. This is something that can keep you awake on the road, while also keeping you safe.
This car is one of the many steps in the right direction people can take in order to have a safer future. The fact that the car has sensors that tells it where everything around it is positioned, is an amazing safty precaution. It is also great that there will be less pollution due to this new innovation. Another amazing achievement is how the kids and adults will be entertained, while staying alert for an emergency. All of these reasons sounds like a great idea to continue the research into driverless cars. | 4 |
96c98de | Car use. Everyone has a car, most everyone for that matter. Even tho they are wonderfull, look cool, and sound cool. They arnet the best thing for this earth. For instence, cars give off egsost that harms the earths atmosphear and helps global warming grow, witch is not good. They also kill millions per year with no intention of harming anyone. Last and formost the cost way to much money and drive people into the ground. (no pun intended)
Let me explain. If almost everyone on this earth has a car, some have 2 or more or some dont have any, and if there is 7 billion people on this earth. Do the math, thats around 14 billion cars driving around, and eatch one of those cars give off exsost that hurts the enviroment. The earth has a layer ever it called the ozone layer and protects the harmfull sunrays from hurting life on earth. But with cars driving around that hurts the ozone layer.
Also, cars kill many people per year. Car acsiddebts are a random event that happens when soneone night be on there phone. Or talking on their phoe. Maybe even just not payibg atetion. Another big problem is drunk driving. Someone will be out partying or haveing some drinks at a bar, and gets drunk and unable to drive. But still dose it anyway. That causes alot of crashes to and kills many people.
Last and formost. Making people go poor and loos their money. When you buy a car you can get insurance, but if you dont, and crash into someone elses car, you will have to play for their insurence untill the car if fixed. This proses can litterly make poeple loose their homes. Thats whay if you do get a car. You need insuarnence.
In conclution. The world would be very well with out cars. Less deaths. Less poeple loosoing money. And hurting the enviremment. Now i cant see a world without cars. But i can definently live with one. | 2 |
96caa63 | The dangers of studying venus is that we have never landed on this planet or ever landed something on this planet venus has an atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets the challengins in this planet are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in venus tempature. the condition are far more exreme than anything humans have ever encounter here on earth such an enviorment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our ocean.
NASA is working on other approches to studying venus for example an old technology called mechanical computers these devices were first envisionrd in the 1800s and played an important role in the 1940s during world war II. venus is the second planet from our sun venus is sometimes called the evening star it is one of the brightest points of light in the sky making venus simple for even an amateur stargazer to spot.
Venus is simple to see from the distant but safe vantage point of earth it has proved a very challanging place to examine more closely. That is why our travels on earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation. | 1 |
96cde53 | The "face on Mars" is a natural landform. There was not enough evidence to prove it was a face, but there was enough valid evidence to prove it wasn't. First it had shadows. The shadows made an illusion giving it a mouth and a nose. The text says shadows made it look like an Egyptian Pharoh. The text says Martian mesas are common around Cydonia. If mesas are common couldn't this just be another one.
Mars Global Surveyor flew over and MOC took a picture showing it was a natural landform. Still, people weren't pleased. People said alien markings were hidden by haze. The MOC went back and took more than one picture still showing a natural landform. The landform showed the equivalence of a buttle.
Some would say it's all part of a government plan. Then why would they waste time, energy, and resources to take multiple pictures. Garvin even said "It's not easy to target Cydonia." He said, "In fact, it's hard work." The text compared it to the Middle Buttle in the Snake River. The face did in fact gain popularity. | 3 |
96d1a1b | Ever wondered what someone is feeling? Thomas Huang sure has! That's why he paried with Prof. Nicu Sebe to design and create a Facial Action Coding System. The Facial Action Coding System was designed to read peoples facial expressions.
It all starts with a 3-D modle of a face. It then goes on to calculate the placement of the muscles in the face. It takes into consideration the six basic emotions. Each emotion is paired with the musces. An example would be raised eyebrows which are associted with shock,or surprise. Even very slight emotions are captured.
This new technology could tremendously improve classroom learning. If a teacher had axcess to a technology like this,it could better help them understand where each student is in the lesson. For example if one,or more stundent showed signs of confussion the teacher could try to explain the lesson.
This could also help future video games and animated flims. Being able to really study human emotions could inprove the graphics of the games or films and make characters more expressive. Actors could also benefit from Facial Action Technology. Being able to study hundreds or human expressions could take acting careers to new heights.
In conclusion expressions are complicated and difficult to understand. But with the help of this new technolgy who knows what we can learn for them,and where is will take us. Imagain looking at a photo years from now and being able to know exactly what you were feeling. Thats what Facial Action Coding Systems can do you just have to give it a chance. | 3 |
96d3c6d | Luke believe's people should join the seagoing cowboy's program and so do i. And you should because if you do you help people. You get to see great places like china. You get to see alot of great things like the acropolis in greece. And you even get to see Europe
I know all this because the text says. But being a seagoing cowboy was much more than an adventure for luke bomberger. It opened up the world to him. "i'm grateful for the oppurtunity he says. It made me more aware of people of other countries and their need's.
Another reason is the text says. It took about two weeks to cross the atlantic ocean from the eastern coast of the united states. And a month to get to china. It also says Besides helping people. I had the benifet of seeing europe.
The text also says But seeing Acropolis in greece was special he says. It also says Luke turned 18 before ariving in greece. It also says so was taking a gondola ride in venice italy. A city with streets of water those are a few of the things to do. And it also states To help these countries recover their food suplies animals and more 44 nation's joined together.
That is why people should join the seagoing cowboy's program. You get to help people in the darkest times. Like after war when they have almost no food. You get to go to beatiful places and see beatiful things. Like china the Acropolis in greece Italy Europe. This is why people should join the seagoing cowboys program. | 2 |
96d4e62 | It should be able to be used in the classroom because, people like themselves or the teacher should know how they are feeling today or want to know how they are feeling on certrain days, and what emotions they aren having. It also can be used in science so we should be able to learn this especially sincewe all have emotions and why not spice science up since we do have a science class. It can help us learn more about emotions and how can we actually can tell how we are really feeling. I think we should also have them because it said in paragraph 6 "A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored", and I think that will help us cause the teachers can then see we need help trying to understand or need to take breaks becuase we have became bored and or confuse. I also would love to use this to find out how my friends emotions are on a certain day because I wouldnt want to bother them if they are angry or sad. I would also use it for my teacher. I think it would be fun to use in school and it would actually catch the children atttention in school. In my opinion this would be great becuase just like they used it on the Mona Lisa picture we can use it on many other pictures and find out alot more and how people emotions were. I know i would love to use them on slavery pictures. | 2 |
96e0a80 | People should try to be Seagoing Cowboys because you get to save the lives of animals that have been injured during the World War II. I was in it and it was just great to be able to help all of those horses. It can get hard somwtimes but it is still great. You also have a bettere communication with the animals and get to meet new people. Sometimes when you have free time you can go visit the beautiful sites! It is a very busy job and you get tired a loy. Sometimes you have to watch the animals every hour to make sure they're safe. You wouldn't want them to escape and get hurt!
Helping all of those animals can really open up your mind and see how much some animals are suffering. It is great that there are programs like this that can help so many animals. It is a great adventure to go on and it is very fun! If you get bored on the boat you can go play some games like we did like volleyball or table tennis or anything you can think of! It is a very wonderful experience. Something wonderful as that could only come once in a life time. So i encourage you to become a Seagoing Cowboy and save the lives of many animals like me! | 2 |
96e24cc | Why would you want to limit car usage. When you use your car people are making money. People need a car to far away places fast. cars are expensive, thats because people keep adding on to it and making it more fancy and of corse its going to be more expencive.
If you limit cars most gas stations would be going out of bussniess and car places. gas stations buy the gas for cars to use yeah the gas is expensive but we need it and car dealerships would have so many cars they wouldnt know what to do with them cause no one would but them because there car would be limited to use so there car would be brand new. yes people are losseing alot of money from cars but its worth it cause we need to get places. if you make cars fancy yeah your going to have people to want to buy it but thats because you want them to buy it cars are killing the envirnment up though because the gas the people tearing into there grass people dont relize it but cars should just be used to get places and then stay there and then when there done go home. i mean if they can make a car that can scene if there drunk and wont start i would buy that car because it would tell you not to drive becaus eyou are drunk that will slove so many deaths and drunk driver accident problems. instead of making cars fast and look slicker and nicer and have the car talk to you with blootooth thats just dumb in my opion i wish they would just make cars more reasonable with things that really matter than just look nicer and more for rich people alot of people can afford cars so they should lower all prices and they would make more money becaus emore stuff will be sold like the drunk deceter car | 1 |
96e352d | "
All of our devolpment since World War II has been centered on the car and that will have to change ," said David Golberg. Now this is true, cars have been a fluenctal idea for transportation. Cars is known to be the fastest way of transportatin, but maybe limiting car usage can be helpful. Theres thousands of alternatives like bicking, skating, running, ridding a bus, or even a train. limiting car usage would save the money you use on gas, reduce the ammount of polution in our atmosphere, and is more healthy for your body. Heres my explanation to why limiting car usage would be a productive idea.
Our nation spends millons on gas each week, limiting car usage would save that money. The amount of money people spend on gas is astonishing. Limiting car usage by taking a buss or even using a bike could save that money. In my community there is this parking lot for buss takers, this way people can save money on gas and still get to there destination on time. Another advantage to limiting car usage is that it will reduce polution.
Polution is a huge problem not just for Europe or North America, but for the entire world. According to source 2 "Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after five-days of intensifying smog." In France they use diesel fuel which is the most polluted fuel there is. Paris put a banned on ussages of their cars, this led to 4,000 driveres being fined. | 3 |
96f54c8 | I agree with the author suggesting that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it present, because traveling to a different planet such as Venus we can explore and find out the history of this planet and look at clues of what Venus used to be million of years ago and see if there was once life on this planet or even water.
The authors supports his idea of studying Venus despite its danger by saying "The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has one particularly compelling idea for sending humans to study Venus. NASA possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray."
We need to make machines that would resist heat and the pressure so that we can have more time to explore Venus. Venus surface is really hot and the pressure on this planet is also really high that it can melt and crush metals. According to the article it says,"Such an environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans and would liquefy many metal."
Since Venus surface is really hot NASA tested this machine that is made of silicon carbide. In the passage it says,"For, example some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simulating the chaos of Venus surface and have lasted for three weeks in such conditions."
In conclusion, the authors idea of going to Venus may actually come true in the near future thanks to the idea of NASA of building these special type of vehicles that can last long in the really high temperature and pressure of Venus. | 3 |
96fa19f | As seen in paragraph 2 it says how venus is the closest planet to earth in terms of density and size,but it also says that there were attempts to launch unmanned aircraft onto the planet and non of them lasted a few hours which is why there hasn't been an aircraft actually to land on venus. Paragraph 2 shows a little taste of how dangerous venus is but it is enticing to learn more about the planet itself. In paragraph 3 it explains how venus's atmosphere is almost 97 percent carbon dioxide, and the clouds are highly corrosive with temperatures reaching more than 800 degrees Fahrenheit. These are even more reasons on why it is dangerous but yet you would wanna know more about it.
The reason why scientists wanna know more about the planet even though it is dangerous is because in paragraph 4 it says That "Astronomers are fascinated by Venus because it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system." Which is another reason why scientists wanna know more about venus and what it has in store. The planet seems to be a very cool place to live without all the set backs with the atmosphere and the corrosive clouds. The scientists of NASA have an idea on how to send a manned vehicle to venus without getting into all the dangerous areas by putting a blimp like air vehicle hovering 30 miles above all of the bad and dangerous chemicals and heat.
The reason it would be a very good thing to study on is because of it being similar to earth in many ways. One reason why is said in paragraph 8 in which it states " 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." Which i do agree on this being a good cause because not only do we get knowledge but we get more into it which is a dangerous route but it is for the good of man and how not only will we be able to put man on Venus one day but to be able to further our own civilitation. Another dangerous part about the exploration is that we go back to the part where it says no aircraft has ever been able to withstand only a few hours of the planets atmosphere,but as it says in paragraph 7 they are making a vehicle that can survey and gain knowledge on the planet instead of sending a vehicle on the planet. Scientists will be able to gain the knowledge on how to produce a product for NASA that can both withstand the harsh heat and atmosphere but move on the planet like a rover. | 3 |
96fc8c1 | Driver good is very important for all people. In the united states' there are much car and this provoke much accidents in the life of the people. The president Obama's say: in the united states' greenhouse gas emissions, unveiled last week, will get a fortuitous assist from an incipient shift in american behavior: recent studies suggest that americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by.
In the united states peaked in 2005 and dropped steadily thereafter, according to an analysis by doug short of advisor perspectives, an investment research company. As april 2013 the nombers of miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent below the peak and equal to where the country was in January 1995. Part of the explanation certainly lies in the recession,because cash-strapped Americans could not afford new cars, and the unemployed weren't going to work anyway.''I think means something more fundamental is going on''.The transportation is the second largest source of Ameica's emissions, just behind power plants. But it could have negative implications for thr car industry. Diferent things are converging which suggest that we are witnessing a long -term cultural shift, said Mimi Sheller, a sociology professor at drexel university and director of its mobilities research and policy center. She cities various factors:the internet makes telecommuting possible feel more connected without driving to meet friends. The precident Obama is very good with the country because this words what he say ser very important for the all people and the world. | 1 |
9701060 | Exploring venus will be hard to explore since the suface of the planet would almost melt any metals the landed on the surface,But is could be a good planet to explore becuse venus could hold some good finds and new discoveries on the planet ,They call venus earths twin because they are similer in diamiter,but they both are different from each other way differnt,But it would be great to explore for new finds and new discoveries.
Exploring the planet would be quite difficult the gravity is differnt on that planet,also they would need to have more technogly they would need to put a machine up there to explore the planet and see what they need to make as ships ans suits and what meteals would not melt n venus and also what kind of things they would need to explore. Also the clouds on venus are made of of acid,and venus somtimes have an acid rain,and would melt alot of meteals and it would be harmful to alot of objects.
An other challenge would be able to keep water and drink it,sense the surface of venus is 800 degrees fahreheit the water would vapirote on to the air,And it would be very hard to keep it cold,And even the water did not vapirote the water would be way to hot for a human to drink,and the weather on venus is very extream,it would take alot of thought and also technogly to get to venus safly and it would be a challange
The weather on venus is extream with erupitung volcanoes powerful earthquackes and frequent lightning strikes,So we would have to make some really strong and that could withstand all of those hash things that the planet has to offer,and thats alot of things,and you wold also have the right techonlgy that you would have to have. witch would be a major challenge that we would have to face.
Exploring venus would be very diffecult and we would have to put alot of thinking and techonlgy on working towards that but i think it would be worth it to visit there becuse we could find new dicoveries and new finds that could change the would in so many ways,but there it alot of challenges that we would have to overcome but overall it possible but it could ake a long to to devolp and idea and devolp that kind of technogly and it would take years to expore planet venus. | 3 |
970116e | The author talks about venus being a dangreours planet to be studying becsue they have tried to send spaceships to go to venus and their has been no spaceship that has touched down on venus for more then three decades. No spaceship has survived the landing for more then a few hours . the thick atmosphere of almost the amount of 97 percent of carbon dioxide blankets . the also have clouds that highly corrosive sulfuric acid in venus atmosphere. The surface temp averages around 800 degrees and the atmosphare pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our planet . venus in the hottest planet on the solor system even tho mercury is closer to our sun .. the also get lots of geology and weather presents additional impediments example that he gave were volcanoes , powerful earthquakes and lots of lightning strikes .These are some reasons and evendence that the author gives to prove that venus is a dangerous place that they are trying to study more on . | 1 |
9706cf0 | Life on a boat sounds terrifying doesn't it? Well you're wrong .You can do alot of things on a boat. Just ask Luke Bomberger. This man lived on a boat raising cattle.
