essay_id
stringlengths 7
7
| full_text
stringlengths 712
20.5k
| score
int64 1
6
|
|---|---|---|
b9a5928 | In my opinion, I think that the Electoral College method should be abolished, because with it; the Presidential elections are quite useless. I'm specifically talking about the way Presidents get popular votes. The system is very out-dated and very irrational. When the Founding fathers founded this country, they said that the "People of America" get a voice and say in everything, well, not everything. But still their own say during the Presidental Elections are useless, the only real true thing to do is vote for the Senate Electors for the Presidential elections since the Electoral College proccess is mainly controlled by the Senate, the Senators vote for the Presidential canidate. You see, the only way canidates actually win the every 4 year elections in November is by the amount of votes they get, by NOT the people, but by the Senators that pleged with them during the Electoral College. In this essay I'll explain why this system is to bad for our today's world and how it can lead to false moves and corruption.
First off, is what's exactly the Electoral College? It's not a place, it's more like a proccess of choosing and voting for a Presidential canidate. You see the votes that regular U.S citizens do, do not count as the actual votes, though back then the system did work; it doesn't today. Back then around the 18th and mid 19th century, this Electoral College system worked outstounding for it's time, mainly because at first America was a new country, and the Senate that did do the voting and choosing were well educated and have experience. Most citizens in the American States weren't really that educated very well, mostly for new borns since the nation just finished their revolution and they were still in debt at the time, and so not everybody was rich enough to afford anything, in turn they have no knowlege of the way the world now works. Then during the civil war, half the country became another country known as the Conferderate States of America, which opposed the ideals of a more freer nation of other half of the country, known as the United States of America. The Electoral College did help President Abe to be elected, though it was mainly because he was popular since he used the ideal of abolishing and freeing slaves to gain populraity. And alot of people opposed him to become President, but thanks to the College process; he won the Elections, and re-united the two nations into the United States of America.
So, does this will in today's world? No, abosolutely not, it doesn't work, and will never work unless America gets 1984'ed and become a false and brainwashed Utopia. Due to our general corrupt society, the right President's get denied, and the corrupt and wrongful citizen gets elected. I can relate this issue with the 2000 Presidential Election crisis. In the 2000 elections, Al Gore gets the most popular votes, infact so much more then George Bush, that it was clear he can easily win the 2004 elections. But since the Electoral College is still intact, they voted for George Bush, and Bush won the elections by 5 more votes then the popular and better organized President, Al Gore. Because of this, most of America got an economy train wreck from in 2007-2008 and also wasted many resources on a the War on Terror battle from 2003, which is now gone and has a similar operation that is still on-going called Operation Enduring Freedom. Also unlike the old times when America was a new country, in today's modern 21st Century America, I can assure you that we have 95% percent of the Population educated by our today's educational standards tops. Which means that America doesn't need a hand when voting for a new President, and that shows that the Electoral College is not needed anymore, anytime. The Governments and it's people today are also very corrupt at times. This will also include the Electoral College, and can affect many lives for many people. Everybody can now make their own choice thanks to our very effective education system. So this proves the College group is now useless for voting.
Finally that's why we should abolish like Bob Dole said, it can cause a lots of corruption, and was only made for it's time since at that time many people were un-educated and couldn't even read, and now a day's today's society is very well off on educated minds. And has enough corruption as it is. And so that's the nutshell of this essay, and this is why we should remove the Electoral College. As its unfair and unfit for today's world and society of the American Government. | 4 |
b9b3bdc | There have only been a few spacecrafts sent to Venus but none of them lasted long scientist are trying to figure out how to get a spacecraft to hover over the surface. The reason is to collect samples from there and then be able to make it back or have enough time to send the information the spacecraft got, back to NASA.
For example " Venusian geology and weather present additional impediments like erupting volcaneos, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface". We are having trouble getting the data back because the spacecraft it is getting destroyed.
It may be very expensive to attempt to get to Venus but it could give us some good insight on what we can research and study back at Earth. The stuff we find on Venus could be benefical to us going to different planets and exploring different parts of the Solar System.
In conclusion we shouldn't let money be a factor on if we get a spacecraft to Venus we just have to figure out how to safely get there and be able to gather the data from the spacecraft. If we do find something we will most likely go back and try to find more of it or more helpful resources. | 2 |
b9b8fea | "The Challenge of Exploring Venus"
In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus." The author makes the claim that the study of Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. In the artical the author informes his or her reader that "Long ago,Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth. The planet has a surface of rocky sediments and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters.
"In the text the author starts off his senteces with "Long ago," This simply proves "no spacraft survived the landing for more than a hours," which is also stated in the text in paragraph 2. In paragraph 2 the author also states Numerous factors contribute to Venus's reputation as a challenging planet for humans to study, despite its proximity to us." The author is making it clear it want be easy doing research on Venus.
In the text paragraph 3 states "A thick atmosphere of alomost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clounds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmoshere. On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times than what we experience on our own planet."
The author is make his or her point how exploring Venus can be very challenging.
In the text the author states "Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system, even though mercury is closer to the sun. Beyond high pressure and heat, Venusian geology and weather present additional impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lighting strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface."
The author is making it clear as posible of the danger that comes along with studying Venus's atmosphere. The author states in paragraph 5 "The National Aeronautics and Space Administration ( NASA) has one particularly compelling ideal for sending humans to study Venus. NASA's possible solution to the Hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientist to float above the fray." The author is backing up his or her claim by using a outsiders voice. In this case The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
In the text the author state in paragraph 7 " NASA is working on other approaches to study Venus."Once again the author is using a outsiders voice to state his or her claim. The textes also states in paragraph 7 " Another project is looking back to an old technology called mechanical computers. These devices were first envisioned in the 1800s and played an important role in the 1940s during World War ll." The author is just interducing some of the project he or she had in mind.
In the text the author states in paragraph 8 "Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has Value not only beacuse of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also beacuse human curiosity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating 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."
The author is simply resting his or her claim, based on the suggestion they made to study Venus, and why they think Venus is worthy pursuit the dangers it presents. | 4 |
b9c3e06 | I am against driverless cars. Driverless cars do not seem very safe for a couple reasons. For years, we have been driving cars all on our own, and we have been just fine.
Driverless cars may seem new and exciting and it is, but they can also cause us harm. The driverless cars have tons of technology to it. It can help us break, notify us, drive us ,and it can take over the car. Which seems great but the quote, "If technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault--the driver or the manufacturer?", is a huge issue. If the technology fails and we are injured, it can be our fault or the cars. No one will really know, and that can cause an issue. The person who is injured could sue the manufacturer, but it could not be done because no one really knows who's fault it was. It will be two times more likely to be in an accident if we had driverless cars, because we could cause our injury and a technology misfunction could cause it too. The technology would take over so much that we would just sit there. Some states even make computer driven cars illegal, and many states limit the use of semi-autonomous cars. They will need every state to make driverless cars legal and limitless in order to have driverless cars. Also, the driverless cars would cost too much money for everyone to have either.
It will be much safer to stick with us driving the cars, and not the driverless cars. Driverless cars can injure us and many others, and we have been doing just fine driving on our own. The driverless cars would cost way too much too. Also, every state will need to make driverless cars legal and limitless, if we developed driverless cars. This is why I disagree on having driverless cars. | 2 |
b9c57fb | Would you like to have driverlees cars in the would today? Well i wouldn't. I beilive that driverless cars should not me legal. I am arguing the they souldnt be legal for tree reasons: one they are not always going to be driverless, they can be highlt dangerouse, and waist of time.
First, I highly beilive that drierless cars with not always be 100% driverless. I say that because there will always be a situation where i beilive a driver inside of a car will need to take control of the vehicle. For example if there is a car that is completly driverless and there are workers doing work on a road and you have to go aroung and area of the street, or you have to go on a diferent side of a street, im pretty sure a car cant notice when they need to go aroung something. Also what if you car has a glitch and starts geting out of control, or if there is ice on the road and your car starts to slide how will a compute learn to reacte to situsations like that, ask yourself that. Thats why i think they will never be 100% driverless.
Secondly, they would be very dangerouse. i beilive they would be dangerouse because, suppose there is a child playing and they suddenly run out in the street, i dont think a computers reaction time will be ablr to stop in time to not hit that kid. Also if you car has some type of glitch what is the pasengers in the car going to do if no one can get the car back in control. Then like a stated before if there is bad weather and something happens i think a human being can react to something like that way better than a computer car would. Thats why i think they are dangerouse.