Luke joined the seagoing cowboys after he graduated highschool. While Luke was on the ship his job was to clean up the spaces which had the animals in it. Sometimes his job was to check the animals every hour. Luke says that "it was the opportunity to see or do different things. Besides helping people."
when the ship arrived at different places Luke would explore the areas and go try different things. For example, he went on a gondola ride in Venice. Another example is he toured in a excavated castlein crete. My final example is that Luke marveled at the Panama canal. Luke also saw Acropolis and China.
Luke also found time to have laughs on the ship. The crew members and Luke after cleaning the hold would do sports. Such as, baseball and volleyball games. The would also do table-tennis tournaments, fencing, boxing, reading , writing, and whittling. They also did boardgames.
After you did about 9 and below of trips. You see the world. It can also show you that other people in different countries need your help. Whether it's clean clothes,food,or shelter there is always a way you can help. These reasons show that living on a boat isn't so bad. | 2 |
970d9ec | The idea of driverless cars sounds pretty amazing right?
Driving in a car and not having to lift a muscle sounds like the life to live. Being rode around all day,not even when you have to pick your kids up from school or practice. Lavish right?
'
Now what if I told you,you had to be alerted when you have to pull in somewhere, dealing with traffic issues,road blocks, pedestrians, and most importantly,pot holes! Nobody want's to be going 60 on the freeway and unexpectedly rise out of there seat's because of a pot hole launched them into the air! Think about all the little animal's thats in the road that won't be avoided due to the "Driverless car".
'
Heres another reason driverless cars aren't worth waiting for. Remember how fun driving looked to you as a kid? How you just couldn't wait to get out of the backseat and into the driver seat? Even the passenger seat at that! Now what will we tell our kids when they want to drive,and the streets are filled with driverless car's. It could probably put alot of kids out of the dream job as a NASCAR racer too.
'
To be real,and completley honest. Driveless cars should just be in "Television and movies" like quoted in the second paragraph. They aren't the safest way to travel. There are so many variables that could change in the street that would completley catch the car off guard! I think that we should just keep it to the hands on steering wheel. It maybe old fashioned,but I gurantee you'll miss every pot hole and squirrel without it! | 2 |
97112c1 | The Electoral College is not perfect and it may be called broken by some people, but in all truth it isn't. Nothing is perfect. The Electoral College is a good way to make sure that a election won't end in a tie (95+% of the time). It also makes sure that certain regions, or states, don't control the vote with their population. The Electoral College can be edited if it needs to though.
The Electoral College is very good at insuring one winner. It has this ability, because to be a tie both canidates have to have 269 votes which is highly unlikly. To have a President chossen majority has to vote one way (270). Now with a "winner-takes-all" system that his country, USA, has, there are only so many combinations of states' votes for one party that there would be a tie. Since the beggening of the Electoral College there has only been two ties. The Electoral College does make it easier for there not to be a tie, because more people voting into selected individuals then having them vote makes it easier for less mess ups and faster counting of votes.
The Electoral College also makes sure one part of the country does not get favored and make the others feel like their votes did not count. If one canidate is favored in a area and if it has a lot of people then that candidate would win with a direct vote. The bigger cities with more people would get every political ad and the canidates would be more focused there instead of getting everyone's opinion. The other places would feel left out and would be less likely to vote meaning not a true meaning of who majority wants as President.
Nothing is the world is ever made perfect forever. The Electoral College was clearly a great idea when it was made or it would never be put into action. The Electoral College does have slight problems that rarely happen. The best thing about it though is that people could vote and change details about it if it was that big of a deal. As "Under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution," people wanted/ thought it would be fair to count the District of Columbia as a "state." So people took a vote to make the change, thats why it is the the 23rd Amendment. When the USA gets more population, for a short time, there will be a odd amount of electoral votes, that means no ties. Until the popluation grows or decreases enough to make a even number of votes again.
There is pleanty of things wrong in this world, but one thing that is pretty good right now is the Electoral College. More times than not it has one winner and one loser, and rarely a tie. It makes sure that nobody is a favorite or feels like it. Also it shows things can change if something is a problem or needs fixing. The Electoral College is not perfect, but is not broken. Thank you for reading my letter, I hope you take it into concideration when deciding to keep it or not. | 4 |
9713de0 | In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile" the author explains how a new technology called the Facial Action Coding System enables computes to know if a human is sad, happy, confused, angry, fearful or disgusted. Also the author describes how this would help teacher in their classes to identify if students are bored or tired making it eassier for teachers to find another way to get students attention.
In my opinion this would be a good idea for schools to use and make a more eficient way of teaching students and teachers differents ways to teach and learn making it more fun and less tireding for everyone. Although this may be expensive and students will not like a computer to read their emotions because it would be weird for them and it also may be unconterfull for students having a computer to just say their feelings in front of a class.
The Facial Action Coding System ( FACS) is a great idea for schools as I said earlier but I do not see how it could help in other things. The article describes how this new technology can identify human emotions but it does not explains how would it work in society or it will help people understand one another better.
The FACS can tell your emotions by the way the muscles in the face move making it easier for the computer to identify what emotion the human is felling. They use video imagery to create a new emotion- recognition software tracks these facial movemets. Also the new technology can identify mixed emotions.
The article also describes how by making a expression can make you feel slighty the expresion that was just used. According to Facial Feedback Theory of Emotion, moving facial muscles not only expresses emotions, but also may even help produce them. This may happen because weunconsciously imitate another person's facial expressions.
In conclution this article demostrates you how can a new technology can hal you understand other peoples emotions even if they are trying to hide them. Also it helps people to understan how they are really feeling and how does emotions work when we express them. | 2 |
971445d | The story "Driverless Cars Are Coming" they give a lot of information about how the some of the new cars that car coming has sensiors in them that alters drivers that are to close to an object. The car that mention that has the sensior in it is the Toyota Prius.
The Toyota Prius is a better outlook then other cars because the insurance is still probably high but its saving money because its bot causing alot of acdents as though the cars with out the sensiors. Drivers text while driving and some do not pay attention to whats going on around them while they are texting so with the sensiors if they are coming to close to an object it will alter them. The only bad part about is the sensiors its going to alter the driver is passing threw a red light if that person isnt paying attention because they are texting. The GPS They are also putting in the newer cars are better because people that are not really good at knowing the North, East South and West and that doesnt know the directions to a place it can help them but not only thoes kinds of people aslo people from other cities that dont know they way around town.
If i was to go buy a car I will get one the newest smarter car over the older cars because its preventing alot of car acdents and saving people alot of insurance money. The sensiors and the GPS are great out looks on the newest cars. | 2 |
9715113 | Dear Senator,
Many people might agree that we shouldn't have an Electoral College at all, since most of the time it doesn't seem to work at all since of instead just voting on the person or candidate you would prefer, you instead vote for a slate of electors instead of the prefered candidate. This is not the case, however, and in fact, the Electoral College does seem to function. It can be proven in two simple reasons on why the Electoral College still works- certainty of outcome and the simple fact that it's everyone's president.
Foremost, the certainty of outcome can eaisly prove why the Electoral College still works. If we even do go to a system where we actually vote for popular vote, it would work as well as we do right now with the Electoral College, since there will be more disputes on popular vote than on the Electoral College. In Richard A. Posner's article on the defense for the Electoral College, he states in his first reason on why their would be much dispute over popular vote than on the Electoral College, and why it's less likely to happen on a Electoral College. He states "The reason is that the winning candidate's share of the Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote." It's true, after all that the Electoral College's votes exceed over the popular votes. It could be also said that even if the government actually switches to popular vote, we know it would work since it does not exceed how on Electoral College votes go, which can be also seen as a simpler process of voting. On another note, in some cases, there can be ties between two candidates, as seen in 1992's Election between Nixon and Clinton on the popular vote. To summarize, the certainty of outcome is far greater in the Electoral College rather than the popular vote due to sheer number of votes in the Electoral College.
On a second note, the fact that the american people can vote enough that it's everyone's president is another reason on why the Electoral Colllege does work. The Electoral College works by havng the winner win trans-regionally rather than just focus on just on region that just favors them and only them. So instead of one region getting the candidate that prefers and focuses on only them, everyone can have a candidate that will focus largely on the nation's issues rather than just a specific part ot the country. For example, let's say that the largest population of people in a regon in the United States is the south (not saying it is or isn't, it's just an example). The south is mainly republican, so they will only vote for a republican that will focus majorly on the south. It is unfair for the rest of the regions, such as the Northeast, Middle, Pacific, and other regions of the United States, since they are mainly democratic (not really, it is used as an example) who would want focus on their region as well, too. In Bradford Plumers's article on why the Electoral College should be gone, he states that the electoral college is unfair to voters, since most candidates did not bother with the states they know they have no chance of winning at all. There could be an easy counter argument against this, since those states have probably already made up their minds on who to vote for, like a democratic candidate visiting Texas (where it's mainly republican), they know who Texas is going to vote for, there is no use in trying to convince them when they have already made up their minds, same goes if a republican candidate tries to convince the democratic California, they already know there is no use in reasoning and convincing when someone has already made up their mind. Also, someone can easily counterattack most of the arguments brought up in th Plumer's article, since this was written before the 2004 election, and it has been a decade already, plenty of things could've changed during the course if ten years in politics. In order to make a greater argument against the electoral college, one must have an updated list of facts in order to back it up, as certain things could've changed during a certain course of a decade. During the course of a decade, we seen how affective the electoral college was during the 2004 elections (people who disagreed during the 2004 elections and also agree that the electoral college doesn't work at all have to see the events that transpired before the 2004 elections and the promises made before it also), the 2008 elections (again, if the people disagreed on how the electoral college worked at that time, you would need to look at how people saw change during that time and the amount of younger citizens voting at that time), and the 2012 elections as well (also again, if disagreeing with the electoral college is reasonable at that time, you would need to look at how people reacted at that time and how different events before the election affected the outcome). In a final note, the electoral college is the vote on the people's president is true, and withholds it since it can focus on rather than on one specific region, but the nation as a whole.
In summarization, the electoral college should be kept due to the simple reasoning of certainty of outcome and the voting on the people's president. The reasoning of certainty of outcome can be applied here is due to the simple fact that the votes for the electoral college are far more greater than the votes for popular vote, same goes to the voting on the people's president, since it focuses on the entire nation rather that just one region of the country. Senator, we should be able to keep our electoral college, as it proves effective during the recent elections, and can certainly prove itself useful and reliable during the next elections to come. | 5 |
9721f9c | Dear State Senator,
I believe that we should change to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. Simply because as citizens we do our parts by working our butts off daily doing things to help build the community up or even clean it up. We should be able to have some type of power over who will be leading us down the road for however many years. With a popular vote, it would not only be fair but justifiable as well. As helping and paying citizens we should be able to feel as if we have a voice in this goverment and can make, what can be a powerful change in this world.
I truly believe that if it all was based on the popular vote the world would be at piece... everyone wouldn't feel like the government or others discared their opinions and just did what they wanted. Instead, they'd feel like they got a good try out of it and was able to fight just a tad bit for what they believed to be right instead of being knocked down and told their opinions do not matter. It would also give an accurate vote. The Electoral College is minimized to 538 people being able to vote for the president and a majority of 270 electoral votes are required to elect the president giving the candidates a less of a chance to win. With the popular vote it gives them more of a chance to win the election.
We people should feel safe and secure with whom is chosen to lead us and our government. With that being said I totally agree that it should be changed election by popular vote for the president of the United States. | 3 |
9722207 | Though it may seem amazing to think about having driveless cars that can just drive us around, but what if a crash happens? Who will get blamed? The car or the driver that was supposed to be driving around. What happens if the car doesn't singal the driver that it needs help during traffic conditions or construction? This car shouldn't be developed, because it still needs technology to become a safer car. I don't approve of development of these cars, because innocent people may be blamed for an inccident that they didn't cause.
There are too many negative sides to the development of these cars on the roads and highways. Movies have influenced car companies to make this driveless car since the 2000s, which didn't have the money or technology to make then. We have all thought these cars would be the future and amazing to ride in. In these cars there are many sensors that are working all at the same time to keep the driver inside safe. What if one or two senors go are ruined by a bump in the road? Then the car would have problems with knowing what to do while driving and knowing what was surrounding the car. Still in the car, the driver still has to controll the car when it should be driverless. The driverless car needs assistance by the driver during road construction, traffic situations, and pulling in and out of driveway. All of these situations happen everyday and mostly everywhere on the road. This just means that the driver would have to still drive everywhere besides some places on the road. The driver would just get bored waiting for their turn to drive. What would happen if the car didn't notify the driver to take over the car? The effect of that situation would turn out to be a big crash or a swing and miss crash that almost would have killed the driver. As the law says," A safe car has the driver controlling the car at all times."
The manufactors of these cars need to stop the development before someone gets blamed over a car's mistake. There are multiple conflicts with the development of this driveless car. What or who would be blamed if someone was injured? Sensors on the car could easily be broken and the car wouldn't be at it's best in safety for the driver. The best way to keep passengers, drivers, and pedestrians safe is to have an alert driver in control of the car. | 3 |
9727e8b | THE PASSAGE IS INFORMING FELLOW CITIZENS ABOUT THE ADVANTAGES OF LIMIT CAR USAGE IN A WAY THAT, CAR OWNERSHIP IS ALLOWED,BUT THERE ARE ONLY TWO PLACES TO PARK LARGE GARAGES AT THE EDGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT, WHERE A CAR OWNER BUYS A SPACE FOR $40,000, ALONG WITH A HOME. AND UP TO 50 PERCENT IN SOME CAR- INTENSIVE AREAS IN THE UNITED STATES'' HOW MUCH YOU DRIVE IS AS IMPORTANNT AS WHETHER YOU HAVE HYBRID. WHERE EMISSIONS FROM AN INCREASING NUMBER OF PRIVATE CARS OWNED BY THE BURGEONING MIDDLE CLASS ARE CHOKING CITIES, IN THE UNITED STATES THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY IS PROMOTING ''CAR REDUCED'' COMMUNITIES, AND LEGISLATORS ARE STARTING TO ACT IF CAUTIOUSLY.
MANY EXPERTS EXPECT PUBLIC TRANSPORT SERVING SUBURBS TO PLAY A MUCH LARGER ROLE IN A NEW SIX YEAR/MR.GOLDBERG SAID.IN PREVIOUS BILLS,80 PERCENT OF APPROPRIATIONS HAVE LAW GONE TO HIGHWAYS AND ONLY 20 PERCENT TO OTHER TRANSPORT.BUT IT'S BASIC PERCEPTS ARE BEING ADOPTED AROUND THE WORLD IN ATTEMPTS TO MAKE SUBURBS MORE ACCESSIBLE TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.PARIS ENFORCED A PARTIAL DRIVING BAN TO CLEAR THE AIR OF GLOBAL CITY CONGESTION WAS DOWN 60 PERCENT IN THE CAPITAL OF FRANCE, AFTER FIVE-DAYS OF INTENSIFYING SMOG DELIVERY COMPANIES COMPLAINED OF LOST REVENUE, WHILE EXCEPTIONS WERE MADE FOR PLUG-IN CARS, HYBRIDS,AND CARS CARRYING THREE OR MORE PASSENGERS.
PUBLIC TRANSIT WAS FREE OF CHARGE FROM FRIDAY TO MANDAY, ACCORDING TO BBC.STREET PARKING,DRIVEWAYS AND HOME GARAGES ARE GENERALLY FORBIDDEN IN THIS EXPERIMENTAL NEW DISTRICT ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF FREIBURG,NEAR THE FRENCH AND SWISS BORDERS.VAUBAN'S STREETS ARE COMPLETLY CAR-FREE'' EXCEPT THE TRAM TO DOWNTOWN FREIBURG RUNS AND A FEW STREETS ON ONE EDGE OF THE COMMUNITY. | 1 |
9729ecc | Is the Face on Mars created by aliens? Certainly not, as NASA has created many pieces of evidence to prove to conspiracy theorists that this is nothing but a Martian mesa.
In the article, "Unmasking the Face on Mars," it is discussed that many people believed that the Face on Mars was created by aliens. In 1976, a picture from NASA's Viking 1 was sent to mission control. This picture was what seemed to look like a face. However, scientists quickly derailed that idea, discovering it was just a mesa, a type of landform common in western America. Days later, NASA released the photo to the public. This stirred up lots of conspiracy theories and became an iconic landmark that isn't on Earth! However, they were wrong. So many people were in the thought that the picture was a face built by aliens, so NASA decided to take another picture in 1998, proving that it was just a natural landform. But once again, skeptics thought otherwise, which brings the case to where it is today. In 2001, NASA launched another spacecraft to take a picture. This picture was taken using a maximum resolution camera spanning "1.56 meters per pixel," compared to the "43 meters per pixel." This is about 30x the resolution of the 1976 photo, ensuring that the picture would stop all consiracy theories. It is now impossible to say that this is not a Martian mesa, as photographs at the highest quality have been taken in perfect conditions.
Although it might have been possible to claim the landform on Mars was build by aliens 30 years ago, technology and science today have proven that theory entirely wrong. The face can continue to live as a pop icon, but now it is now impossible to say the landform was built by aliens. So to answer the question, "Is the face on Mars created by aliens?" One can now easily say, "no." | 3 |
972cdff | In the past, owning a car has been very beneficial and very efficient in order to go about our daily lives. In the past few years, however, people are buying less and less cars and taking the train or bike to get around. All this has been brought up by environmental conditions some countries have had to deal with recently. There are advantages to having a car, but there are more advantages without one.
Driving cars allow people to get from point A to point B in a matter of minutes, but this harms the environment drastically. "Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some car-intesive areas in the United States" (Rosenthal, paragraph 5, Source 1). These emissions can cause major damage not just to one location but the whole planet overall."Last week Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter (PM) per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London, Reuters found" (Duffer, Paragraph 17, Source 2). Smog has caused a problem in Paris recently, having more smog than other major Western European cities. "Diesels make up 67 percentof vehicles in France, compared to a 53.3 percent average of diesel engines in the rest of Europe, according to Reuters" (Duffer, paragraph 16, Source 2). Paris and other cities like it are faced with a huge environmental problem. Later on , however, Paris put a plan in to stop all of these emissions. On one day, motorists with even-numbered license plates had to leave their car at home or face a 31$ fine. The next day would be the odd-numbered plates. Congestion went down 60 percent, allowing the French ruling party to cancel the ban of odd-numbered plates on the next day.
With this decreased use of cars, many cities are reforming the suburbs, such as Vauban, Germany. "Vauban's streets are completely 'car-free'..." (Rosenthal, paragraph 2, Source 1). In result to this change, less carbon is being emitted while providing a safe and secure environment for the families that live there. Another city who has made a similar change like Vauban is the city of Bogota in Colombia. "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" (Andrew Selsky, Paragraph 21, Source 3). The goal of this event is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog. Here in the United States, car sales and the amount of people getting a driver's license has diminished. "...the Internet makes telecommuting possible and allows people to feel more connected without driving to meet friends... Likewise, the rise in cellphones and car-pooling apps has facilitated more flexible commuting arrangements, including shared van services for getting to work" (Elisabeth Rosenthal, Paragraph 35, Source 4). So even though we may not realize it, technology has allowed us to stay connected without having to burn gas and harm the environment while trying to go to your friend's house. These efforts to decrease the use of cars have been a success in the amount of people participating and the beneficial effects to the environment, like Paris and the decreasing amount of smog.
As countries start to realize the amount of cars and emissions they produce, projects have gone in to make city streets more accessible for alternative vehicles. "...stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along some distant highway" (Elisabeth Rosenthal, Paragraph 6, source 1). This approach forces people to walk or ride a bike instead of driving a car into the city center. "...uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks...rush-hour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic..." (Andrew Selsky, Paragraph 28, Source 3). In conclusion, there have been many efforts in order to promote alternative ways of transportation into cities .
In conclusion, the advantages of limiting car usage include the decreased emissions of carbon into the atmosphere, the use of alternative transportation through exercise, and the reformation of cities to become safer with easier access to certain shops and venues. As time goes on, awareness of greenhouse gases and carbon emissions increases, and more and more things are done in order to stop the diminishing of our environment. | 3 |
972d424 | The Facial Action coding system enable computers to identify humans emotions. Dr. Huang relies the work of psychologists such as Dr. Paul Eckman, creator of FACS, Eckman has classified about six basic emotions which are happiness, surprise, anger, disgust, fear, and even sadness after that he even then associated each with characteristic movements of the facial muscles in which for example, are frontalis pars laterlis muscle (above your eyes) in the raises of are eyebrows when we are surprised; are orbicularis oris (around are mouth) tighten are lips to show anger.
The Mona Lisa demonstration is really intended to bring a smile to are face, while in the computer it shows it in how much it can do. In the computer imagine know when we are happy or even sad for example, if we smile when a Wed ad appears on are screen, a similar ad might follow. But if we frown, the next ad will be different.
When we are looking in the mirror:
* raise your lips at the corner of your mouth,
* when you squint your eyes slightly, to produce wrinkling at the corner of your eyes,
* when you hold it, rise the outer pars of your cheek up, toward your eyes,
In fact, these are instructionws for a face that looks happy.
In a real smile, the zygomatic major (muscles that begin at yourt cheek bones) lifts the corner of you mouth. (that's out instruction #1.)
Meanwhile, muscles called orbicularis oculi pars palpabraeus make crow's-feet around your eyes. But in a false smile, the mouth is stretched sidways using the zygomstic major and a different muscle, the risorius.
Theoty of Emotion, Moving are facial muscles not only expresses emotions, but also may even help produce them, in what you are feeling that day and how you felt last night, you show emotion at school, work, even at your own house. Emotion are express in how your day was, your emotions is like a tv show in how but act you fell what they feel if they are happy, mad, sad, or even scard. | 1 |
9732ebf | I believe the Face on Mars is just a natural landform. There can be no possible way for there to be aliens on Mars. In paragraph twelve, Garvin states that the Face on Mars reminds him of a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars. This Face is unusual, but there are outlines and some other formations on planets that are more different than this. In paragraph seven, on April 5, 1998, there was another Face on Mars. A JPL website revealed that there was no alien monument at all. It was just a natural landform.
Only conspiracy theorists state that aliens made the Face on Mars. They don't have the right technology to state that this theory is actually true. Only NASA has the right technology to research this Face and can tell whether this is true. In paragraph seven, because the other Face on Mars have been proven to actually be a natural landform, what makes the other face any different? Aliens have not been proven real at all. So what makes aliens want to make a face on Mars? Even if aliens were real, they wouldn't make any face on Mars. They would make something more complicated.
In conclusion, the Face on Mars is not made by any aliens at all. Instead, it is a natural landform that probably was made by an asteroid or a meteor that was floating around in space. In paragraph eleven, it states that if there were objects in this picture like airplanes on the ground or Egyptian-style pyramids or even small shacks, you could see what they were. | 3 |
9740146 | When someone hears the word Venus, they don't think as it as a planet, but it is a planet. It is the second planet from the sun. Venus could led us to an equal intimidating endeavors.
In paragraph 4, it says that Venus may once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Venus had oceans and life on it like earth does now. It had moutains, valleys, and craters. Now no space craft can survive the landing for more than a few hours, like paragraph 2 says.
In paragraph 5, it says that they might send people to Vensus, but in a safe way. The NASA'S possible solution for it to be safe from the surface is to make them float above the fray. It won't be easy it says in paragraph 5, but it will be a challenge and survivable for humans.
Hoving over the planet can provide limited insight on ground conditions, as it says in paragraph 6. Most light cannot penetrate the dense atmossphere, rendering stanard forms of photography and videography ineffective. They can't take things from distance. In paragraph 6 it says that researchers are working on allowing mechines to last longer to get the meaning knowledge of Venus.
Venus is a planet, but visting it could be dangerous in some cases. Trying to land on Venus and surviving will be a challenge for the people, but they can figure it out so they will survive. | 3 |
9744a3c | Many may argue that 'driverless' cars will be a great fundamental change in the world. Driverless cars are only helpful if you really know how to use them properly. They are very dangerous when it comes to being on the road around a bunch of other people. Driving is already dangerous enough for young people with our phones so why make it worse on us? I believe that driverless cars will only make our world worse in every situation.
If you dont know how to use these 'driverless' cars there is really no point in owning one. Since 2009 people have been hoping to eventually have a car that drives itself but i dont think they actually looked at the logic behind it. This driverless car means there is really no learning taking place. Why even have a license if you wont ever need it because your car drives itself? It is practically a waste of time.
Another reason I would not approve of this evolving is because, just imagine all of the things that could happen if you are in a driverless car around a bunch of people on the highway. You could easily be going a certain speed limit and then have to speed up to a different speed and if you cant do that fast enough there is most likely going to be a crash. Does anybody see that driving and maintaining a certain type of composure in a car is hard enough?
Keeping your composure in a driverless car would practically be impossible. You can be way too relaxed in a driverless car and completely forget to pay attention to your surroundings, which is also extremely dangerous.
The last reason these cars should not be abbolished is because we all know how teenagers cant wait to get on the road. We also know how much us teens love our Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, ect. This driverless car only promotes us to do these things while we're driving because of the simple fact that we dont have anything better to do. With this we can pay all of the attention we want to our cellular devices and hope that nothing tragic will happen. Hoping isnt good enough. If we keep everything the same we will be sure that teenagers pay close attention to the road instead of the distractions in the car.
That being said there are many flaws to this car. If you dont know what you are doing, do not put yourself in that situation. Not paying attention to your surroundings is very dangerous and leads to you crashing. Lastly distractions are a big problem in the United States and this car will only make them worse. Therefore I say no to the driveless cars. When it comes down to life or death i chose life. Safety always comes first. | 3 |
9745863 | The invention of driverless cars is a really good idea. The driverless cars have many developments and improvements. Driverless cars can alert drivers to when something bad is about to happen. The cars are eco friendly because they use half the fuel that taxis use today. With all of the improvements it has, these cars will be one of the safest cars on the road.
With all of the improvements on the driverless car the car will be safer. They have invented a track that sends signals to a reciever on the front end of the car. The reason for this is the senors to alert the driver. The senors tell the driver what is all around them. They have developed senors to help alert the driver whne something bad is about to happen. The senors have become more advanced, and are able to detect and respond to the danger of out of control skids or rollovers. The information from the senors can make the car apply the brakes on the individual wheels and reduce the engine's power. The most important piece of technology is the Dubbed LIDAR. It uses laser beams to scan 3-D images of the car constantly. This allows the car to have a better response and control than a human driver alone. General motors has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger. With all of the new technolgy being developed, these driverless cars will be safer.
The driverless cars will be a safer car. These cars have been driven more than half a million miles without a crash. The makers of these cars believe that more states will follow as soon as the cars are proved more reliably safe. The reason for this is the senors to alert the driver. The senors tell the driver what is all around them. Another reason these are good cars, is that they use less fuel than the average car, and it will have more flexibility than a bus.
Overall the driverless car is a safer car. It will have the new technology that the other cars do not have. The senors will help alert the driver when there is something behind them or to the side of them. The senors help make this car a safer car for all people. People all around would want this car because it is safe for children and other people. They should develope this car because it si safe for the environment and for other drivers. | 3 |
9749d96 | The face on mars was not created by aliens. A huge rock formation which resembles a human head formed by shadows giving the illusion of a eyes, nose, and mouth. When NASA took a photograph ten times sharper than the one Vikings took it revealed a natural landform. There was no alien monument after all. Some people were not satisfied. Some believe that the photo was not taken correcly because the face of Mars is locted 41 degrese north martian latitude where it was winter in April '98. This time of year is cloudy on the red planet. The skeptics believe that the alien markings were covered up by haze. But why would the Alien markings be coverd up by haze and not the face.
So The mission controllers prepared to look again. They took a better picture and made the picture three times bigger. On the day they retook the photo it was a clear day and if there was an object on the ground you would be able to identify that object. The face on Mars is proven to be a natural landform. | 2 |
974bdc5 | I believe that driverless cars should still be worked on. They would make life much simpler, and could also save a lot of people a lot of time. Driverless cars are the future, and we should be ready to embrace them.
If driverless cars do become a thing in the future, lives would be more convenient. If they managed to make them able to work completely without human assistance, then people wouldn't have to focus on driving. If they need to get something done in a short amount of time, they could just use a driverless car, that way they could work on it while on the road. Of course, since the few driverless cars there are now still need human assistance, this could take quite a while to develop, but I'm sure they'll get that far eventually.
There are some people who drive really slow, and some who drive really fast. With driverless cars, this would not be an issue, as all the cars could go the same speed, so everyone could get to where they need to go in time. As for the issue of possible crashes, if all the cars would be programmed the same way, this wouldn't be a problem. If there are still crashes, that would be a manufacturer thing. They were the ones who built and program the cars, it's their responsibility to program all the cars to be as safe as possible, so no one can get hurt.
This could also save people money in the long run. Since all the cars would be programmed the same, therefore no more wrecks, people wouldn't have to worry about having to buy a new car in that event. Also, they could just take the public transport car, and have it go wherever they need to go, since they would be much more accessible.
In conclusion, Driverless cars should definitely be a thing we need to keep working on. They could benefit the world so much. Plus, things would be a lot more interesting with driverless cars. | 3 |
974d35e | What is the electoral college? The electoral college is a process which consists of the selection of the electors, meeting where they vote for president, and the counting of the votes. The real question is, is the electoral college helping us or is it just bringing our government farther towards disaster? The electoral college should be diminished because it is an unfair direct election, and the disaster factor.
To begin, by keeping the electoral college we could avoid run off elections. This would help our governmental system because as noted by Richard A. Posner, "There is pressure for run-off elections when no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast." By keeping the electoral college, we could help resolve run-off elections. What we dont know is if it will permanantly work for our governmental system and is it worth the risk? The electors are the ones voting for the president, so we should question whether they should have control to help avoid these run-off elections. The writer notes, "... the pressure would greatly complicate the presidential election process, is reduced by electoral college..." (Posner). Although that is true, that is only one problem that would be resolved by the electoral college, and olne benefit is outnumbered by the numerous disadvantages to the electoral college.