Lastly i think they are a waist of time. I say that beacuse to me i dont think they will never be able to make a 100% driverless car. Honestly they would need alot of things and new machines to make up something like that, and i just dont think there is that much time in a life time. Also it would take alot of money, and i dont think no company will take the risk of putting all that money into something so risky such as a driverless car. Thats why i say its a waist of time.
Those three reasons listed above is the reasone why i disagree that there should be driverless cars. First they will never be 100% driverless. Second they are they are dangerouse. Lsatly they are a waist of time. | 3 |
b9cb7ac | When it comes to knew things in technology usually everyone jumps on the bandwagon but in some cases you shouldn't just because others will. When it comes to your safety and peace at mind you should make careful decisons of what potential danger you might be putting yourself in, especially when others are involved. When it comes to driverless cars I stand on the opposing side. I don't think driverless cars are a good idea because they can be costly, dangerous, and give people the impression that you don't need to know how to drive.
These smart cars can be very costly when you think about it. Driverless vehicles are new to the world, with new technology come new bugs and manufactoring errors. For example, one day you could be "driving" down the street and one of your sensors don't go off and you run into something. Thats money out of your pocket to fix the damage of your car and whatever or whoever you hit. Depending on how bad it is it can even cost you a lawsuit and medical expences. Even if they do find a bug in your car you're still expected to pay for a replacement and whatever you hit.
Smart cars can also be very dangerous. It is mentioned that there are several occassions where human service is needed in case of work zones and around car accidents. In the event that you might not be paying attention you could potentially run into a work zone or car accident. These are only two things but these two things can still be dangerous and even life threatining under certain circumstances.
Last but not least driverless cars can put new drivers under the impression that you don't neccissarily need to know how to drive. This is putting other drivers at risk as well. Teenagers and adults with driving permits that try to drive the car will think they don't need to be as aware as they would in a regualr car. Without that sense of alertness in case of an accident or malfunction a person might not know what to do or how to operate the car.
Overall I think that it is a bad idea to have driverless cars because they can be costly, dangerous, and give new drivers the impression that they don't need to know how to drive. | 4 |
b9cc240 | Driverless cars are not science fiction, and they have been around for many years. Google is one of the leaders in driverless cars, and the cars have been able to successfully drive over half a million miles without an accident. However, there are major safety issues to consider with these cars such as pedestrians, passengers, and system malfunctions.
Trying to figure out how these driverless cars work with other cars, some may forget that there are pedestrians by our road ways as well. The driverless cars of today need some help from the passengers they are carrying when in work zones and around accidents. Would the car without a full time driver be able to sense a small human being walking by it and be able to stop? Probably not, even with LIDAR, a laser beam that makes 3-D models of its surroundings, there are some things that technology cannot comprehend.
If a passenger is not driving what do they do? In this day and age, they will probably turn to their cell phones for entertainment. Driverless cars of today still, once again, need assistance from their human load, and if a driver is distracted when the car needs it most, it could possibly be fatal to many. Manufacturers are trying to eleviate this problem by bringing new entertainment systems that will occupy and get the drivers attention. The entertainment feature in driverless cars could be considered a safety feature if used in the proper way.
We have all dealt with a system malfunction, most commonly in cell phones, and what says that these driverless cars will be any different. Electronics short out when exposed to water, and most of the sites that these new cars are being tested at are relatively warm and dry. Will these cars work in Chicago were they get heavy snow? Also, will they be able to comprehend what is happening when they try to go the speed limit on icy roads? New things happen all the time when driving on a regular basis in less than optimal conditions and trying to compute all these new things and storing them away for later could be to much for the system to handle.
Driverless cars could be a good use if you are traveling many miles on a deserted high way, but not in a practical everyday way. There are to many unknowns in the world to be able to put them all in one system and interact with other systems for it to be safe. Driverless cars were a thing of the future many years ago. They should stay in the pasts future not in the presents. | 4 |
b9ce947 | Having the opportunity to go to Venus and explore would amazing for humans and scientists on Earth. It would give us the ability to learn more about the planets that are around us and why we are the only planet that humans are able to live it. It gives us insight on different planets and we can learn more about their climate, what the rock and sediment is made of, and if humans could have possible ever lived there. The author supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy persuit despite the dangers that it presents and the author supports his claim with educational details about how it can benefit humans, scientists, and our future.
Having a human able to go to Venus and be able to examine it, even if it is from a distant, can be very educational and help us succeed with many other projects. It can help us succeed by providing details about that planet and what it is like. Although we have pictures and images, nothing is better than a human being able to go and see it and report back exactly what he/she saw. In paragraph 8 sentence 1 it says how it will not only insight will be gained on the planet iself, but also because human cuiosity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors. By being able to conquer this one task, humans will most likely be able to conquer many more things.
The author also tells us that being able to have a human go to Venus we will be able to learn more about it. All of paragraph 4 talks about why scientists are so interested on going to Venus and learning more about it. We can learn if it once was like Earth and why it has changed. There are many similiar features between Earth and Venus that support the idea that Venus was once like Earth. It is said, paragraph 4 sentence 3, that long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and coould have supported various forms of life. Although it says probably, by all the facts and research that scientists have done it is most likely that forms of life have existed on Venus. In Paragraph 3 sentence 6 it lists some of the similiar features on Venus that are also displayed on Earth: volcanoes, earthquakes, and lightning strikes.
It is not possible for any form of life to survive on Venus currently because of the climate and what the planet is like. The planet itself is so different from Earth in many different ways: temperature, atmostpherical pressure, carbon dioxide, etc. In paragraph 3 the author described the characteristics of the planet and how that even though there are many dangers that could happened by sending a human to Venus, it could be very beneficial to society and to science. Venus is over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the pressure it 90 times greater than on Earth. The atmospherical pressure would be able to crush a submarine, even one that could go to the deepest parts of the ocean (paragrpah 3 sentences 3-4).
Scientists are working on a way to get humans to be able to go to Venus. Although it would be so beneficial if they were able to land on the planet itself, the climate does not allow that option. There is also sulfuric acid in the atmosphere that would corrode anything that tried to get down to the planet itself. Scientists have thought of many different things to try to get a human to Venus, but they have not tried any out yet. There was an idea of having humans in a blimp-like object and floating them above the planet by 30 miles. Although they wouldn't be able to get any rock or sediment samples, this would be safer to them than it would be trying to land on the planet itself.
In conculsion, I would like to say that the author did a very good job of supporting his idea that Venus is a worthy persuit despite the possible dangers. He provided enough information to make it relateable to Earth and he also explained why it would be beneficial to humans and to scientists. He explained how this would be a good opportunity to explore our neighboring planet and learn more about, not just planets themselves, but also but the rest of creation and why Earth is the only possible planet to live on and be comfortable in. | 4 |
b9d0a53 | Dear senater
I think you should change the election to the most popular vote because, the citizens should have a say on who they want running the country, it would make the process of voting for a new president a lot easer, and it will encorage more people to vote.
I think you should change the election to the most popular vote because, the citizens should have a say on who they want running the country. Citizens should be able to make this choice because they are the ones that have to live with any new laws that are passed and made my the president. If the people voted for the president and the one they voted for one it would make them happy and exited to see what he will do with the country. If you where a voter and you only had the chance to vote for somebody that would vote for him thats not fare you would want to vote for the president yourself.
Another reason why I think you should change the election to most popular vote is it would make the process of voting for a new president a lot easer. It would make it a lot easer by not having to vote for one person to vote for the president. In this procces there is multiple steps to doing it and I think it is a huge hastle to go through it when you could just let the citizens decide. If you did change it this way it would cost less money and stress on the people that have to help with this long proccess.
My last reason why I think you should change the election to the most popular vote is because, it would encourage more people to vote. Right now people dont really care if they vote or not because some feel like they really have no say in it. The people would care about voting more if ther vote was going to who will the next president be this makes them want to vote. Imagine if you where a voter would you really want to go vote for somebody thats not going to be the president? If you change it and let citizens decide you will have a lot more voters.
I think you should change the election to the most popular vote is because, the citisens should have a say on who they want running the country, it would make the procces of voting for a new president a lot easer, and it will encourage more people to vote. And this is what I think you should do to better the procces | 3 |
b9d2914 | The author suggests that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the danger. Throughout the article, the author supports this claim very well. The author gives a few real benefits for exploring Venus. The author continuously tells us, the readers, about advancing technology thanks to human curiosity. The author even gives problems and solutions to explore Venus.
At the end of the article, paragraph 8, the author says, "Striving to meet the challenges 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 means that by exploring Venus, we will gain knowledge and be prepared for future missions with similar conditions. Paragraph 4 talks about Venus's past like how it "may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system." With knowledge of Venus's past, we could not only learn about Venus more, but we could use that information and compare it to Earth to predict some of Earth's future. That is how Venus's benefits outweighs its dangers.
In paragraph 7, it talks about NASA's interest to study Venus. In doing so, NASA is creating better technology and pushing the human race further. "For example, some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simulating the chaos of Venus's surface and have lasted for three weeks in such contitions." With advancing technology thanks to the interest in Venus, we can now create objects that can survive over 800 degrees Fahrenheit on Venus's surface for three weeks. That is how studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers because we advance with the study.
Throughout the article, many problems are brought up with solutions. For example, paragraph 3 talks about Venus's dangerous conditions that aren't fit for humans, but in paragraph 5, NASA believes they can solve this problem by allowing scientists to float above the chaotic conditions which would allow humans to go to Venus and study it better. Paragraph 6 introduces the problem that humans wouldn't be able to gather a lot of information if they are on a ship orbiting Venus because of its dense atmosphere. In paragraph 7, the article says, "systems that use mechanical parts can be made more resistant to pressure, heat, and other forces." Paragraph 7 gives us the solution to the problem in paragraph 6. This in turn can also relate to the fact that our technology would advance thanks to the planning for Venus. That is how the author supports his claim by giving us problems and solutions to explore Venus, which negates some of the dangers.
With insight from Venus, advancing technology, and solutions to problems, the author supports his claim. The author tells us about benefits of exploring Venus. The author tells us how technology would advance thanks to the curiosity humans possess for Venus. The author tells us solutions to problems which negates some of the dangers. Therefore, the author supports his claim very well since he gave reasons why the study of Venus is a worthy pursuit, and why some of the dangers aren't a big enough threat to stop humans. | 5 |
b9d2d22 | Driverless Cars, something often seen as a fantasy is actually coming true. Driverless Cars are just basically cars that does not require a human driver. This new invention should not be released because it can be a hazard, require more research, and it is not that useful.
This idea has been worked on and tested since 2009, this means that we do not fully understand or know the harmful the new cars can be. In the article it states that, "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 can be harmful to the driver because the driver might not be paying attention, since they depend on the car to drive them. Even though machines can be accurate and precise, it can still have some malfunctions and there is not enough research to know what they are. In paragraph nine it also states that, "Presently, traffic laws are wrtten with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times." This shows that the government also sees humans only driving cars.
Although many researchs have already been made, there is still is a long road ahead. Smart Cars requires the use of newer tools and parts. In Paragraph four it states that, "Google's modified Toyoto Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor.". Even though Smart cars is a whole new invention; there are still more research to be done on the parts that are needed to make Driveless cars driveless. Research needs to also be done on how to create the a form to sequire these vital parts of the car.
At the end, Smart cars are not needed. Many people already have their license and are able to drive; there is no point of having a driver, having the risk of not paying attention, sit behind the wheel and let the car drive itself rather than a driver who is driving it themselves.
In the first paragraph it says that, " He envisions a future with public transportation system where the fleets of driverless cars form a public-ransport of taxi system.". Millions of people's jobs are based on driving, and if driveless cars are released, then millions of people have a risk of losing their jobs.
Although Driverless Cars opens no doors to technological advancement, it is just something that is not seen as useful. People can drive themselves, and even other people drive people around. That is the way it should be. | 4 |
b9d6f74 | What do i think about the advantages of limiting car usage? My opinion is that i really dont think its true about how our driving population is accelerating at all! I mean just think about it! We use our vehicles on the daily basis, just so that we can get where we need to be at times,right? I believe that this is something ridiculous just so that they can make a profit out of something like this.
Not only Americans have been buying vehicels,So has people from other countries. Some countries move to America. The number increases on how much Americans buy cars and the numbers increases everyday. Imagine how many people are buying a vehicel right now around America! It keeps going up!
Even though the percentage of 16 to 39 year old getting a license,While people are likely to retain their licenses as they age does not mean the population will get bigger. I believe that their will be a 90% chance that it will not accelerate.
Whether members of the millennial generation will start buying more cars once they have kids to take them to a soccer practice and school plays remains an open question. But such as projections have important busniess implications,even if car buyers are merely older or buying fewer cars in lifetime rather than rejecting car culture outright.
What intrigues the people who have their own car company such as Hondas,Fords,Lexus,etc. They care too much about the rates of car ownerships per household and per person started to come down 2 or 3 years before the downturn which Michael Sivak who studies the trend in cars and eho is a research professor at the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute. Michael thought that something more good and fundamental is going to happen! | 2 |
b9d83b6 | Many Americans enjoy technologies advancement and simplicity it adds to life. In my opinion, I do agree that technology is a marvelous use for daily life, but should not be implemented to completely taking over humans driving cars. With the booming of technology and such quick advancement you could say that technology is slowly swarming our lives. Anything is now attainable with technology: depositing money from mobile phones, setting up bluetooth in cars to listen to music, reading a book from a hand-held device, and now companies are trying to develop computer-driven cars. Do not be mistaken technology is great, but making computer-driven cars is something I believe we shoud not use technology for.
One reason developers should consider not making these cars is the price factors that will be presented. The first computer in the world had cost a tremendous amount of money. Just imagine how much a driverless car would amount to! Of course, there are always ways to reduce the price of cars by using cheaper technology, however that will just increase the possibilites of the car's dependancy and more prone to damages. Inventors would also have to consider their target market. If smart cars are more expensive, and too ridiculous of a price how do they plan to earn money from the middle class? Typically, the middle class has a wide range of people and are typically one of the largest buyers of standard cars. How in the world would inventors plan to accomadate their budgets? Not only could their be issues with pricing, but the terrain of roads. In the passage it briefly mentions about how previous attempts to make these cars was not attainable due to the roads. The reason manufactuers were limited was because of the price and construction to help make driving possible. However, even if manufactuers do make a car with sensors how will they hold up against a constantly changing terrain. Autonomous cars would be up against the different forces of nature that are essential to have a human driver. How will they be able to tackle this challenge of extreme weather such as snow and black ice?
Another issue with smart cars is how future generations will never appreciate the excitement of driving. In the past all the talk for teenagers was about getting their drivers lisence. People felt as if it was an accomplishment and made them happy to enjoy the open-road freedom. If we get autonomous cars, people will begin to lose this pleasure. Humans will also discard the practice of motor-skills. When driving people practice using: hand-eye coordination, problem solving, the general use of their hands and feet. If the dependancy of letting a car drive for you prolongs could people begin to lose these skills?
Using self-driven cars may also make humans too lazy. Nowadays, the use of technology is consuming us. For most of us it is practically impossible to get away from it! Would not the use of these cars uproot too much of a dependancy of too much technology? In my opinion I believe humans are too prone and vulnerable to the use of technology. Thus, proving how the use of these cars could be a total nightmare.
In closing, technology is great and the use of autonomous cars would be a great technology breakthrough. However, after accessing this idea I make my stand on not supporting self-driven cars. Future generations need to get ahold of the feel of driving. Driving is a skill that is useful to know, not to mention that it helps work your motor-skills. Of course everyone would love to have fewer accidents and less gas to use, but after looking at the factors may detour people from wanting to buy and believe this new way of driving. Therefore, humans should stick to driving cars without the use of a computer assisting them. The world is over run with technology and creating bad, lazy habits. We should not let technology do the same to our cars and ability to drive with open-road freedom. | 5 |
b9d893c | Technology has advanced enough for a computer to recognize a person's emotions just by watching their facial features, one such invention is the Facial Action Coding System. If that is the only way to recognize a person's true feeling then one might as well use their own eyes. Of course, our eyes are not always inept to specific details, which a computer will help advance, but if recognizing a one's emotions in the classroom is important, one should just learn the specifics of reading emotions to surely understand what a student is feeling.