Moreover, the disaster facor has a huge impact on the electoral collage. The writer states, "The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century; the system allows for much worse" (Plumer). This disaster was not the first disaster to happen in the system. According to Plumer, the system has had much more effect and damage on the United States and this should not be repeated again. The writer also says, "electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please" (Plumer). This goes to show, not only is the electoral college unbeneficial, but they can be sneaky. The electoral college should be abolished because of the atrocious outcomes it is capable of doing to our government.
Not only is the electoral college capable of the disaster factor, but it also has no direct election. As stated in "What Is the Electoral College?", "... when you vote for your candidate you are acually voting for your candidate's electors." (Office of the Federal Register). This means, voters have no control over whom controls the country. That is outrageous that the lives of these people will be affected by someone they did not want in the overpowering decisions of their country. Writer Plumer states, "At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair too voters" as well as "The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational" (Plumer). Both of these point go to show that the electoral college is lowering our hopes for the government. The writer also notes, "candidates don't spend time in states they have no chance in winning, focusing only on the tight races in the "swing" states" (Plumer). This proves that the electoral government thinks about their winning chances instead of our countries government. Are we going to sit here and let them take advantage of their power that will lead us towards disaster?
All in all, the electoral collage should be banished from the government. Who wants our government to get weaker and more unfair to the citizens? By taking away the electoral college our government would gain back its strength and become the hard- working government we know it can be! | 5 |
975442b | Most cities are banning cars I don't think thats a good idea but limiting the usage of your car is better . Some people drive just to drive with or without license and thsts not safe . Also there are some people struggling and are only doing what they can.
To most people safety always come first in a automobile. Its not safe to drive without license , it might seem cool but its really not. Its putting your life and maybe someone elses life in danger. Driving without license will always have you at risk because if you get stopped you going to jail . If you were to be driving a car without license and its not yours you and the person who car it is , is going to get in trouble. Limiting car usage isn't as bad it saves you from getting into any trouble or even saves you from getting hurt . Riding a bike or getting on the bus will get you from one place to another safer than driving without license .
Furthermore , we have people in the world that say they need there car to get from one place to another. Cars are not really need it , it just get you to where ever you need to go quicker. The bus will get you from where ever you are to where you need to go just not as fast as a car will. A bike will do the same thing . They both also saves you money because with a car you will need to put gas in and if it mess up its really expensive to fix it .
Limiting car usage isn't really a bad thing but banning cars is . Like I said before cars are not needed but it need to be taking good care of because its expensive to fix on the other hand, the bus cost but not as much as a car do and the bike just takes up a lot of energy and can cost some money but not as much as a car so yeah to me limiting car usage is not as bad as people say or think it is . | 2 |
9757d84 | My side of the story is that we shouldnt have Driverless cars. I think that we shouldnt have driverless cars because they could potentially malfunction, inflicting law, and would cause laziness.
One reason why i believe that we shouldn't have driverless cars is because they could malfunction. In the passage it states that the cars could malfunction. Thats a clear indicator that the people are not ready for driverless cars. Malfunctions could caust money or a life a human being. the aspect of cars needing money put in to them is not new but I am not going to risk my life with driverless cars.
Another reason why is that it inflicts the law. In the passage it states that the cars are only legal in 3 states and one city. they want to test them and prove that they work and so other states will legalize autonomous cars. The law is the law these cars may not even pass emission standards or other State and even Federal laws. This is another reason why we shouldnt have autonomous cars.
Another reason why we shouldnt have autonomous cars is because of laziness. technology already causes diseases to sprout and other bad cases. what will happen to people when we drive just there, eat food, get fat. We shouldnt let our country be the cause of lazy people and known as the lazy country. this is another reason why we shouldnt have autonomous cars.
I do not support the movement of autnomous cars. I dont support it because of malfunctions, inflicting on the law, and pure laziness. if we do this we will be overcome by technology a click of a button by a criminal could cause you to be killed or a malfunction of a car could kill you. This is why i dont support autonomous cars. | 4 |
975d6bc | Would u want a car that drove its self? Now if that became a thing and u had a car that drove its self how would u feel. Would u want to take control and not let the car or would u let the car drive and trust the car with your life.
When u get a new car you are always excited to drive and see how u can handle it. Now u cant because the car drives its self and when u need to drive it tells you. They are figuring out new ways for the vehicle to notify you that its your turn to drive. I think the driver should have control at all times because what if one day the car doesnt tell u u need to drive and u crash or the car glitches.
They say that the antilock brakes and driving assistance are still awhile away. The thing is what happens if the car doesnt brake and u cant take the wheel? The new idea over these new cars are crazy, i wouldnt trust a car with my life or my loved ones. The fear of the car malfunctioning or not doing the right thing is very scary.
The thing is every car they make they are gonn try and make that better and the next but how can they. They need so much done to the cars to make them better. Will they put a sensor in the front to alert when a person is walking across the road or how will they know when a light is green or red.
They still havent figured all that out and i feel they need to wait and keep working on them untill there ready for us to trust them with our lives. Companies need to really advertise and make them worth buying and make sure they wont get sued over not stopping at a stop sighn. So would u trust a car to get u places and u just sit and watch and wait for your turn to drive your car? | 4 |
975e43c | Humanity believes this land structure is a face left by aliens, we will never know.
We have to find out and learn.
People have questions about this "face" on the moon, what does this mean, what next, how did this happen.
That will remain a mystery.
We have seen strange objects in the sky, strange "ships" and UFO's and what not.
But we have never had any proof that aliens exist.
we have never seen one, captured one or anything.
But we also have never seen them in space.
These mysterious objects on the moon are just a coincedince.
Until we have proof that we have captured, seen, or caught on camera a extraterestrial thing we cannot say this object was made by aliens.
This land structure could be a manmade structure and we would never know it.
We would never know if othe people made a trip to the moon.
Till we have proof this was not a human manmade structure, it will be a mystery till it is prooved.
There ar thousands of craters, dents and all kinds of odd looking things on the moon, what makes you think this could be made by someone or something.
It will remain a mystery till we know who or what did it. | 1 |
9763ea8 | Venus, often referred to as Earth's "twin" is an astouding planet in humanity's solar system.
Venus measures out to nealry the same density and mass of as Earth and is sometimes even the nearest planet to Earth as well.
Humans should find studying Venus as a neccessity to human survival because of the advanced intel that NASA and humans all aorund the world could contain, society on Earth has came up with numerous ways to explore its challenging dangers that Venus envokes, and Venus is worth the exploration because the things soicety can learn and takeaway to help further Earth and the way that Earth functions.
Venus, without a doubt, is a worthy pursuit despite its dangers.
Venus and Earth are extemely similar yet different at the same time.
Many years ago, in paragraph four, Venus was, "...covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth." thus implying the similarities Earth and Venus both share.
Also, "The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters." this being a description of Venus, Earth has all of these qualities as well.
But in contrast, Venus's surface today, "...temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater that what we experince on our own planet." thus explaining that the temperature and atmosheric pressure is extremly different than what Earth is today.
To make up the these dense hazards that Venus portrays, NASA and many sister companies on Earth have came up with thorough plans to match that dangers Venus depicts.
For example, because of the harsh temperatures on Venus, NASA has envisioned a blimp-like structure that would hover close to 30 miles above Venus, decreasing the temperature about 630 degress and far enough up in orbit to decrease the atmospheric pressure to about equal to a submerged submarine in the ocean.
Thus doing so, NASA could get closer to Venus despite the dangers of extreme temperature and pressure to unveil intel and knowledge about Venus to help expand what we know about Venus.
Another idea that NASA is working on is with the study of electronics made from silicon carbide.
These materials can withstand Venus conditions. To go along with these ideas, other people came up with computer systems from pre and post World War II era.
These computers cn operate and calculate without using technology sensitive materials like today where they got heated easily.
These computers can as well withstand harsh temperatures and pressures that Venus envokes.
Furthermore, through old and new elctronics, and bolstering ideas with different materials NASA and society on Earth can safely study Venus despite the dnagers.
To add, by pursuing Venus society can learn neccessary intel to help further Earth and the way that Earth functions.
For example, by making the trip to Venus, scientists on Earth could study and soon figure out more analogous similarites to Earth and Venus.
They could also help as find out more about how society's world on Earth operates and functions through geology and weather and other things like the the way volcanoes erupt, the earthquakes the Earth has, and the lightining strikes that happen on Earth.
Therefore, with the travel to Venus, society can expand its knowledge on how both Earth and Venus works through the studies that scientists can perform.
In conclusion, by taking the initiative to take on the challenges of Venus, society can gian intel for themselves and for Venus as well as answer unanswered questions that society has had forever.
Thus doing so, society's lapse cannot be stopped by the dangerous challenges it envokes but be stopped by society's dense imagination. | 3 |
9764f48 | Every person needs some form of transportation.
For most people that form of transportation is a car.
Cars are used not only as transportation but are also used for recreation and competiton.
Self-driving cars may take away from the recreation and competition parts and make the hobbies of many people become non-existant.
One could argue that roads would be safer with cars capable of driving themselves, but the reality is a computer is no replacement for a human brain.
A computer with all the little circuts and fuzes it has is not able to make a decision that solves problems beyond the one it is currently faced with.
Therefore car accidents will stil loccur and when an accident does occur who is to be held accountable?
Who wil pay the cost o fthe damage? "Who is at fault- the driver or the manufacturer?"(paragragh 9)
One cannot simply say that the the dumbest car is the one to blame.
Nor can he or she say that the drivers are at fault if they had no control over their car.
Driving can also be used as an escape.
Some people race their cars as a hobby and others just enjoy a nice Sunday cruise around town.
Either way they are not driving so they will not find the refuge from day-to-day life they seek.
What would be the fun of going to a track and sitting in a car you love and then have it drive itself around the track.
Pushing a car ro its max and diving into corners and accelerating out of them is what makes driving fun.
Without the roar of an engine reving at eight thousand RPM and the squeal of tires barely golding on to asphalt what would racing a car be?
A major issue with autonomous cars would be that of cost.
As the founder of the Google Car Project said "Radar was a device at the top of a hill that costs two hundred million dollars.
It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack."
The U.S. cannot afford a road system that will put us deeper into the sixteen trillion dollar hole we are in.
The price of cars would also rise making them for only people who could afford them.
A car with a higher price tag means a smaller market will be able to purchase them and less money is to be made.
Less money made means less money spent by the employees and that will make the economy worse.
Creating cars that drive themselves will take away from the hobbies of many people.
Transportation is a must in modern society.
Wether it is public or not people need to move from place to place. | 3 |
97692d2 | Hey. This is seagoing Cowboys. Seagoing Cowboys is where you get to help other countries recover from world war 2. Here comes why you should join us.
First reason you get to help others. Plus you get to see if there are different ways to help us recover faster, so we can have other workers to help out. Last of the first reason leads to the second you can explore the world.
Second reason as I said you get to explore the world while doing this. I bet you are wondering how? Well we don't need you to stress out, so we let explores for a little while and then get the next shipment.
The last reason is because you get to relax after your shipment of horses and play around with some new friends and laugh and joke around. Luke says on his way back he got to play some baseball and volleyball in the empty holds where the horse use to be. They also had Table-tennis tourneys, fencing, and boxing. If you were not into sports you could whittling and play some games on the floor to pass some time.
I think this is a wonderful
opportunity for the people who are caring and helpful, so come on and join us. | 3 |
976c6f8 | New technologies are created everyday. A new technology that was recently created is one that is called the Facial Action Coding System. This system enables computers to identify human emotions. This system itself can be very valuable to read the expressions of students in a classroom.
This resource can be very useful to teachers as well as students. This system will be essential to teachers when it comes to online assignments or practice games. As stated in the article " A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored," " Then it could motify the lesson, like an effective human instructor." That would then make the teachers job easier because if they are bored or aren't understanding the topic the system will read that and change up the lesson a bit. The students will also benefit from this because it makes learning fun and easier to understand. The easier it is to comprehend something the better a student will do in school.
The Facial Action Coding System would be a great asset to the student classroom. It makes school run smoother and easier for the staff and students. This new technology will help not only the education department but many others as well. | 2 |
976f65c | I think that the face is just a natural landform !
In my opinion, scienctificly we should believe there landforms and not aliens. We should believe Scientist at NASA,because they have facts and pictures that look like faces made of landforms. Scientist claim they know the facts of what looks like a landform and they think this is a posibility that this is one of them. Also, We should believe its landforms because nobody has ever seen aliens before they just think that they look like on what they have on social media etc. Even if they look like what we have in pictures that still would NOT be an aliens face!! If you look at the picture it might actually look like a formed face but its not .We should also believe NASA because .. they are scientificly trained to look at these and study things to see and know what they are .. Why would you really believe and think you know whats on the internet instead of believing things that you see! Use research!
In conclusion,I think the face is a landform because if so , aliens do not look like humans and the faces on mars looks like a human face and i think we should stop assuming and go with the facts from NASA. | 2 |
977383b | The Face is just a natural landform on Mars.
Scientists made the conclusion about the Face based on facts.
Also, the camera scientists used was great at capturing the Face, and the Face is very similiar to landforms we have on Earth.
These reasons are why the Face is a natural landform.
The Face is a natural landform because scientists made the conclusion based on facts.
Throughout the article, scientists took various photos of the Face.
In all of these photos, scientists concluded that it was just a natural landform.
Also, scientists study Mars often, they have never seen any traces of alien artifacts.
There are more facts to believe the Face was a natural landform than an alien aritifact.
Another reason to believe the Face was just a natural landform is because the camera they used was very good at detailing the Face.
In paragraph 10, the article states that each pixel spans 1.56 meters compared to 43 meters per pixel from the photo in 1976.
This means the photo was a good picture to study off of.
Also, in paragraph 11, the article says the camera could have captured things like planes, pyramids, or shacks.
If there was anything like that on Mars, the camera would have seen it.
Since we did not see anything through the camera, we do not have a reason to believe the Face was an alien artifact.
Lastly, the Face is very similar to what we have on Earth.
In paragraph 12, Jim Garvin says the Face looks a lot like a butte or mesa. He said it reminded him of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho.
We know it is just a natural landform because we know what a natural landform looks like, but we do not know what an alien artifact looks like.
We can not make an assumption when we have facts.
In conclusion, the Face is just a natural landform.
We have many reasons to believe this because of reasons like the camera, facts, and similar things we have on Earth.
There are a lot of facts and reasons connected to the Face supporting it just being a natural landform. | 4 |
977e010 | That venus is like a sister or most likely like a twin. " venus is actually a planet. In our solar system, Venus is the second planet from our sun. " ( prg.1 ). " often referred to as Earth's " twin," Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size, and occasionally the closest in distance too.Earth, Venus and Mars, our other planetary neighbor, obit the sun at different speeds." ( pr.2 ). thats one of the reason they call say it one of the earth's twin. humans have sent numerous spacecraft to land on cloud- drapped worlds to make a mission there.