If one's emotions in the class room are plainly obvious to a computer, then they should be easily recognizable by the teacher. The passage states, "the facial expressions for each emotion are universal, even thorugh individuals ofter show varying degrees of expressions." With that in mind, students should show a clear expression, such as when one is bored or confused, that is recognizeable to everyone around them, including the teacher, making the the Facial Action Coding System an irrelevance.
The Facial Action Coding system may also be flawed when recognizing emotionaless expressions. When analyzing a person's facial expression, "each expression is compared against a neutral face (showing no emotion)." Which means that the computer will not be able to read a person's emotions if they hold a straight face. In this case, the recognization ablilities of a computer is unnecessary, for in order to recognize that individual's emotions, another person must know how that individual expresses their emotions such as their actions or words. However, the passage states that "most of us would have trouble actually describing each facial trait that conveys happy, worried, etc." In other words, the Facial Action Coding System is helpful when our eyes fail to decifer a stranger's emotions. On the contrary, in a classroom, a teacher should gradually and instincively, learn to recognize the emotions of his or her students without the use of a computer.
Recognizing a student's emotions cannot be solved due to the development of facial recognition systems, such as the Facial Action Coding System. In order to read a student's emotion, it is necessary to understand the student's personal expressions or actions that come from certain emotions. Although a computer can recognize these expressions, it cannot not always be useful if one's expression contradicts the normal facial expression, or an expression is not even shown on their face. Nevertheless, it is not necessary to use a computer to recognize a person's emotions, for it takes a person to know a person, even without a computer. | 4 |
b9dce72 | Driverless Cars Are Coming. Using support from the article, Heres my argument against the new developing smart cars.
Although some people might enjoy being shoufered around by their own automobile, is it really safe? Smart cars are controlled by computer systems and sensors through out the car, and other pieces of technology including video cameras, and GPS, but everything including techonlogy has its faults. The article even includes information stating that even driverless cars still need drivers. Their are many what if's in the article, one being "What If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault, the driver or the manufactuer?" As a result, in most states it is illegal.
People would not only have to worry about making sure their car doesnt malfunction but also worrying about who would be held reliable for faulty technology in and on their car. It states in paragraph 9 "New laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident." Even with the newsest technology put in these smart cars, it cannot prevent a driver from being in an accident if the driver themselves is not aware and paying attention to the car alerts.
It states in paragraph 2 "Google cars arent 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 navigating through roadwork or accidents." In paragraph 9 it states "The only safe car has a human driver in control at all time." If so far all smart cars have had to require a driver then their is no true driverless car. With that being said and providing support from the article what is a driverless car?
In conclusion to this article, Driverless cars are not truly driverless and not proven to be as safe as a human being in control of the vehicle. | 4 |
b9df9cd | In the article "Driverless Cars Are Coming" they state postive and negative things about driverless cars, driverless cars are not a good part of our future. Driverless cars can be dangerous and they are not as dependable as peole might think they are. Cars that can drive themselves may malfunction and cause a wreck, and get people hurt. Driverless cars are not a good part of our future.
Driverless cars are not yet fully driverless. The text states "Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver?". The driverless car still needs human control when navigating through work zones and accidents. Humans need to stay aware at all time while this driverless car is at work. The driverless car is not dependable for human beings to do something else while in the car.
Driverless cars are a waste of our time because humans still want the thrill of driving a car. Young adults are excited to get thier license and drive out on the open road.These people want to experince driving by themselves and depending on only themselves. Humans would not fully trust a driverless car, because they would trust themselves more going on familar roads than a robot taking them a different route. Driverless cars would be taking away our freedom to go where ever we please. People would not keep their full attention on the road if they knew a driverless car was driving them, they would wonder off into space and not focus on the road. Driverless cars are taking away our right to drive.
Having a driverless cars mean relying fully on technology. Technology can fail and leave you stranded on an unfamiliar road. The text states "The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine". Driverless cars could freeze up and not do the right action they were supposed to do. These cars could break at the wrong time and cause a major life threating accident. Depending on technology alone is very risky, human beings would not have anything else to rely on, except for themselves alone. Human beings depending on technology alone is a very dangerous concept.
However driverless cars can be a good thing for the human race. Driverless cars could prevent less accidents and wrecks from happening. These cars could be the future for people to get more down while they are in the car, but driverless cars need a lot of work and improvement before any human being with a license can go out and buy a vehicle like this. Driverless cars could be a improvement to the enviroment, by cutting down on the gas they use. Driverless cars can also be a good thing.
Overall having a driverless car is a dangerous and wreckless thing to buy. Driverless cars are not dependable. Humans like their freedom on the road and enjoy driving their own automobile. People would lose the excitment of first getting a car and license if they didn't have to work for it. Driverless cars are to technology based and could malfunction easily. Driverless cars are not a good part of our future. | 4 |
b9e2f51 | Luke is very courageous because he joined the World War II. He left his family to save other peoples lives. He is hardworking because he is doing what he is supposed to be doing. Even though he got hungry and tired he didn't quit. He discovered unique places in the world and meet other people.
Luke helped people that are in the war and people that does'nt have food, water, and shelter. He would want other men to join the war because it made him feel good about hiself because he repected his country. Luke didn't even think if he wants to be a a military he just said yes because he knew that it would be a oppurtunity of a lifetime.
I think that people should join war, so that we could have our freedom by getting it ourselves, by fighting in war and being courageous like Luke. Luke can inspire people and wanting themselves to join the military. Most military says that "We die with honor". | 1 |
b9e8e95 | Many people use cars to get from one place to another,but however, many states around the world are having people not using cars. In other words, many states are car free states and this has changed many cultural changes in the sociey that the people live in. Not using any cars provides many beneficial factors to not only the enviroment but to the people too and here's why. Having car-free states reduces car emission and can provide healthier productive lives of exercise. This change to the world can inspire lots of people and open up the doors of nature's beauty to provide a peaceful way of living to the enviroment of the world.
We use cars everyday in our lives from going to resteraunts, jobs, homes, schools,ect. However, do we ever think that whenever we drive we are causing more pollution to spread from every mile we go? Cars are the number one leading pollution emission enviroment destroyers in the world. This pollution causes many close suburban areas with homes around to breathe in gas emission from cars. This is absolutely not healthy at all to many people. For example, in the article written by Robert Duffer in his title, "Paris bans driving due to smog." States that, "[Last] week Paris had 147 micrograms of particular matter (PM) per cubic meter..." That is more toxin to inhale that could possibly kill you! There are countries, for instance, like Germany that have some cities "car-free" as an experimental way to stop pollution emission and traffic jams causing loud noises to some close spaced suburban areas. Now, instead of using cars the people living in Germany are walking, riding bikes, or using trams to get from one place to another. So far, the people do not mind having any cars around and they even say they are happy and like the new change on where they live. "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way," says Heidrun Walter from the article by Elisabeth Rosenthal titled, "Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars." So whenever you first sit in a car think about what you are about to do and think about how you can benefit yourself and the world by not spreading pollution emission from cars.
Many people want to exercise, stay fit, and lose weight depending on what they want to do. Some people like to jog or run to go to there jobs as a productive way to not use there cars but to get out and exercise more. Many people around the world perfer not to use cars but instead use any-other means of transportation to either make themselves healthy or to not use any means of spreading pollution. In fact many people that live in big cities such as New York and San Francisco with more cars driving in the population. Have young people from 16-39 year olds that don't have a drivers license use other means of transportation to benefit themselves. In the article written by Elisabeth Rosenthal titled, "The End of Car Culture." States that, "They organize their summer jobs and social life around where they can walk or take public transportation or car-pool with friends." People ages from 16-39 year olds are not caring about using cars or getting a drivers license but using any other means of transportation even if it is longer way to get to a destination. This is very beneficial for young people of 16-39 year olds to have healthy lives at a young age so they can live longer and they can feel good about themselves.
Can you see now why having no cars as the means of transportation is a good thing? Many people are having healthier lives and live on not using pollution but using other means of transportation. People in many states and countries are happy with this change for the better as new meaning of change in cultural experiences. Now, are you able to change just like the people living the "car-free" life around the world? | 5 |
b9ecda0 | On the side of optamism, Driveless cars are a wonderful idea with plenty of potential for humans to once again reach further into the future with our tecnalogy. Imagine only saying or putting in your destination and getting there hands free, its like having a personal driver,but anything that sounds that good has to come along with some downsides.