It also explains how " A thick atmosphere of amlost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challening are the clouds of highly corrosive suifuric acid in Venus's atmosphere. On the planet's surface, temperatures averge over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the armoshperic pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet. These conditins are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth; such an environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to driving to the deepest parts of our oceans and would liquefy many metals. Also notable, Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solor system, even though Mercury is closer to our sun Beyond high pressure and heat, Venusian geology and weather present additionals impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking to lans on its surface." ( prg.3 ). explains why it could be dangress like the weath for us, but " venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit, a crucial consideration given long time frames of space travel". ( prg.4 ) . " NASA's possible solution to the conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float aboove the fray." ( prg.5 ) but such as this solution NASA can come up with more other ones only takes time to make sure we actually can be in Venus.
" However, peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions because most forms of light cannot penetrate the dense atmosphere, rendering standard froms of photography and videography ineffective. More importantly, researchers cannot take samples of rock,gas, or anything else, from a distance. Therefore, scientists seeking to conduct a thorough mission to understand Venus would need to get up close and personal despite the risks". ( prg.6 ). But other than that Venus has value , not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also because humans curiosity will likely lead us into many equally intimindating endeavors". ( prg.8 ). | 1 |
977edb4 | In today's world, people often strive for the next technological innovation. As a result, various companies in the technology industry are attempting to develop driverless cars. However, the article "Driverless Cars are Coming" manifests that the technology is not beneficial. Driverless cars should not be developed because this technology is in reality unrealistic and can potentially lead to liability issues.
The idea of a driverless car may seem compelling, but driverless cars are not truly driverless as humans must always take some control of the car. For example, in paragraph seven of "Driverless Cars are Coming," the author indicates that BMW's developing driverless car has "special touch sensors" to "make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel." Since the driver is required to keep his or her hands on the steering wheel, this car is not truly driverless as one might think. Though it may perform some functions of driving on its own, a driver must always be there for special cases. The author furthers this idea in the same paragraph by saying that "none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless." As a result, the author, too, indicates that these developing driverless cars still require drivers. Since not even one of these developing projects does not require a driver, the author indicates that truly not requiring a driver is an unrealistic technology. Thus, one of the biggest attractions of driverless cars, the lack of necessity of a driver, is lost. The author later supports this in paragraph eight by asking, "Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver?" This question suggests that driverless cars still requiring drivers are no longer as attractive. People would no longer want driverless cars as much. As driverless cars are not truly driverless, as their name suggests, they should not be developed. The technology that would fulfill what the name suggests is simply unrealistic. Also, driverless cars require an inefficient change since they require such a large change in how traffic control works.
Driverless cars are such a large step into the future that changing laws to deal with them are inefficient. The author indicates in paragraph nine that "Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that they only safe car has a human driver in control at all times" but that "new laws will be needed" with the advent of driverless cars. Since the current laws regarding traffic only deal with cars driven by humans, having to rewrite the laws to deal with cars driven primarily by computers is inefficient. This is such a drastic change in the laws that it would truly take much time and capital to rewrite everything. In a society that revolves around cars driven by humans, this presents an unrealistic change in how traffic is controlled. As a result of the inefficience of changing the entire system, the development of driverless cars should be halted. Furthermore, the new laws may struggle with the liability of accidents, another reason why driverless cars would be a negative innovation.
The widespread use of driverless cars means that the liability of accidents is extremely difficult to determine. Paragraph nine poses the question, "If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault--the driver or the manufacturer?" This indicates that a society with driverless cars may struggle with this issue. When an accident with these cars would occur, it would be difficult to determine whether the owner of the car or the manufacturer should take responsibility for the accident. The car would be the owner's possession, but the accident may also be caused by poor manufacturing or programming. As a result, any decision that poses one party as responsible for the incident may lead to conflicts, as either side might hold a portion of the blame. As a result, it is best to avoid such difficult situations by stopping the development of these cars.
Truly driverless cars are both unlikely and harmful to society. Though the idea of a world in which transport is dominated by autonomous machines is attractive, the advantages are underwhelming and the consequences are harmful. Society must not promote the development of these cars. Placing such high hopes in this risky technology will only disappoint. | 5 |
9787503 | ''Driverless cars are coming'', the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars because, could some people imagaine a time in the future when nobody buys cars cause they don't need it anymore? ,The author says google Sergey Brin can , My opinion is negative i couldn't see myself or anyone else without a car in the future and that's okay, I aslo think of it in a postive way because, Maybe in the furture without cars wouldn't be so bad, but people would have to walk alot.
Did you Know that some people didn't know that television and movies have been the long fascinated with cars that could drive themeslf. in reality, the author says cars that could drive independently under sepcific conditions since 2009. Cars also havent driven more than half a million miles without a crash, and that's where some people would think of driverless cars in a negative way because, google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as road accidents .
The whole point of cars driving by themself is starting to get negative instead of postive.The reason i say this is because, For an example the author says self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as a smarter road meaning anything can happen . Postive and neagtive polarity as messages in brinary code. The smart roads systems worked but, they required massive upgrade to existing roads, and things will be way too expensive .
Most imporant most driving laws focus on keeping drivers,passengers,and pedestrians safe. driverless cars will be alot of work and i don't think people would want to go through the struggle for a driverless car, reading through the paragraghs really help me understand what's going on in the story, driveless cars would be a waste of time . | 2 |
9787d80 | I don't think that they should make the cars, because like they said in the article who's going to want to wait their turn? It would be different if the cars actually drove by themselfs through traffic, but they don't so I don't think they should be made. Some people like driving so the people making the cars would be taking away something that other people like to do. I don't think that it would be very safe, because what if the car got in to a crash and the car just kept going. I think that we should just stick to the cars we have to drive. This world doesn't need anymore technology. It's changing and it's not changing in a good way. People will become lazy and not want to drive anywhere. I just don't want this world to be lazy. The cars dont have to be that fancy if you have something to drive thats awsome, but we dont really need them to drive themself's. It's a stupid idea and I don't think that it should happen ever in life. Cars that drive themselfs are going to be very expensive and everybody's gonna want one, but some people can't have them because they dont have money like that. Somepeople would try to steal them or hurt people just to get one. I think that these cars are going to start alot more crime. So no, i dont think that the driverless cars should be made it's a bad idea. I just dont want this world to get any worse than it already is. That's why I think that driverless cars shouldn't be made. | 2 |
9789803 | Driverless cars are a good thing for the future.
They can kind of help drive when someone is tired and can prevent accidents.
They help take people's lives out of danger.
I think the development of these cars is a good thing for the world.
To start off, the fuel needed for these cars is half of the fuel amount we use right now on regular cars, stated in the first paragraph.
That is saying that the amount you are paying now for gas would be cut in half.
There are sensors in these smart cars that have been placed everywhere around the cars.
In places such as the mirror, the wheels and on the roof.
These sensors may not be new, but they have developed into something amazing that helps protect.
The driverless cars have many functions that can help protect people in many different ways and situations.
Some of those functions include, antilock brakes and driver assisting.
They have come a long way in developin this driverless car.
Theses cars can now steer themselves, accelerate, and brake by themsleves.
This is a huge step in car technology.
There are some things that the cars may need done to make it perfect, but it is still one step closer to making our lives a little easier.
These cars will have in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays.
These displays will be turned off when instantly when the driver needs to take over.
The in-car system is a saftey feature in the car.
The driverless cars are the next step going into the future.
They have many great features such as steering themselves, sensors that detect things and handling driving functions.
The driverless cars can change the future for the good and can also help make the roads a little more safer. | 3 |
978a1d7 | There are many advantages of limiting car usage in society. Many countries have made changes in there towns, cities, and villages to use less cars and gas. Many countries have made days to not use automobiles. The effect on not using these transportation devices have made great effects on the enviroment.
In Vaunban, Germany, 70 percent of residents have given up there cars. These changes have made people, including Heidun Walter,a mother of two, happier in there community. "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way," said Walter. This idea of less car usage has other effects in Europe. In France, Paris enfored a parial driving ban to clear the air of the city. The city had 147 micrograms of particlate matter per cubic meter compared to 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London, Reuters found. These changes have caused a positive impact in there cities.
In Colombia, Many citizens have enjoy the yearly event of only having buses and taxis in the streets of Bogota. "It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution," said businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza. In the third year of the event, the Colombian cities Cali and valledupar joined Bogota for the first time. In America, citizens have passed their driving peak. In the United States, Americans have driven less and bought less car in recent years. President Obama Has also have goals for greenhouse gas emission.
There are many advantages of limiting car usage in society. Many countries have made changes in there towns, cities, and villages to use less cars and gas. Many countries have made days to not use automobiles. The effect on not using these transportation devices have made great effects on the enviroment. In Germany, France, Colombia, and America, these chnges are having amazing changes in their societies. The world will be healthier with these changes. | 2 |
978be22 | Driverless cars could have a very postive impact on the world today. They could be much saver than having humans drivers. Since 2009, there has been cars that could drive independently. Google is the main employer of driverless cars. Driverless cars use sensors to detect traffic, or cars around them. Driverless cars could have a positive impact on the world through less accidents, and provide more safety to the community as a whole.
Driverless cars are much saver than human driven cars. There would be no fear of drunk driving, or texting while driving. Driverless cars would get drunk people home safely and you would be able to text in the car without the fear of an accident. "They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents." This quote shows what driverless cars can do without someone working the wheel. Some sources say that the safest car is one with a human driver in control at all times. I disagree with this opinion because human's can be very dangerous at times. Driverless cars would restrict speeding, and cause many less accidents with their advanced techonology.
If many of these companies thought that Driverless cars would be hurtful, why would they make them? If Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan all think that this would be positive, than we should too. There are many laws that protect the safety of drivers, passengers and pedenstrians. Driverless cars are designed to protect these people. Also, no company will release these cars for sale until they are one hundred percent certain they are safe. "Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash." This quote shows the progress google has already had on this subject. This happened in 2009, so I believe that in future years there could be a time where there are no accidents.
Driverless cars are already in motion. They are safer, and more reliable than human driven cars. These cars use sensors to help them see where things are around them. In the past, these driverless cars are not completly driverless. If there is bad traffic, or construction, they needed driver assistance. In the future, there will be cars that can move past all of this. Also, they will benefit the enviroment because they would only use half of the fuel used in today's cars. This is why driverless cars would be beneficial to the world today. | 4 |
9792fe8 | Driverless cars are the transportation system of the future. Their benefits greatly outweigh those of the current system. Driverless cars are easily possible to develop, much safer than regular cars, and have benefits for both people and the environment.
Driverless cars are already in development, and many manufacturers have already designed and created the technology which makes them possible. Driverless cars require sensors which allow them to mimic human reaction to whatever situation might arise while on the road. Sensor technology has been in development and in use since the 1980s, with the introduction of antilock brakes. Using this technology, Google modified a Toyota Prius with several sensors which allows the car to access a 3-D model of its environment. The proper technology to introduce driverless cars is clearly already available to manufacturers. In fact, in 2013, BMW announced the "Traffic Jam Assistant," which allows the car to steer, accelerate, and brake itself. The world is already well on its way to the creation of a truly driverless car.
Some might object to the safety of driverless cars, but in reality, driverless cars introduce more safety to the road environment. An operating system or machine cannot become tired, frustrated, emotional, angry, or distracted in any way; its judgement is mechanical, and there are no variables of human unpredictability. Most if not all vehicular accidents are caused by some sort of human error in judgement, and driverless cars eliminate this possibility, which is conducive to a much safer driving environment. A possible cosumer concern might be that with the current model of semi-driverless cars, which still require some human effort, people may get tired or distracted waiting for their turn to drive. However, manufacturers are developing an answer to this concern which introduces more safety than a regular driving environment would have. Some manufacturers are introducing in-car displays which turn off instantly when driver assistance is required, which is not possible with a regular cellphone or messaging device. This eliminates any in-car distraction during the driving task, With human error eliminated, driverless cars are much safer than regular ones.
Finally, the driverless car introduces benefits to both people and the environment. Driverless cars can allow people to safely engage in other activities besides driving, allowing them to achieve and accomplish more. Driving can be tiring, and driverless cars eliminate driving as a task for people to complete. Many factors can impair driving ability and prevent one from driving, but with driverless cars, mobility is always possible, and transportation is always accessible. A Google cofounder estimates that driverless cars can eventually eliminate the need for personal cars at all, by introducing a public transportation system of entirely driverless vehicles, and that these vehicles can use half the fuel of current taxis. This can have huge benefits for the environment.
Driverless cars are a much better alternative to the transportation systems of today. They can and are being devleoped, carry benefits to the environment and to people, and are much safer than regular cars. | 5 |
9793146 | Take a step outside and a second to look around? Now tell me what you see ? The trees and grass green, the beautiful clear white clouds up in the sky, the birds chripping and flying, wandering and looking for something to eat. You see life. All it takes is a snap of a finger and all of that would go away. All the trees ugly and destory, the grass would no longer be green and the clouds all dark and upset , You wouldn't see life anymore you would see depression. This could all happen if we keep harming the envoirnment by using cars and polluting the air by all the trucks that has been driven around. We need to stop before things get worst. There are benefits and advantage of limiting car usage.
Residents in Vauban, Germany are limiting car usage they're using bikes and most of them enjoy the walk. Most passgeners don't know that their cars and them are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and some car-intensive areas in the United States vary up to 50 percent. You wouldn't want to be blame for such an act. As a matter of Heidrun Walter commented ,in Source 1: "
When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"
If she feels like this ,there is no doubt that everyone wouldn't feel the same. If you're stress and unhappy than take a walk, Mrs. Walter walked the verdant streets where the bicycles swish and chattering of wandering children drown out the occasional distan motor. The whole point of a car is getting from point A to point B and many people are concern about the fact that they won't have any tranportation , this statement is false. Vauban has a home to 5,500 residents and they're trying to built houses where stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along some distant highway.
Lets take a look at Paris, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. If people didn't follow this enforcement they suffer a 22-euro fine of ($31). This act cause congestion meaning car traffic wemt down 60 percent in the captial of France that would mean not cause more damage to the envoirnment. This is also good because looking at their histroy diesel fuel was blamed and france has . . . [a] tax policy . . . diesels make up 67 percent of vehicles in France, compared to a53.3 percent. . .
There is no excuse for not being able to use a car. Look at the benefit you can hike, bike, skate and take buses. There are working on a new car progam isn't going to harm the enviornment, and plus this is a great opportunity to take away stress and also lower air pollution. There is also other wys to get transportaiont there is car-pooling. The internet also pay a big part because it makes it possible to allow people to feel more connected without driving to meet and chat with friends. | 3 |
979bea4 | Smart cars are shown to be the new thing in the future. But, are smart cars really that necessary? They can malfunction and end up worse than your dreams. Even though these cars are being tested and upgraded, they can always have a fail. I am against the development of these cars because they could be a huge danger to the world, this will only make people more lazy, and people could get distracted and not pay attention to the roads.
These cars could be a danger to our world. They not only could put humans in danger, they could be a danger to pets as well. No matter how well the technology could be, there is no garuntee that there won't be a malfunction. They can upgrade the technology as much as they want, but nothing can garuntee the safety of humanity. There are many things that can go wrong. The possibility is high and the list of bad things is long. It's best not to risk lives and just stop manufacturing smart cars. These cars can be far more dangerous to the world.
Making an advance in technology will only make people more lazy. They will become less interested in the staying active by wanting more advanced technology. It's not bad to have great technology and use it for amazing things. But taking advantage of it can make it dangerous. People can request to use this technology for their good. But is it really for their good if they are wanting it for chairs that can move them to where ever they want to? Soon there will be escalators everywhere, replacing every stair case there is. We shouldn't let this happen to our world. Soon we will end up lazy and fat like the people from Wall-e. They took advantage of their technology; therefore, that's something we shouldn't do. We should stop making these advancing, and stop making humanity lazy and worse.
These cars will make people get distracted and not pay attention to the roads. Since the car will be driving, people will decide to relax and pay no attention to where they are going. This can cause many accidents to occur. In the article it talks about how they will install vibrating seats so that when the cars approach a working zone, the driver can instantly take over the car. Will that really work? Let's say someone is running late, they are tired and didn't get enough sleep, so they decide to take a nap on their way to work. They could have an accident for not paying attention and falling asleep. Not only that, there are many ignorants in this world. People will also get distracted on their cell phones and ignore the alerts they are receiving. That isn't the only problem, the seats could malfunction and cause the alerts not be sent to the driver. People will not only get distracted, the alerts may not be sent on time. This can be stopped before it makes people lazy.
Smart cars shouldn't be used nowhere in this world. It's not safe for anybody because other than being dangerous, there are ignorant people who can buy these cars. These ignorant people are irresposible and shouldn't even own one. It could also be put in the wrong hands, making this world less safe. I am against the development of these cars becuase they could be a danger to the world, this will only make people more lazy, and people could get distracted and not oay attention to the road. | 4 |
97ab7f3 | The author did not do a good job supporting the claim that studying Venus is a worthy pusuite despite the dangers it presents. Overall the text had little information about why we should explore Venus, the information given was not strong enough to support the claim, and with all of the dangers of exploring Venus it wouldn't be worth it.
The text had little information about why Venus is a nessecary place to go, even with its dangerous climate. Pharagraph 4 and 8 are the only paragraphs that talked about why we need to go to Venus, the other 6 having nothing to do with it. The article stated, "If our sister planet is so inhospitable, why are scientists even discussing further visits to its surface?" After that statement it went into why Venus is similar to Earth, however it didn't give any strong indicators why space travel to this planet would ever by nessecary until pharagraph 8. In this pharagraph it stated, "Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itslef, but also beacuse human curiosity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating factors." This statement explains why the author think it is nessecary, but the article needs more about this topic to give a solid opinion.
That being said, even with the little information given about the claim, the information isn't very convincing to the claim. The article stated, "Futhermore, recall that Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit, a crucial consideration given the long time frames of space travel." Even though this statement is supposed to help support the claim, it doesn't give a strong straightforward, answer as to why its necessary to go to Venus. It talked about how it would effect the long time frames of space travel, but not how it would help it or what that has to do with going to Venus. The article also stated, "Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation." This statement explains why the author thinks we should explore Venus, however the claim is not supported by facts and doesn't explain why we, the public, should want to explore Venus.
Despite the little information given about the claim, the author added so many negatives about how dangerous Venus was stating things like, " highly corrosive sulfuric acid", "average temperatures over 800 degrees fahrenheit", "97 percent carbon dioxide blanket", and "atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet." The author provided solutions to these problems that scientists are working on, however would the time and money be worth it if its not a positive fact the structures sent to Venus will even survive? I would say no.
With all that being said, the author does not support that the pursuit to Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers present. As said earlier, with the lttle information about it given, the information not having facts to back it up, and all the dangers possible, the article does not support this idea well. | 5 |
97aea5f | Believe it or not cars are getting old. Its not like Miami or Newyork that you see a car driving everywhen to differrent ways. In some of these cities they feel comfortable without using cars. most of the cities are baned due to the polution the air has,in the other hard countries are using other kinds of transportation to get around. Now just using ur car and driving just can lieve you without money in ur pocket.
Let me just explain the advantages of limites car usage. People around are just comfortable. They are living their lives without using their cars and they are happy. Like in Germany, vauban they are completely "
car free
" in the passage it explains that there are only two places people at vauban can park in a large garage where the car owner buys the space fo $40,000. Thats just exxagerative, as a result only 70 percent of vauban's families don't own cars. Heidrun walter says "
When i had a car i was always tense. I'm much happier this way
". Life just goes on without cars.
There is no doubt paris that has the most cars are actually not allowing people to drive their cars. like it said in the report Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear off the global city, therefore if they use their car during they are banned they have pay the fine of 22-euro (
$31
).It is better to lieve ur cars at home than get a fine,i tell you that. Since the air is poluted, therefore using cars brings more polution. Just banning cars forever should bet for the best.
Now adays people are using other transportation to get around without using cars. In the country bogota they banned the cars to only have buses and taxis for the people to get around. Bogota have a goal to promote alternative transportation. They want the people to participate in giving money to their country. The mayor of Bogota Antansas Mockus excitedly says "the rain hasn't stopped people from participating". It is great that people don't have to depend on cars anymore. they have another way to get around, especially the healthy way like riding a bike, or skating.
Who wants to ride a car anymore. Its just too expensice. lieves people broke, without even a penny in their pocket. People have other things to pay like their bills. Cars are just a distraction. Gas prices are just shooting up like a rocket,in the other hand still have to pay the car's insurance, and all that. People can afford a car anymore.
In conclusion, not people are living their lives without cars. Cars are banned due to the polution in the air. Other people are having another way to get around with out using cars, and its just less expensive. People don't have to worry about cars anymore. | 3 |
97b1b67 | In the paragraph it talks about how the planet Earth has a "twin" which is Venus. It's the most Earth-like planet on the solar system.The auother asks "If the sister planet is so inhospitable, why are scientists even discussing further visits to its surface?" Venus is a worthy pursit despite the dangers it presents for these reasons. Long ago, Venus had probably been covered with large oceans, and lives could have been formed in the planet Venus. Venus, today, still has some features just like Earth. The planet has a surface of rocky sediments, valleys, mountain, creatures and other Earth-like species.On Venus you can also use technology old technology called mechcanical computers. These devices were first envisioned in the 1800s as well in the 1940s during World War ll. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and scientist has been exploring Venus and how much people can act just on Earth. Just like on Earth our travels and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts it should expand to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation. Not everyone can be scared without having to try it out. Everything is new and different and also scary but not just because of that people should stop. | 2 |
97b86bc | Imagine being on a plaet so hot that metal would melt just from the touch of it. Imagine being on a planet that has 80 times the atmospheric pressure of the Earth. Now imagine being on it. You would think that it's imppossible and that it's too risky. Well, that's only half true because scientist have now started studying on how to explore this planet. They've even gone as far as thinking of ways to allow humans to go there and study the planet themselves. A planet where metal melts by the touch and where submarines built to go to the deepest part of the ocean would get crushed, "is it worth it?" you may ask.
Well in the short article "The CHallenge of Exploring Venus" the author states that it may be worth it. In the last paragraph line 1-4, he states "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 statement is basically saying that we will be on our way to even more discoveries if we manage to study Venus. Other reasons why it may be worth it to study Venus is that, there may have been life on it before earth! It has similar features that the earth has like rocky sediment, valleys, mountains, and craters. Scientist believe that Venus long ago could've had oceans just like the Earth. This planet could've been home to various life forms just like the Earth. Scientist from NASA have also discovered that if we were to ever launch humans into space to go study the planet, there would be a safe way for them to study it as stated in paragraph 5, "Imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles aboce the roiling Venusian landscape. Just as our jet airplanes travel at a higher altitude to fly over many storms, a vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly ground conditions by staying up and out of their way." This means that humans could study the planet but away from the burning heat of the ground on Venus and the storms.
Although, exploring Venus has it's challenges and it's dangers. Exploring this planet would work in the benefit of the Earth that we live on. Not only will it allows us to find ways to travel to other planets but to also travel safely. As the author of "The Challenge of Exploring Venus." said "human curiosity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors." Exploring this planet will prepare the human race for future endeavors. "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." | 3 |
97ba927 | Three reasons Luke joined the SeagoingCowboy program was to help countries recover from the damage that happened in World War two. Another reason is so he can help the people that was hungry and their houses got damaged during the war. Also to take care of the aminals that they hade to transport by boat.
When Luke and his friend herd about what happened durin World War two they want to heip those countries that where ruine. So him and his friend Don signed up to be Seagoing Cowboy. Also in 1945 Luck and his friend Don received their orders to report to New Orleans. They arrived August 12 the day the Pacific war ended. They also got their seaman's papers and boarded the SS Charles W.Wooster.
The same day Don and Luke got their seaman's papers they got on a boat and headed yo Greece with a cargo of 335 horses plus enough hay and oats to feed them. The cattle-boat trips were an unbelievable opportunity for a small-town boy he "says. When Luke was feeding the animals or something he almost fell over board but it was a good thing a piece of metle saved him. Luke wouldn't be able to do anything for a while because he has some broken ribs.
Conclusion: Even when u get hurt never give up on something u want to do or what your doing. Also it is good to help others if they need it or when they are hurt thats when they need you the most. Just like Luck and his friend Don they both went all the was to New Orleans to help others. They didn't think about themselves they thought about other people and there lives. Even tho Luke got hurt when he was on the boat on thing he didn't do was give up. | 2 |
97c2344 | Going to Venus would be extremly dangerous. With a thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Venus's clouds have highy corrosive sulfuric acid. Temperatures are over 800 degrees Fahrenheit. Venus's atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater then what we have here on Earth.
Venus could be worth visiting. Astronomers say that Venus once was the most Earth-like planet. Venus was probably covered with large oceans. Venus could have supported many forms of life. It is simply to dangerous to land on venus. Even 30 miles above Venus's atmosphere is dangerous. Although it is survivable by humans, having the right equipment for the job is key. Most metals would melt right away if they were to get close to Venus. Silicon carbide has been tested in a chamber of simulation of Venus's atmosphere. It lasted up to three weeks in the chamber.
Going to Venus would be extremly dangerous, but it would be worth trying to find out if there was actually any living life on Venus. Any sample from Venus's ground would be outstanding. It is just simply to dangerous for that to happen. | 2 |
97c3868 | The article talks about the pros and cons of the driverless cars. The article gives people reasons to like and dislike the idea of driverless cars and I like the idea. I like the idea because its a way to help our economy grow more advanced and stronger. I also feel that in a way it will help with reducing our wreck percentage to. I'm not saying that their won't be flaws to the devices, but if we don't give them a chance we won't be able to figure them out and fix them so they won't happen again. I think we should imbrace these driverless cars and use them to our advantage instead of not giving them a chance and possibly missing out on something that can alture our future for the good it would really suck if we missed out on something big just because we didn't like the sound of it or how it worked. When we just change it to were we like it, and who knows maybe it becomes one of the best things that ever happens to man kind. | 2 |
97cb710 | In 1976, the Viking 1 took a photo of what was thought to be a 'face' on Mars. The 'face' had a shadow that loomed over the formation; the shadow making it appear as a human face. NASA was thrilled when the Viking 1 captured the picture. A few days after the team found it, NASA reveiled the picture to the public.
Ever since the photo was published, theorists have speculated over what the formation actually was. Many were to believe that it was an alien structure. In fact, it actually is not. The 'alien artifact' is actually a mesa. Mesas are commonly found on planets such as Earth. There would be no possible way that the mesa would be an alien structure.
In the passage, NASA has been taking pictures of it from 1976, 1998, and 2001. Since then, the images have been sharper. In 2001, the picture clearly shows a mesa, not a face. When the latest photo was taken, Malin's team had made the digital picture three times sharper than the rest of the photos. He states that if you were to take a picture of pyramids or other formations, you would be able to clearly see what they were.
The 'Face on Mars' is just a conspiracy theory. No one can actually confirm that there is such thing to exist. If there was such thing on Mars, NASA would probably examine it a bit closer and may reveal to the public about it, but for now, we can only wonder if there really is a face on Mars. | 3 |
97cf8e5 | Venus is a planet that is called sometimes "Evening star".The planet Venus is called the "twin" of Earth because " closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size ,occasionally the closest in distance too." as said in Paragraph 2 .NASA is trying to explore Venus but, Venus has a thick atmosphere about 97 percent carbon dioxide which covers venus. Trying to persuit of studying Venus is dangerous but it is worthy to perusite the study of it.
NASA ( The National Aeronautics and Space Administration) is currently studying to send humans to study Venus as said in Paragraph 5. The author supports this idea of studying Venus and he makes a lot of really great reasons why. Some include that " jet airplanes trael at a higher altitude to fly over many storms" in Paragraph 5. This would not be a bad idea but, this could not happen if they are not able to reasearch.
Another reason why it is worth pursuiting even though it is dangerous is that Nasa is not only sticking to one idea to explore Venus NASA is looking into more approaches, safer approaches like "simplifying electronics made of silicon carbide". "These approaches has been tested in a chamber simulating the choas of Venus's Surface." Have lasted for three weeks in such conditons" Paragraph 7. NASA got these ideas from looking back to old technology called mechanical computers. In the 1800s is when there were first envisioned.
My overall claim is that NASA has the potential to explore it just takes time.
Sooner or later Venus will be explored I say this because " Many researchers are working on innovations that allow our machines to ast long enought to contribute meaningfully to our knowlege of Venus" (Paragraph 6). This statement supports my thought of NASA being able to research Venus soon or later. " Scientist seeking tto conduct a thorough mission to understand Venus would need to get up close and personal despite the risk"(Paragraph 6). Finally, another reason it worth studying is " Long ago, Venus was probably covered larely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like earth" (Paragraph 4).
In conclusion, Venus is worthy to pursuit despite it's dangers it presents. "Our travels on Earth and beyonf should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be exapanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation"( Paragraph 8). These are the reasons why Venus is worth exploring. | 3 |
97d0bfd | The Electoral College was a system thought up by people who lived in a time much different than our own. And in that time, it made sense. It made sure that those who cast their state's votes for president, the electors, were well informed on the issues and the stance of the candidates for those issues. However, now that everyone has access to a wealth of information through the internet, newspapers and television, this is no longer a problem; this is why election by popular vote would be a better system.
With the Electoral College, voters don't have a direct say on who becomes president. They have to trust their votes in the hands of people they don't even know. People who could cast their state's votes for any candidate they want. This system is completely unnecessary now that citizens have a wealth of information about the candidates and their stance on certain topics.
If our nation switched to election by popular vote, everyone's vote would matter. In the Electoral College system, many people in states that are decisively one way or the other, don't vote, knowing that the overwhelming majority of the population of their state is against them. This makes certain people, like Democrats in Texas or Republicans in California, feel that their vote has no power. In an election by popular vote however, every vote matters because the people's votes directly decide the president.
Our Founding Fathers were geniuses to have come up with a system that worked so well in their time, however, old methods don't always stand the test of time. Election by popular vote makes more sense in today's world. The Electoral College eliminates the power of some people's votes and puts those that matter in the hands of people who could do whatever they want with them. This is why election by popular vote would be a better system for determining the president than the Electoral College. | 4 |
97d2f6b | In the articles "making lisa Smile," The author describe how new technology called the Facial Action Coding System can indetify Human emtions. people should not creat a System that can indentify people emtion because it's destroy people privicy.