While the industry of driveless cars is expanding slowly but greatly it is yet to be a fully drawn out plan. The driverless cars of today are only somewhat diverless. Meaning they can stop themselvs or drive short distances but still in certain situations the drivers hand is still greatly needed to avoid harm to not only padestrians but to the "hands free" driver as well. Honestly if your hands are needed for certain situations why not just drive fully? If the driver is behind the wheele of a hands free car they will be tempted to do other things with there hands not paying attention to the road at all and we have enough of that with people in self driven cars. That also means that in a situation needing a humans touch would be nothing more than a sudden alarm or vibration going off and needing your reflexes to save either a padestrian or your own life like a quick time event in a videogame. The huge difference is if something goes wrong there are no second chances.
Another issue that could be of concern is as much as technalogy is well loved and how most devote their lives to it, it isn't perfect there are mis haps and incidents that tech causes everyday but though the driveless car idea seems like a good one the tech behind it could not be reliable causing possibly a number of problems. If accidents and shut downs things of that nature are to happen who is at fault the owner who signed the contract to own such car. Or the manufacturer who's faulty equipment could've caused the issue in the first place?
In conclusion the idea of a totally driveless car is ideal. It might even be a necesity for some but until the project is fully finnished and has proven itself to be a great, safe, and dependable form of transportation we should be warry of how fast we say here take my money. One day the Driveless car could become a huge industry all on its own shaping itself into the next big thing but for now, lets stick to driving ourselvs around in the mean time. | 3 |
b9f20f1 | Our founding fothers wanted our goverment to be "for the people, by the people". But we can't run our goverment if the electors vote for us. We should have the right to vote for who we want to run our nation. Thats why I think our nation should use popular vote when electing our nations President and Vice President.
In the Bill of Rights we are given the freedom of speach, freedom of press, and freedom of religion. Shouldn't we have the freedom to elect the leaders of our nation? We have worked hard to give everybody the right to vote, but yet electors are voting for us. Acording to an excerpt from "The Indefensible Electoral Collage: Why even the best-laid defense are wrong" they talk about how voters canot always control who their electors vote for. That means that your vote was practicly useless. In "The Indefensible Electoral Collage: Why even the best-laid defense are wrong", they state that "At the most basic leval, the electoral collage is unfair to voters." They also talk about how candites don't spend much time in states they have no chance of winning in. Instead they only focus on states that they know they will suceade in. "It's offical: The electoral collage is unfair, outdated, and irrational." I belive that in order for us to be in control, we should at least get a say on who will lead our nation.
Though the Electoral Collage isn't the fairest, most acurate way to vote, it also isn't such a bad idea. Evan though we have the right to vote, we abuse that power. we don' think of the consiqunces that will come with who we ellect. We look at all the possitive things somebody has done but don't look at the negitive things. With The Electoral Collage we have a group of people deciding what is best for our nation, | 3 |
b9f35b8 | When someone hears the words "driverless cars", they get excited at the thought of something so futuristic at one time that it seems like something out of a science fiction novel. However, now that dream is becoming a reality. Large companies such as Google or BMW are advancing in this highly experimental field, and Google has been since as early as 2009. But is letting the machine take over most of the time really the best option? Could it lead to even more problems than it hopes to fix? These questions have yet to be answered and need to be.
In 2013, BMW began developing a project they dubbed the "Traffic Jam Assistant", allowing a car to handle all possible functions up to the speed of 25 mph. But even though the car drove itself, the driver still had to remain alert and keep both hands on the wheel where sensors were located. And in such situations as work zones or accidents, the driver had to take over. Moments like these should always be handled by the driver, because the only thing a vehicle needs is one single driver. If a pedestrian ever makes the mistake of crossing too late on a crosswalk in the middle of the street, the car is not going to be ablle to know if it is coming or not or whether the car can steer clear of causing an accident because of human error.
There is also the consideration of laws. In our current era, whoever hits someone initially in a traffic collision, is the one to blame, and the one who helps pay off the other driver's bill. Human error is a natural thing, and we all make mistakes, but if there is ever an accident in which an autonomous car is made and is involved in an accident, who is responsible in the end? Is it the driver, or is it the car which is supposed to be incapable of making mistakes? Allowing a car to be responsible for one person's life is not the best decision, and should be thought out more accordingly, than just seeing it as a fun toy because our laziness is growing so much, that we can't even drive for ourselves.
Then there is the cost, both on our wealth and our experience. If we allow cars to drive us around and take us anywhere we like, what will happen when it's our turn to drive. We will be less alert, paying attention to our surroundings instead of focusing on the road. Some may argue that cars come with warning signals that the driver must take control soon, but will they have enough time to completely survey the area and assess the situation? Or will the car be able to warn them in time? The answer is most likely to be answered, but is still a dangerous situation for a new driver. In 20 years these cars may be a new one of society's norms, and everyone might own a car that drives on its own. But before we can reach that day, we have to decide if we're willing to pay large amounts of dollars for a car that takes away all feeling of something belonging to us and seeming to be in our control. The "Cars of the Future" will cost extraneous amounts of dollars, just for the ability for us to drive only some of the time, and not all of it.
Some people may argue that there are beneficial sides to an autonomous car, and of course there are. These cars would cut down our costs on gas, they could even be safer than some humans driving cars, and they could all be traced around on a track designed just for the cars. But it all comes back down to cost. The thought of replacing all roads with "Smart Roads" is not only seemingly impossible, but timewise it would take a lifetime. If every single road was taken apart and rebuilt all over America, the world even, it would take at least 10 years, and the cost would be enormous. And these cars are safe, but if that situation ever hits, no one is going to want their death or disability caused by a car driving on its own because of human error, yet again.
The concept is definitely real, and they have continued to being developed. The only thing to see now is if they can pay the price, develop more solutions than problems, and see if laws can be passed in their favor. It will take years, or maybe even a decade before we see who will be driving behind the wheel in the end, the human, or the car itself. | 5 |
b9f4768 | The new technology theses people are wotking on is an outstanding acheivment and will help to improve our education. This technology could be very useful in other situations that require the information this technology can give. Technology of this type is something that could change the way we do certain things in life.
Facial Action Coding System can be very useful in our education system today. In this age we have a good education system but can be improved in so many ways. The FACS can see what we feel by looking atr our faces, so that would allow the student to have a different lesson whether it be more or less difficult to allow him/her to learn at a much better pace than previously. The article states that the FACS can set up a new lesson for the student who is either bored or stressed, this only proves my point further that it would be of great value for our education system today.
The FACS system can be introduced to many lines of work other than our education system. In confrences with people with problems in their live a certain word can trigger an emotion, the FACS system would be able to tell his/her emotion and properly calm him/her down. The FACS system is and amazing feat and even become a great asset to interrogation such as whether or not using fear on a person actually works or if the interrigated person is lying about their emotion.
FACS is a wonderful technological invention that could change many things in our day to day life. This system can help jobs become easier and could very well reduce the amount of suicides by helping people get the help they need. The FACS can make our life so much better and could be effective on therapy and other jobs in that line of work.
Overall the FACS system is revolutionary and we should adopt it into our lives. With the FACS system our lives could change for the better and allow a new dawn to begin. Once the FACS system is in our lives it can be updated on the way we hide our emotions and keep up with the different tactics of concealment and deception to allow a more perfect system made out of the origional. FACS is truly and outstanding acheivment that must be used in our lives. | 4 |
b9f493c | Can you picture a life without human in control of driving? Yes, it might sound like a good idea but its more realistic then you think. In the article Driverless Cars Are Coming it states " Telsa has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of dring on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes- Benz, Audi and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020". Humans have always been driving cars since say cars have been invented. The idea of drivless car is new since humans have always been in control manually. Driverless cars is a idea that is inot logical. There no point in making driverless cars for people to use.
When it comes to a car there are so many parts that could go wrong. Imagine what could go on with a car that is driverless. A driverless car would have more technology parts then a normal car does. If a part goes damage you don't know what the damage could be. This idea is new and so many people will not be able to fix a part on their driverless car. Technology is still a very new idea and their people who don't know how to use it.
Who really need a driverless
car in life. This idea will just increase the laziness people will have. People would depend on this car and forget how to drive a car. Life today is just fiding new ideas to make humans life easier. This car will increase the laziness in humans and make their life harder then they think. In the article is say" Why would would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn't drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive?". This idea takes out the fun in driving a car and makes it extremely boring.