To creat a Machine that can identify their emtion and action can be danger. because it's like taking their privicy away, also people would not feel said because they machine can indentify their emtion and their action. I don't think it's a effective thing to creat because many people will felt that their bein watch. to creat a Machine that can indentify people emtion and action is like taking their freedom form them. Also people can take advantage of this and invade other people privice.
This system can invade people privice and they won't fet safe. as it's show in the articles using video can track theri facial movemets in real face or in the painted face. Also it can identify their weight. Although this is a great invition thing for human It's still not efficted. because to able to figure people emotion and action it's not our problem. because it's like when your sibling go through your stuff that is privice. to able to figur out people privice can also destroy realtionship, because everbody has dark secerty.
In now day technology is develope more and more, somtime they can be usefull. Most of they time they can invade people privice and realtionship. It's not neccery to identiy people emtion because it's could be a private, or famiy problem.
to identify privice it's taking their right and freedom also people might not felt safe because they know bein spy. through out the invition this facial Action Coding is not most efficted invition. because they are usefull but in the other hand it's ruind people privice.
Although this Facial Action Coding system might be usefull for some people. I still don't think it's exclussice invition because this invition can destroy or take away people freedom. most people might not felt safe by their surrounding because they are bein watch. This Facial Action Coding System invition should not be well reconzied because it's can intamated other people relationship like family problem also it can deterimed their facial expressions, and can also reveal their emtion; Most people might felt that they are taking their privice and freedom form them. | 2 |
97d36aa | The author supports the idea that studying venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents realy good. He gives facts and good reasons why people should study and visit venus. In the first 3 paragraphs he gives interesting facts about venus. He says things that we dont have to know but is nice to know. like in paragraph 2 he says venus is referred as the earth twin and is the closest planet to earth in term of density and size. In paragraphs 4-6 he starts to explain why people should study venus and explain how venus is worthy to pursuit. In paragraph 4 he says that "astronomers are fascinated by venus because it may well once have been the most Earth like planet in our solar sytem." Thats him explaining why venus is worthy of studing and has earth like features. In paragraph 5 he beins to talk about NASA and them sending humans to study venus. The author says that "NASA's possible solution to the hostile condition on the surface of venus would allow scientist to float above the fray." He is now explaining how they can make it suitable for people to go study venus. The author wraps up the story talking about human curiosity and earth should not be limited by dangers and doubts. The author supports the idea that studing venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents really good he gave facts and backed up his idea about studying venus. | 3 |
97d7afa | In this first passage called "In German Suburb, Life goes on with out cars" by Elisabeth Rosenthal. This story explains the life in germany without cars. In this upscale community it cost 40,000 dollars to keep a car inside the parking garage plus you have to pay for a house. Over 70 percent of families dont have cars and 57 percent of families sold there car to life there , stated in paragraph 3 . A big advantage to having no cars is theres more clearer air around you since cars give off carbon dixide which is toxic and also everyone spends more time outdoors and gets more execrise. In paragraph 3 Mr. Walter states ' When i had a car i was always tense. Im much happier this way'.
In the secind passage called "Paris bans driving due to smog" by Robert Duffer. this story explains how people in Paris were effected when driving was banned. On a Monday motorist or driviers were told to leave there vehicles at home due to smog or theyll have to pay a 22-euro fine (33 dollars in america) and almost 4,000 drivers were fined. Paris has near record pollution which made them ban drivng for the global air in the city. 67 percent of cars in Paris are diesel fuel which really pollutes the air and creating alot of smog compared to 53 percent in other parts of Europe.
In the third story called "Car-free day is spinnimg into a big hit in Bogota" by Andrew Selsky this story explains The day every year that they ban cars. Bogota, Colombia, home to over 7 million people every year for the past 7 years they only allow transportation by bus or by taxis. People found driving that day will be fined with 25 dollars. There goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog. in paragraph 24 Carlos states " its a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."
The final story called " The End of Car Culture' by Elisabeth Rosenthal. This story talks about making a change in the United States. Presindent obamas ambitious goal is to curb the United States greenhouse gas emissions stated in paragraph 29. the United States was the birth place of Fords model T and the Detroit car shows anf its one of the worlds prime car cultures. In paragraph 41 studies have shown that" driving by young people has decreased by 23 percent between 2001 and 2009." | 1 |
97da44f | The author in the passage "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" is talking about how he enjoys learning new things about Venus even though they never stepped foot on it, he enjoys the risk.
The author claims that studying Venus is a worthy persuit despite the dangers because it is so much like earth, they call Venus "Earth's Twin" and the "Evening Star". The author talks about how Venus is simple to see from the distant but safe vantage point of Earth, but it has proved a very challenging place to examine more closely. "Astronomers are fasinated by Venus because it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system".Since Venus is so close to earth its easier to see what is going on there. As the author said in the passage "Beyond high pressure and heat, Venusian geology and weather present additonal impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface", The author also says Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like earth.
The author is talking about how NASA has an idea to send humans to study Venus. The only way they could get any close to Venus's surface is if they "float above the fray". "a vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly ground conditions by staying up and out their way". In other words means if they don't get anywhere near Venus ground nothing would happen to them. The author stated that anywhere near 30 or more miles above surface temperatures would still be very hot up to 170 degrees fehrenheit. "Solar power would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth levels. Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans".
Its is so hot in Venus that taking pictures is very difficult because the light cannot take the horrible hot atmosphere. The author is also talking about how researchers cannot take samples of rock, gas, or anything, from a distance. Probably since its not in the same atmosphere it could change or disappear if its not kept in the heat. The author is talking about how they are making up new technology that will survive for a long time in Venus so they could learn new things and discover other things about Venus.
In conclusion, the author said that humans shouldn't be intimidated because of the dangers on Venus and other planets, that should push them to want to try new things and discover more than they thought. | 3 |
97e6bcb | You should join Seagoing Cowboys program because you can see lots of things you have never seen before in your life.
And you can spend time were ever you go but not forever.
You can stay there for maybe a day or two.
But that is mostly for rest, it dosen't mean you can't play around with kids or meat new people.
And you get to go sailing alot when you are traviling to were you are going or if you are going back to were you live.
When you are going to were ou have to go you do have to bring straw,hay, and soy beans.
For the animals to eat because you do have to take care of the animals.
But you would probably like taking care of the different animals you haven't seen in your life before.
And if you are luke you would take advantage of it because you can meat new people and play new games in your life.
Plus when you go home you can tell stories about what you did and when someone ask you if you went to china or somthing you can say yes probably.
Then you would probably have to go back so when you do you won't have to sneak around because you will no people.
That is why I think you should join the Seagoing Cowboys program. | 2 |
97e89ad | Was it aliens or was it a landform? Many people think that the face on Mars was created by aliens but there is a lot of evidence to support the fact that it is just a landform. For example, the fact that the Face looked like a rock formation, the use of a different camera to show every little detail, and the point that the picture actually shows the landform which is a butte or a mesa.
First off, when NASA first found the picture they unveiled the image to the public to catch their attention. The caption of the picture read "huge rock formation... which resembles a human head... formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose, and mouth." This example shows that it looked like a human head but it was a rock formation.
Second, in paragraph eleven, the author says "As a rule of thumb, you can discern things in a digital image 3 times bigger than the pixel size," he added. "So, if there were objects in this picture like airplanes on the ground or Egyptian-style pyramids or even small shacks, you could see what they were!" Clearly this example proves that if aliens were the ones that created this face, their would be proof because with this camera you would be able too see any trace of anything that was there or footsteps of aliens.
Lastly, paragraph twelve states what the "image" was. "What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa-landforms commond around the American West." This example says that what it was in reality was landform.
To end this arguemnt, right now in your head you might be thinking "Pheraps, said skeptics, alien markings were hidden by haze." Well, that is why the NASA used a three times better camera to reassure the public of the landform. In conclusion, there examples, rock formation, camera quality, and the fact that NASA said it was a landform, that aliens were not the ones who created this face but it is a natural landform. | 3 |
97f2221 | The author suggest that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit beause it is near the earth and orbits near the sun like earth. But tthey think its still dangerous to think about having a human visit Venus. The text states, ¨ Each previous mission was unmanned, and for good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours. Maybe this issue explainswhy not a single spaceship has touched down on Venus in more than 3 decades.¨ This explains that it can be dangerous in Venus if these spacecrafts can´t be found down in Venus.
There is more to how Venus can be dangerous to a human. Since Venus is closer to the sun, the high temperature it is which makes a human less chance to survive in the heat. The text states, ¨ the planets surface, temperature average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 time greater than what we experience on our own planet.¨ Also in Venus there is gases that if a human lands at, it wouldn´t be safe and harder for them to breathe. The text states that since the atmosphere in Venus is so thick, 97 percent carbron dioxide blankets are in Venus. The text states,¨ Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus´s atmosphere.¨ Which make that harder for someone to breath in Venus.
NASA is working on how to study more about Venus taking taking risky challenges. The text states,¨ some simplifed electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simulating the chaos off Venus´s surface and have lasted for three weeks in such condition. This shows how NASA tests to investigate more about Venus.
Venus is a planet to lose to the sun that a human can sufficate from the heat and too much carbon dioxide. These researchers are working hard either making spacecraft or some other things so they can send to Venus and investigate more positive things about the planet. The researchers are so curious about finding miners and others things that can be useful or used as a display or they want to see if a human is able to live in Venus safely. This all states why researchers are so curious about the planet Venus. | 3 |
97f6c27 | Dear Mr. State Senator,
I think that you should change election to popular voting for the president of the United States because the Electoral College is unfair. Everyone should have a say in who our next president will be. That is a very important thing because we are choosing a ruler of our country and somone who will take care of us. Allowing only a few people to vote in each state does'nt make any sense because people are only choosing from their opinion and there is lots of other in that state that probably don't agree with what they chhose. I think that everyone should be allowed to vote for who they want for president because it is fair. It is fair because everyone is voting based on their own opinions of a person. When the electoral College votes, its kind of like favoritism and the voting ends up being not even and not justified.
In the artical it says, "Most states have a "winner-take-all" system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate." To me, that is wrong because again, it is showing favoitism towards a small group of people. No one else gets anything, just those few people. Another line from the passage says, "Perhpas most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote." If there happened to be a tie then the election would be thrown the House of Representatives where they would vote for the president. There's a different number of representatives for each stare and they differ from verry large to small ratios making it even more invaild and not right. | 2 |
97fc71d | There are many advantages of limiting car usage. For example: when someone has a car, sometimes they are "always tense". Most people are much happier when they don't have to worry about a car. Some people might be conserned about the gas prices, and miles on a car. Germany-Residents, don't have cars, some places have bannded cars from there communitys. I think if there was less car usage it would help greenhouse gas emissons. President Obama's ambitious goal is to curb the United States of less car usage.
Most people would agree or say "if we don't have a car how are we supposed to get to places on time?" Well there is many other opitions like a train, bus, subway, taxi or even walking. Some people who are out of shape might need less car usage and more time walking, therefore that is another advantage to less car usage. How the world is today, some people might not be able to aford a vehicle. And some would rather pefer to walk or take a cab. Most of are world has centered itself around vehicles. making it almost impossible not to have one.
Althrough a lot of people would want a car if they had children, most kids like to walk or maybe ride a bike somewhere. A lot of students could take the bus and adults could grab a cab. I also think that if there was less car usage there would be less acidents. Young teenagers and young adults get into to much of a rush, and cause more acident but, if there was less car usage proublems like this would'nt happen so much. | 3 |
9800386 | 1.) What is the Electoral College' A electoral college is a process, not a place. I didn't know they had 538 electors. majority of 270 electoral votes. Representatives plus two for your Senators. . . . The Congressional delegation one of each memeber in the house. But i do think the District of Columbia. is each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. Chosen a party political party, responsibilities. but what will happen if something happens to the congress what will go wrong? for the stuff that they be having partys for the policital paartys & stuff what do they do that for the things they have. like will the president be alright with this stuff that be going on but these things is good cause we will like the same things but idk know it that was alot of 538 electors but some of it will work.
2.) THe Indefensible Electoral College: Why Even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong' I understand what the American people is doing its a factor that some of yall got to learn thoe. Kennedy i don't understand his and they way he do like its alot for the candidate but for the other ones i dont know like what's up with the candidate and kenndey, the passage says .. In the same vein, "faithless" electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please... oh, and what if the state sends two slates of electors to Congress? it happened in Hawaii in 1960. Vice President richard Nixon, who was presiding over the Senate, validated only his opponent's electors, but he made sure to do so "without establishing a precedent." what if that happend again? During the 200 campaign , seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad. If anyone has a good argument for putting the fate of the presidency in the hands of a few swing voters in Ohio, they have yet to make it. . . . Yes that's right they do have to make it to the candidate first they just can't walk up there first you got to be president by the pesident frist if you not by him or here then you messe dup for goood its not working out like that at all. it's official: the electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The best arguments in favor of it all mostly assertions in without much basis in reality. And the arguments against direct elections are spurious at best. It's hard to say this, but Bob Dole was right: Abolish the electoral college!
3.) In 2012 election, for example, Obamma received 61.4 percent of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and romney. . . . BEcause almkost all states award electoral votes on a winner -take-all basis, even a very slight plurality in astate creates a landslide electoral -vote victory in that state. A tie in the nationwide electoral vote is possible because the total number of votes 538 is an even number, but it is highly unlikely. . . . The residents of each other regions are likely to be a successful presidents. The residents of other regions are likely to be feel disenfranchised- to feel that their votes do not count, that the new president will have no regard. Swing States' [2012's] election- to focus their campaign efforts on the toss-up states. . . . Big Staes' The popular vote was very close in Florida [in 2012]; nevertheless Obama, who won that vote got 29 electoral votes. A victory by the same margin in Wyoming would net the winner only 3 electoral votes. So, other things being equal, a large state gets more attention from presidentail candidates in a campaign than a small state does. . . . Avoid Run-Off Elections' Nixon in 1968 and Clintion in 1992 both had only a 43 percent plurality of the popular votes , while winning a majority in the Electoral College (301 and 370 electoral votes, respectively). There is presssure for run-off elections when no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast; that pressure, which would greatly complicate. . . . It can be argued that the electoral College method of selecting the president amy turn of potentail that is right because sometimes you really don't have that much of that stuff like that now but sometimes its hard to see stuff like that but you got to work on some things like that but not everything likec come on now. so candidates who do that some want. . . . But of course no voter's vote swings a naional election, and spite of that about one-half the eligible American population did vote in [2012's] election. 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. . . . Democrats in Texas, for example , or Republicans in California. Knowing their vote will have no effect , tghey have less incentive to pay attention to the campaign than they would have if the president were picked by popular vote. . . . | 1 |
9802055 | Electoral College method should not be kept because it gives larger states a bigger adventege and is unfair to voters. Even though it can be argued that the Electoral College method should be kept due to avioding problems of a run-off in a election.
The Electoral College consits of electoral votes that each states recieves due to the population of the state. This gives larger states like California having 55 electoral votes to have a bigger say in the election. Meanwhile states with a less population rate like Alaska only have 3 electoral votes. This turns off voters because they know that their state isn't a big deal in a election. Candidates go for the electoral votes of the bigger states with the most population to win the election.
The Electoral College is a method that is unfair to voters. The winner take all system in each states makes candidates or even voters not want to spend their time on current states they know will not have a impact in the election. It ends up being the electors who elect the president, and not the people. The Electoral College method is not democratic in that perspective.