This would affect finacially people. Not everyone would be able to afford a car that is driverless. Some people can barely afford a 2002 car let alone a new driverless car. What would happen to those who can't own one of these cars? Will their normal car cause a problem to these new driverless cars.
In conclusion, there is no need for driverless cars to be invented.There are so many factors to think about before jumping into the idea. Technology failure, increase in laziness, and the money need for a car like this. Would you really wanna see yourself siting in a car you cannot control? | 4 |
b9f8f54 | The automobile is one of mankinds greatest innovations. Since its invention in the 20th century, it has made tasks such as commuting to work or visiting your friends simpler than ever. Just hop in your car and your gas-powered vehicle will have you there within minutes. Although they are handy, could too much of a good thing be a bad thing? In this case, I believe that this is true. Limiting car usage could have benefits such as easier and cheaper transportation and fewer greenhouse gas emissions.
Imagine a world where public transportation (subways, trains, buses) could be accessed easier. Now look past the ways of modern life and cars we've become so dependent on. The growth of public transportation in places other than large cities could have huge benefits to the communities. Cars would not be relied upon and not as much money would have to be spent on gas. Of course people would still use cars to get from point A to point B but they would see public transportation as more of a go-to option. (Source 4) "Bill Ford proposed a plan of partering with telecommunications industries to create cities in which pedestrian, bicycles, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety." I believe limiting car usage would therefore raise public transportation usage and allow us to commute safer and cheaper than before.
Pollution has become an increasingly important problem in recent years. With all the craze over whether "global warming" is imminent or not, many have been trying to find ways to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. The United States holds claim to the invention of the automobile and also stands as one of the most car reliant countries averaging at least one per household. According to the text, passenger cars are responsible for 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in some car-intensive areas in the United States (Source 1). Reducing that number by ways of carpooling, public transport, and hybrid cars, would benefit our society and help to protect the world we live in for future generations. For example, (Source 2)after days of intensifying smog, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city one Monday. Motorists with even-numbered plates were told to leave their cars at home or face a $31 fine. In just one day, car traffic was down 60 percent with less people driving and the smog cleared enough to lift the ban for odd-numbered plates the next day. In Bogota, Cali, and Valledupar, Colombia a similar experiment was put to test where there was a full Day Without cars. This plan promoted alternative transportation (bicycles, walking, taxis, buses) and helped to reduce smog. A local businessman from Bogota saw the day as beneficial and states that "It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution." (Source 3)
Although modern lifestyles have become overly dependent on cars, usage can be reduced and have many benefits to our society. While this would be a process that would no doubt take years to accomplish globally, I believe that it is very possible and likely that limiting car usage would lead to easier and cheaper transportation, and fewer greenhouse gas emissions or pollution. | 5 |
ba02db4 | The author supports this idea because the article had stated that Earth,Venus, and Mars are our planetary neighbor. Venus has been a challenging planet for humans to study, despite its proximity. The thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide and highly corrosive sulfuric acid makes it difficult for spacecrafts to land on the planet. Scientist can't find out what they need to know about the planet. They want to know if there's a way to support life due to finding that Venus was probably covered with large oceans and could have supported life once. Today Venus still has some features such as valleys, mountains, and craters.
The author also stated that scientists would need to get up close and personal despite the risks. a vehicle hovvering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly ground conditions by staying up and out. At thirty-plus miles above the surface temperatues would still be toasty around 170 degrees Fahrenheit, but the air pressure would be close to sea levels on Earth. many researchers are working on innovations that would allow our machienes to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowledge of Venus. NASA is working on other approches to studying Venus.
Simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simulating the chaos of Venus's surface and have lasted for three weks in such conditions. Another way they are tying to study Venus is with old technology called mechanical computers. modern computers are enormously powerful, flexable, and quick, but tend to be more delicate when it comes out to extreme physical conditions. exposing a type technology like a phone or a tablet to acid or heat is capable of melting tin. By comparison, systems that use mechnical parts can be mmade more resistant to pressure, heat, and other forces.
The authors last statment about motivating ourselves to go to Venus is striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus. Venus's value is worth gaining insight on the planet itself. also out of the human curiosity to know more about the plane. The travels on earth and beyond should be not belimited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagintion and innovation. This is what I think the authors claim is about pursuiting despite the dangers. | 3 |
ba0c44f | The Facial Action Coding System is valuable. The FACS could help a lot of teachers that have students that are sturglling with an asiment.Their are some aguments that could be said about the FACS. Dispite the aguments about the FACS it can help alot of teachers in school.
The FACS could be used to help teachers in school. The FACS could help the teacher know that if the students are getting to know the matriale at handed.The FACS uses a 3-D computermodle of the face, and all 44 major muscles that shows if the person is mad, happy, sad, etc. Just like in real lifea person can ditected if their friend is mad, happy, sad, etc the FACS shows the facial expersion of the person so we can esaly see if the person is mad, happy , sad, etc. The aguments that could be said that the FACS is inavasion of prificy, or that we don't need a machine to tellif a person is mad, hapy, sad, etc.
That is how the FACS could help us in life. The aguments made abot the FACS
are ture to some people. This machine could help out the people that can't tell if a person is sad, happy, mad, etc. Dispite the aguments about the FACS it can help alot of teachers in school. | 1 |
ba0f363 | Mr. Senator election by popular vote is the way to go, let the people decide! It's their choice to pick who runs the U.S.A. this is the choice of who they want to run the country. The citizens should have a right to vote for who they really want. Instead of having a couple hundred people I think we should have all the people in the country choose. So why dont we? We can establish this rule and make it right let the citizens of the U.S.A. pick who the president should be!
Electoral collage as the office of Federal Register in quote "The Electoral College consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting og the electors where they vote for the President and Vice President". It's a bad idea to me when you can just make everyone vote for who they want not who just a couple hundred people want. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors which a certain amount need to vote as 270 is the precise number is required. Each candidate running each has a group of electors, they are originally chosen by the candidates politicial party. The choice where the people choose and vote is way easier than that, we have a choice for what we want.
The "Indefensible Electoral College" is wrong your voting for the electors as it says in paragraph 10. Bradford Plumer says as I quote "Under the electoral college sysetem voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the President. There for we are voting for the electors right? So whats the whole point when we can stick to our ways and vot ourselves. This makes it way more simple and faster, better than waiting through the system for other people to vote, when you can just do it yourself.
Theres no reason for each party to select a slate of electors. It can be argued that this system can turn off potential voters as a candidate. There are 5 reasons for retaining this system. Those are certainty of outcome, everyone's President, swing States, Big states, and avoid run-off elections. Still we need to be able to make our own decisions. We don't need other people to make them for us.
These people in the U.S.A. are determined in what they want, not what other people want. They want to choose what they believe they don't want to go through a long system. When you can just do it yourself its easier, because you know what your doing but if you go the other way you have to teach the people your working with. When you have the whole Country voting it makes it more simple and easy to go through the process. So let the people choose who they really want as the President of the U.S.A. dont leave it to other people to do it for them. | 4 |
ba19fe4 | The way in which the author had describe Venus was to get the feeling of knowing how it would look like and how it works. Venus has so much for it to become like earth. It does and it is really hot because it is the 2nd planet from the sun. Venus has parts in which there is very bad storms from how close it is from the fun and not have life there. NASA are trying to find out more about what is really going there.They will soon be able for people to go there someday and also explore Venus. When NASA people go up there, they aren't able to bring anything back like rocks,gas,etc. There is still many risk being taken for this kind of situation because of how bad it is. Venus Many be soon another earch where you can able to visit. NASA has been studing Venus for a long time close when World War ll was going on and computers have once came out. I do think that now that there is more technology they will keep advancing more to the point in which they can soon have people going threw Venus and having to stay there. I this such a great idea that they are not being able to do more and having that chance of going to Venus and making it like Earth. The more that people get to study about Venus the more it would be possible for them to go there and help out with NASA. NASA still has a ways to go annd many resources they would need to make Venus a once of a good of a place. Yet there will be so much heat in Venus and many people won't be able to survive that so they would take the risk, since it is close to the sun.I do think that someday it will be possible for Venus to become another home like Earth but there is still so much to fix around Venus. If there was ever live there , there will have everything flying around like cars that would fly much higher then a airplane/ jet. Everythign will of couse not be the same but I do think that evrythign will trunout how it is suppose to because they mostly every equipment that they would need to stay alive there in Venus. This is why it would a challenge for anyone to visit Venus right now. | 2 |
ba1c6b5 | Driverless cars are starting to make an appearance in the world. There are postive and negative ideas about these new cars. Threre are ways it can effect the world and help it and other ways. Some like the idea of these new driverless cars and some do not like it.
I personally would like to live in a time like this. There are a lot of new ideas coming along that can change and help the world become a better place. Driverless cars can help the world in many ways, from taxi systems to gas money, and even pollution. The taxi system would haul people to and from work,school,mettings, or even if you're just going out. This would lead to more money you would not have to speend on gas. The less money you spend on gas the less pollution in the world.
I could also see why driverless cars can also have a big negative impact. Even though they are not completley driveless yet, they still have some small risk. If a driveless car approaches a construction zone the car can not go through the zone by itself, it would have to be under human control. If you are in a hurry and need to get somewhere quick it would be wise not to hop into one of these cars, driving time is a lot slower in these than in normal cars. Another reason why they put humans at risk is the car wrecks. Most of these wrecks would be because of computer error, and they have fixed these to work perfect. It may not be a good idea to take this in a snow storm but Google cofounder says they have not had a car accident in more than half a million trips in their driverless cars.
Overal I believe this is the way the world needs to work, it would positivley help the Earth more than hurt it. The ways it would change the atomassphere, by pollution and less wrecks. People who dont like the idea need to think of the positives. | 3 |
ba1da6e | i think Venus is a good thing to study about its actually a planet.its the sun planet from the sun.often referred to as Earth's "twin" Venus is the closest planet to earth. density and size , and occssionally the closest in distance too. Mars,Venus,and Earth our other planetry neighbor,orbit the sun at different speeds.the different speed mean sometimes we are closer to mars and othertimes to venus.venus is a value.peering venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safelty far above the planet can provide only limited in sight on ground conditions because most forms of light cannot penetrate the dense atmosphere,rendering standard forms of photography and videography ineffective.simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simulating the chaos of Venus's suface have lasted for 3 weeks in such conditions. Venus would aviod the unfriendly ground conditions by staying up and out of thierway.at thirtyplus miles above the surface,tempertaurs would still tasty at ground 170 degress fahrenhiet ,air pressure would be close to that of sea level on earth. | 1 |
ba1f7ed | Driveless cars can be a positive thing and also a negative thing in some ways.One positive thing that its says in the passage is the sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers.one negastive thing about the driveless cars that its says in the passage is that if the tecnology stops working is it your fault or the manufacturer.I think the cars or more on the positive sides
The passage says"further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their on".The manufacturer had made it easier on the drivers to be way more safer.The passage also says that "the car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph,but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel".GM has developed driver`s seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object.The only negative thing if the technology fails and someone is injured,who is at fault-the driver or the manufacturer.
My opinion about the driveless car is positive for many reasons.one positive thig that it says in the passage is the sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers.Another positive thing that it says in the passage is that further improvements in the sensors and computer hardware and softwareto make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more driving taskon their own.The only bad trhing about the car is if the tehcnology stops working who`s fault is it?Driveless cars can be a positive thing and a negative thing. | 3 |
ba25169 | New technology is being made all around the world, that is changing society as we know it. One example of this technology is called Facial Action Coding System. Many people are wondering if the world should put something like this in schools so teachers can read students emotions. I think we should give this technology to teachers because this could help prevent casualties, and even the lack of school work students will do.
One reason I think the Facial Action Coding System should be in schools is because it could prevent casualties at home or at school such as school shootings and suicides. This technology could help prevent these casualties by letting the teacher know if a student is happy or upset. this meaning if a student is upset a teacher could get the student help or even help the student themselves by talking to them on why they are upset. For example students all around are getting bullied and not letting other people know how they feel or let them know they are getting bullied, so these students leave school being upset and they go home a commit suicide thinking they aren't important and thinking nobody wanted to help them. Therefore if teachers had this new technology I think teacher would be able to prevent this from happening by seeing how the student feels and therefore the teacher can talk to them and hear about what is happening. This will also make the students that do get upset feel like there are people out there that want to help them and that notice them.
Another reason why the Facial Action Coding System should be in schools is because the lack of school work being done because students are upset. This technology could help teachers get students to do their work or to even study, by letting the teacher know if the student is having a bad day. I think this will help because if a student is having a bad day then they won't want to do work because they are upset and just most people don't want to do work when they're upset, so if teachers had this technology I think they could talk to the students and try and get them in a better mood for themto do their work. Another reason why teachers should ge this because if a student is upset and they want to do their work, their work isn't going to beas good as if they were happy, and all teachers like to see their students with the best work.
There is new technology being made all around the world, that is changing society as we know it such as the Facial Action Coding system. This is why i think this technology should be put into schools. | 4 |
ba2ac34 | Limiting car use can be a good thing and a bad thing. In my opinion i think that people should be able to drive cars but only at certain times to limit polution. in europe as staded "while their have been efforts in the past two decades to make cities denser, and better for walking, planners are now taking the concept to the suburbs....".
in this storey you can teel that alot of these people in europe are not liking the fact that their is polution going on. "all of our development since world war II has been centered on the car, and that will have to change" (paragraph 7). i can agree sort of with this because we focus on cars alot as one of our major ways of transportation. this is not a bad thing that we have cars but we need to make sure that we can keep the polution down by maybe using hybrid cars instead.
it also seems that people are starting to drive less nowadays, and in my opinion it is because either gas prices are too high or people cannot afford one."americas love affair with its vehicles seems to be cooling. when adjusted for population growth, the number of miles driven in the united states peaked in 2005 and dropped steadily thereafter, acording to an analysis by doug short of advisor perspectives, an invesment research company as of april 2013, the number of miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent below the peak and equal to where the country was in january 1995" (paragraph 32). as you can see i was stating how the number of people driving has declined. also i believe the cause for this as i stated before is due to the number of people who can either not afford one or do not want one.
in this storey i have explained how the number of people driving cars have declined.
i have also said that europe does not really like the idea of the polution they are creating since they end up making so much smog. In my opinion maybe other countrys such as the U.S.A or canada and such should consider knocking down some of their driving privilages due to the fact that it is just too loud and not very safe as well as creating alot of polution. | 3 |
ba2b771 | Have you ever looked in a telescope and seen the Face on Mars? Many people believe the The Face on Mars was created by aliens, but it is a natural landform. The Face on Mars is a natural landform because images from a JPL website showed the Face was a natural landform, the Face looks like Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho, and if there was an ancient civilization on Mars NASA would benefit from it.
First, on April 5, 1998 Mars Global Surveyor flew over the Face for the first time. "Michael Malin and his Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) team snapped a picture ten times sharper than the original Viking photos." (7) When a JPL website revealed the photo many anxious waiters were astounished that the Cydonia was a natural landform.
Secondly,
Jim Garvin, chief scientist for NASAs Mars Exploration Program, confirmed the Face was a of a butte or mesa. It reminds me most of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho, (12) Mr. Garvin also claimed Thats a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars. (12) Which means that the Face on Mars is very similar to a lave dome, butte, or mesa.
Next, if there was an ancient civilization on Mars and they made the Face then NASA would benefit from it. "Some people think the Face is bona fide evidence of life on Marsevidence that NASA would rather hide, say conspiracy theorists. Meanwhile, defenders of the NASA budget wish there was an ancient civilization on Mars." (5) This quote is explaining that if NASA knew there was an ancient civilization on Mars then they would benefit from the civilization. Why would NASA keep an ancient civilization on Mars a secret if they could benefit from the situation?
Finally, the Face on Mars is a natural landform because images from a JPL web site showed the Face was a natural landform, the Face looks like Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho, and if there was an ancient civilization on Mars NASA would benefit from it. Now do you believe the Face on Mars was created by aliens? | 3 |
ba2d03b | Dear Florida State Senator,
I do not believe that we should keep the Electoral College. I think that we should vote for presidents and have them win by popular vote. My reasons for aboloshing the Electoral college is that the president should win by popular vote of the citizens of the U.S., we shouldn't let electors be the reason the president wins, and we should have a direct voting system than the Electoral College system.
First, the president should win by popular votes from the citizens, not electors of the candidates. The people would vote directly so the president would win by popularity of people in the states. The presidential candidate has electors. So when one person votes it counts as the electors votes not theirs. I don't think that is fair.