The Electoral College is a lack of democratic pedigree and unfair to voters, it is impacting votes due to electoral votes being in power over the people. Due to the Electoral College method turning off voters it should not be kept. | 3 |
9802c6e | The Electoral College does infact work for most states in USA minus Nebraska and maine. The santor should keep the Electoral College to keep the presidents and vice presidents intact. Without it we the people wont focus at the process of the Electoral College and will become history of dissapointment.
The Electoral College consists more then 538 electors wich keeps this place together, without them what else would they do to help the country? More then 270 electoral vote helps people pick wich president would be best for this country. If we didn't have the Electoral College we would likely have bad presidents that would use they're power to have "fun" with this country for they're enjoyment.
So some people may hate the process, but its because of winner-takes-all system. Some people will see a campaign ad and think that person should or should not win the election, and have a good argument about that person, but at the same time they trust that person.
sometimes the votes that voters vote for may not or may not go to the person that voted for, but that isnt a big issue bigeest out of all the people in the USA the vote that they did made a person feel happy about themselves because it shows that some amount of people care. | 2 |
9805145 | Have you ever hurd are know about are solar system and whats all in it ? Are solar system is made up of alot of things such ass oher planets ,stars ,l arg rocks,and different galexys . Out of all the plantes Earth is the 3rd planet away from the sun .
Venus has its ups and downs and what I mean about this is that venus has good reasons why people shold go study it . Some bad reasons is that Are planets traval at different speeds .
And on previous mission no spacecraft have ever survived on the planet for more than a few hours . Something else that is very bad for you is that its atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide and on the surface of the planet temperature reach up to 800 degrees Fahrenheit . Some good things about Venus is that it is cloest planet to Earth in terms of density and size and sometimes close in distance .
just like how earth is now Venus was once coverd largely with oceans and could have supported life forms .
Also Venus had a surace that is rocky sediment with valleys mountains and craters .
In conclusion Venus has its ups and downs but I do believe that it is worth studing despite the dangers that come with it . Also i do believe that we should send spacesrafts up there what are mre durable then the other ones that was sent there a long time ago because of the new tecnology that we have . I think that its possable that we could come up with more samples of different items . | 2 |
9805788 | Participate in the Seagoing Cowsboys program because you go on different trips such as New Oreleans. Seagoing Cowboy program can make you aware about the different countries and how their culture is.
If you participate in this experience and aventures you will have lots of fun to like playing games such as baseball and volleyball and more exciteing games. When you go on these trips to different countries you can explore and find out amazing things about it . Now doesn't that seem exciting!!! Also you can take care of animals horses,young cows,and mules.
You can go to Greece and see the Acroplis and riding on the gondola ! If I was you I will participate very very quick. Whats' more awesome than going on a gondola ride!! The best part is you get to cross the Atlantic Ocean. So many things you can see and visit on this program. Also you can tour a castle in Crete
and the Panama Canel. All of these exciting trips and tours you can"t miss out .
Take my advise and you will have dream of a life time. You might get to visit a country you wanted to go to. Participate in this program you will have lots and lots of fun. Riding on the Gondola you can't miss that! So sign up and enjoy this Seagoing Cowboys Program. Visit many countries and help people in these countries. This will be the best program you ever been in. | 3 |
9806479 | Dear U.S Senator,
Every four years on the first tuseday in November we the citizens of the Unites States Of America vote for the next persident to be in office. As you already know for this to happen the they must have all the Electoral College or Election popluar vote. Which is not how elcetions should be conducted. It should only be based off of popular votes.
Voters do not ways have control as to whom their electors vote for. Sometimes it can be anyone not holding public office. In the second sourse titled
The Idefensiable Electoral College it states, " Who are electors? they can be anyone not holding public office. Who picks the electors in the first place? It depends on the state. Sometimes state conventions, sometimes the state party's central committe, sometimes the presidential candidates themselves." This indicates that voters have dont really have control. The electoral college votes has many reason for being unfair to voters, and the winner-take-all is one of many. Line thirteen of the second sourse, it states "the electoral college is unfair. Because of the winner-take-all system in each state" this indicates that candidates did not and will not spend time in states there they won't win votes. They focus on larger states to gain there votes. It has been said
" the electoral college is unfair, outdated and irrational."
With this Electoral vote should be eliminated from the final vote. With the popular votes the elcetion can be a fair race to presidence
Bob Dole stated
" Abolish the electoral college!"
. There are many reasons why elcetoral college should be abolished. But In the defence of The electoral votes this can be the tie breaker. If the candidates come to a tie in popular votes The electoral votes will establish which one recieved the most electoral college votes. But this should only be used in case of a tie in popular votes. "Elcetoral votes is a lack of democratic pediagree." Within no region is there enough electoral votes to elect a president. A candidate with regional appeal isn't like to secced the presidency because the other regions will feel excuded. the region will feel as if the president doesn't not care for there interest. People believe that wil the elcetoral votes their votes will have no effect. In the section " run off elections it states "
they have less incentive to pay attention to the campaign than they would if the president were to picked by popular vote..."
This implies with the electoral college is not fair because voters vote and their vote has no effect on the election, because its based off of the electoral college. And this isnt fair!
To Solve this problem there should be absolutly no more electoral votes during elcetion. All ecetions should be based off of popular votes. you have the power to correct this issue so i should be done. Electoral votes dont give a fair chances. With that being said Elctoral votes should be elinimated from voting the next president.
Thank you for your time Senator. | 3 |
9809cd9 | Dear Florida senator,
I argue you in favor of keeping the electoral college in florida. i think it's a easier and better process than popular vote. It seems like to me it would take forever to count all the votes and add them up in all 50 states. our government counts all the votes up anyway but they count them by just it's own state. I feel like everyones voice is getting heard because it counts your vote but it's your states that votes.
The one problem I have with the electoral college is that some states are worth more votes than other states, which in my eyes is alittle unfair but it's our goverment. As florida we have 29 voter points and it's very useful to the running president that they gain our state. maybe if I was in the other states that have like 2 votes for the electoral college, then maybe I would be alittle upset and I would most likely not like the electoral college. It goes by the population of the states which makes sense because we don't want a small state choosing the president. It makes a real good point that the staes don't have the same amount of points, because if a state for example has 2,000 people and the other has 3,000 people, then the bigger population state should have the more electoral points.
If it wasnt for electoral college we wouldn't of had the great presidents we've had like for example John F. Kenndy. John lost by popular vote but won by electoral college. That is our great history and what if the electoral college saved us from a terrible president because not most of them tell the truth and are two faced. But i think electoral college is a great thing for us now and in the future.
Well thats our government and wether we like it or not their not going to change it. If it wasnt for congress and our government, America wouldn't be the same and were thankful for that. I just want to let you know senator that I like and agree with the electoral college . Keep up with all the good work Sir I know we can count on you .
From,
PROPER_NAME | 3 |
980a15b | The author of "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" did a fair job at arguing their claim, that Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. The author used their thesis, counter-arguements, and rebutals to get across their point that Venus is a worthwhile investment to study. Some areas they exceeded and others they did not hit right on the ball.
The author throughout the essay did not convey a very well stated thesis. Typically, a writer of an arguementative essay would feature their thesis openly, so that the reader is able to see what side the author is pushing forward. However, this author did not do this. The first paragraph introduces the topic of Venus with an interesting hook, but does not give the reader their side. The reader needs a thesis, without one the reader is not going to be able to have their opinion on a topic swayed. The author's current attempt at a thesis statement , "While Venus is simple to see from the distant but safe vantage point of Earth, it has proved very challenging place to examine more closely," does not state what side they are on clearly. Their best declaration of the side they are on is in their very last paragraph. The author wrote, "Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation." This is a very strongly worded thesis, but would have been much better if placed in the starting paragraph. Their side on the topic was acknowledged, but not as well as it could have been if they had set up their thesis correctly.
Beyond the thesis, the author used many counter-arguements in their writing. This is one of their strong suits, acknowledging both sides of an arguement is one of the best ways to convey your opinion affectively, while still being able to keep opposing side of the arguement interested and have their minds open to change. The author is for the exploration of Venus, but consistently chooses to bring up the problems that doing so faces. The author writes about the difficulties about exploring Venus, because of the planet's extreme environment. They opposed their own side in paragraph three by saying, "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 would liquefy many metals." This is an affective strategy, because people who may oppose exploration to Venus may say something similar to this. The author is arguing their own point to establish reliability and trust amongst with people who favor not exploring Venus. The author showing that they see the problems with exploring Venus shows that they are open minded and open to their mind being changed, and this will in turn have the reader do the same.
Furthermore, the author was able to affectively state rebutals and reinforce their own opinion with facts. From the example stated earlier, regaurding the extreme conditions in Venus, the author was able to provide a logical solution to the weather without using any opinions. The author wrote,"NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow sceintists to float above the fray." The author then goes onto describe NASA's plan in full depth, and going into fine detail about the floating contraption that would suspend the astronauts safely above the harsh atmosphere of Venus. They then state, "Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans." The author is displaying a solution for the conditions, and even the minor flaws it has. The author going into detail about the solution for the extreme conditions in Venus and even conceding a bit when saying, "Not easy conditions but survivable for humans," helps argue their point. They affectively refuted the counter-arguements by using factual evidence in their rebutal, and deemed themselves trustworthy by the opposing side by even conceding slightly on a few issues.
The author of "The Callenge of Exploring Venus" did a fair job when arguing that Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. While the author did accurately present the dangers and solutions for the dangerous parts of exploring Venus, they failed to create a strong thesis. The author exceeded when giving factual information about the topic to help the reading get on their side of the arguement; do to them struggling to get across their position on if Venus exploration is worthwhile, some of the provided information they gave was not used to it's full potential when changing the reader's opinion. | 6 |
980f643 | Your crazy! The Face is a natural landform. There are many landforms on Mars, the landform just so happens to be a "face." I don't believe in aliens. They aren't real. Why would on an alien creat a face on Mars.
First, in paragraph 2, it even stated "Scientists figured it was just another Martian mesa." Why think otherwise. Maybe something under the ground caused the land to rise created what looks to be a "face."
Secondly, in paragraph 7, it stated "...Michael Malin and his Mars Orbiter Camera team snapped a picture ten times sharper...the image first appeared on a JPL website, revealing...a natural landform...not alien monument after all." This is all the convincing I need. There are clearly photos taken of Mars surface, where the "Face" was spotted, to show no alien monument there.
Last, but not least, in paragraph 12, it states, "...the picture actually shows the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa--landforms common around the American West." Garvin even says it reminds him most of Middle Butte in the snake River Plain of Idaho...a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars. It could be a landform caused by lava.
In conclusion, the "Face" could not have been created by aliens because of all the photographs that scientists took that shows the natural landform is just apart of natural. | 3 |
9817fb6 | Imagine a world with a great transportation system that doesn't involve humans controlling the vehicles, yes, driverless cars. Sound futuristic? Yeah, but I think it could be better for us. The cars would have amazing technolgy, keeping us safer from human errors, because, let's face it, humans aren't perfect. We could take better care of our planet. And, no one would need to pay for another car, again.
The first reason we should have driverless cars, is because it is better for the planet. Google cofounder believes we could use driverless cars that would use half the fuel we use today. This would save fuel for future generations to come. Since we wouldn't be using as much fuel, there wouldn't be any concern of global warming. Think about your kids, your kids' kids, and so on. Do you want your grandkids to be suffering without any power source, or not even having a stable planet? No one wants that. Not only would driverless cars save our planet, they can help save lives.
Another reason we should have driverless cars, is because they can help save many human lives. These driverless cars would be computers, they can communicate to other driverless cars. And also, computers are perfect, they don't make mistakes. Humans, on the other hand, are not perfect. We make mistakes, it happens. So when a computer is driving a car, it would not make the mistakes humans do, therefore, saving hundreds of thousands of lives each year. These driverless cars would help save some money, as well.
The third reason we should have driverless cars, is because they would save a lot of money. No one would have to go out and fork out thousand of dollars on some new car. They could just use these driverless cars to transport them. Also, no one would have to pay for wrecks or insurance money, because these driverless cars wouldn't make mistakes to get them into car wrecks. We are looking at possibly of millions of dollars saved in just a year.
I think that having driverless cars would be a plus for society. They would save our planet, they are a lot safer, and they would save a lot of money. I don't know how soon this could be a | 4 |
981ed9b | People all over the world like to try new things. Everyday we are all faced with new and different challenges. Being in a car that drives itself would be trying something new and extraordinary. Why not drive in a car that drives itself?
Why not? This question is one of the greatest questions you can ask. A car that drives itself what more could you ask for. This would open new doors and ideas. On long car rides you would not have to drive. You could look at the scenery or enjoy your time with your family. A car that drives itself would be the next step into something amazing. Over time the cars will become safer and more reliable. This would mean you could go faster in the car. Your running late for work and it takes fifteen minutes to get there, well not anymore. The car would be like a car in Nascar you could get to your destination in an instant. A car that could drive itself would benefit a lot of people in this world.
In the reading it said that the driveless car would use half the fuel of a taxi car. You would not have to waste your money on gas every week. That would help most people out, even for new drivers that have to pay for gas. This also means that there will be less pollution and it will help people breathe easier. When the automatic cars become more reliable and faster and you are late to pick up your kids the car would get you there fast with no problem. Automatic taxi services will be in great need across the country because now people do not have to buy a car. People will have their own taxi car that will pick them up at their house and take them to work. These taxi cars would never be late since they are smart, so you would never again have to worry about being late. you also would not have to take your own car or wait for someone to come pick you up. People would love the experience of just having their own taxi service that would come to pick them up. They would feel more important and become happier.
How many wrecks happen each year? I was in a wreck this year. Another car hitting you, I thought, would never happen to me. I started driving a couple weeks later. That experience made me a safer driver. Still, there are people that get injured and killed every week because of careless drivers. This automatic car would reduce the amount of fatal accidents. Just thinking that you would be one-hundred percent safe in a car would be a great feeling. If you are an adult you could let your kids go into these car by themselves if you wanted to and you would know that they will be safe and will never be in a wreck.
Cars that drive themselves. This would be a great new experience. In 60 years I could tell my grandchildren that I was in the generation that could finally drive in self-driving cars. These cars would benefit the whole world in a positive way. Together we can make the world better and safer by having smarter cars. It is a new a way of living, a better way of living. Humans, Since ancient times, have always wanted to advance in technology. This new car will take us to places we have never gone before. Let us move on and go into a world of self-driving cars and see where it will take us. | 4 |
98241b3 | Venus, as the author talks about, was a worthy pursuit becuase they had found very good and ineresting findings. The author believes them because they have such good outcmomes of the new findings. As the author talks about in paragaph 8 it says,"Been tested in a chamber simulation the chaos of Venus. " This meaning to this is how many things had been tested and seen. Therefore they are dicovering new stuff in this century. Another reason is on paragrpah 8 it states,"Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value." This is explaining how the person doesnt liked the job or does. They are passionate able the stuff they do. As they look into more of Venus, the more excitement is shown and shared. Overall, the author knows how harmful these stuff could be, but they just love how they make a discovery, which is worthy. They feel as to being one step ahead by testing them and keep testing them so they are able to come out with an outcome of something more epic and worthyly of Venus and its dicovering which made it itself a worthy pursuit. | 2 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.