Second, we should not let the electors be the reason our president wins. It states in the article "The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong" that the "faithless" electors have occasionally refused to vote for their own candidate. They decided to vote for whoever they please. Isn't their job supposed to be to vote for their parties candidate. How can we trust them?
Thirdly, I believe that we should have direct voting instead of the Electoral College. The reason why is because we can easily vote ourselves and actually realize that the president we chose was actually us, not the electors. It is nice to know that we made that decision and not remember that it was just the electors getting their votes from ours. It states in the article "The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong" that ove sixty percent of voters would prefer a direct election because some states know that the actual voting and winning comes from the states electors. The people would not even pay attention to the campaigns because they don't care anymore.
In conclusion, people would rather have direct voting than the Electoral College. Direct voting is easy and it makes us feel like we actually care. The Electoral College however, doesn't really pay attention to the campaigns either because they are basing their votes from ours. The Electoral College is unfair in many ways. I would rather have direct voting than the Electoral College. Sixty percent of the U.S. would agree with me. | 4 |
ba2d4ec | Since World War II, driving has been the center of everyone's mind. Do you really think driving is a necessity? Many people will say yes, but most will argue no. Limiting car usuage will be great for us citizens and our very own planet Earth.
To start off, driving causes you a stressful day, but not driving will save you time and money. Gas prices are more than $2 a gallon. One car takes more or less 10 gallons. Filling your tank up will cost you around $60 or more. In my eyes, it's cheaper to take public transportation than to drive. While taking the bus or the train , all you really have to do is wait , pay to get in, find your stop, if your destination is a little farther, there can be another bus and you'll be at your stop. On the other hand, Driving, your worrying more. Your worried about if you have gas, is there a traffic jam, why is this driver driving so slow. You're getting fustrated rather than taking the public transportaion. In Colombia there is this program where you dont drive for a day. "In a program that's set to spread to other countries, millions of colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a car-free day yesterday, leaving streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams"(Source 3). Not only did it cause a less stressful day, it allowed them to get some exercise.
Furthermore, I have a question. How many people like smoggy days? No one. Reason I asked this specific question is mainly because if you enjoy driving, you must enjoy the smog. "After days of near-record polution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city"(Source 2). Although Paris has more smog than other European capitals, it isnt good for our very own health, but it isnt good for our planet either. When Paris did this "No Driving" campigan, "Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after 5 days of intensifying smog"(Source 2).
On the other hand, driving isn't really important as it used to be. We have all these technological advances, that honestly make driving not necessary. We all have a cell phone, we can all video chat. Some work together, some go to school together. We all can car-pool. There was this quote that I read, and after doing some thinking, it made me realize that driving isn't really important as it seemed to be. "How much you drive is as important as whether you have an hybrid"(Source 1). Hybrids save alot of wrong doings that we already do to this Earth. Along with eletronic cars. Driving a hybrid, yes it's saving the world but your still causing traffic, and wasting money. Some people have already quit driving. "With all these changes, people who stopped car commuting as a result of the recession may find less reason to resume the habit." (Source 4). America has went so far into the stopping of driving that on highways there's more tolls. Tolls that we can't pay to another person, tolls where they take a picture of your license, find out you information, and send you the amount you owe through the mail. Each toll is different some can be 75 cents or a $1.50. From your home to the mall, depending where you live, you'll pass by more a less 5 tolls. In total thats around I'll say $3.75 or $7.50. Public transportation saves you more money. Mall's have buses where it picks you up from a specfic location to the mall and back. That's saving you time and your money.
In conclusion, limiting car usuage can be an advantage to both young, old and even to our very own planet Earth. It can help our economy, save our pollution rate, but also help us lose the weight. Now its your turn, Are you willing to make the change ? | 4 |
ba2fb55 | The author suggested to study planet Venus becuase it's a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. The author claimed that the planet is so inhospitable because of the temperatures and the pressure. But he also says that's the reason for NASA not sending people to there for three decades. He also claims that we could use our technology to stand against the pressure and temperatures.
He says that Venus is our planet twin, it's the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size, and sometimes the closest one in distance too. But it has the most unwelcomeing live standers, from almost 97 percent of carbon dioxide blankets in the atmosphere to even more challenging of highly corrosive sulfuric acid. The temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit and 90 times greater pressure than Earth that absolutly crush any living thing. It's the hottest planet in our solar system.
He also claims that humans have sent numerous spacecraft to land on planet. No spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours. This explains why no spaceship has touched down on Venus in more than three decades. He also said a
" numerous factors contribute to Venus's reputation as a challenging planet for humans to study, despite its proximity to us."
NASA had a solution which is floating above the fray but he says " scientist seeking to conduct a thorough mission to understand Venus would need to get up close and personal despite the risks. NASA is working on other approaches to studying Venus, for example some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simulating the chaos of Venus's surface and have lasted about three weeks in such a condition. Scientist are seeking and devolping new ways to study and go to Venus.
In conclusion Venus is our planet twin in many ways but the harsh conditions in there made it imposible for now to go there. The temperatures and the pressure in there are very high. That's why we haven't went there for a long time. He also says that there some ways to study the planet like by flying over the planet but he says that we need to get up close and see what's it like in there. He also states that NASA has developed new technology that would survive over there for about three weeks. He also said we could use our old technology to make this study happen. | 3 |
ba30fe9 | In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" it is suggested to study Venus because it is a worth pursuit despite the dangers its presents. Venus should be study because it can become useful and more understandable for the audience. Studying can help with having a better understanding of the topic, have a clear understandment of looking at it from a different perspective, and learn what are the benefits from it.
First of all, it is important to study Venus because it can help you understand the passage better. By all means, not having to get confuse or getting lost beause we do not understand anything. Studying can help us prevent from getting lost and help us realize how did it start and what cause this. It can also answer all of our questions that we wanted to know.
Second, having a clear understandment of looking at the aarticle from a different prespective and help us see it differently. As we read the article, we want to be open minded and put ourselves in someone elses shoes. In that case, we want to know how they felt and what they think about it in their perspective. We want to understand from two ways that we are allow to do.
Finally, we can learn what are the benefits from it. Learning new benefits is also important to gain from reading an article. This may also help us in the future, learning new ideas and how that can affect us or our universe. It can also show us how it moves and what is the temperature, shape, and other information. We learn more about it and it will most likely have us stund that we didn't know how much one object can have so many information.
This is why we should study Venus because not only is it a worthy pursuit despite that dangers it presents. It can help with having a better understanding of the topic, have a clear understandment of looking at it from a different perspective, and learn what are the benefits from it. This is important to teach students because it can lead them into a good start from learning so much. | 3 |
ba36ab2 | I believe that it is a good idea for driverless cars to be coming soon. I say this because, even though I'm not driving yet but I will be soon, as I get older or also anyone around the world, if someone is driving and maybe if the person receives a text or a call, it could be something very important.
I can imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore. When I was younger I started to play with toy cars with my cousin Johnathan. Once I started to play more and more with him, I started to like them a lot, of course I didn't realize when I was younger there were thousands of cars out there, I thought maybe the cars that were in Bremen, Indiana were the only ones.
I'm going to be sixteen very soon, and going to be able drive and can't wait to own a car of my own and I'm also very excited. I know that I also have to be very careful when it comes to situations like this, because you start to drive as a teenager and it might be scary and you have to be extremely careful and pay full attention whatever what's coming at you. As I read the passage it said that they plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. By the time 2020 will come, I will be 20 years old and would have already graduated by then. I know when I'll be 20, I'll be much more mature on things and can't wait to see the driverless car.
It would be pretty nice to own a car, where you don't even have to bother watching the road and can text or call anyone whenever you need to, but just because it drives by itself, doesn't mean you don't have to be aware on watching the road or paying any attention, a person has to take full responsibility to own any type of car, whether its an ordinary or driverless. If an accident happens, you would have to blame the person because they put it on theirselves and wasn't paying attention.
Then again, there might be some positive and negative things about a driverless car, but it doesn't matter. It's the person decision if they want to own a car like that. Everyone is different and have their own thoughts on any type of car. | 3 |
ba4349f | Attention fellow citizens! Like most things, cars have it's advantages and disadvanteges. Cars have developed more problems from the usage on a regular basis. Limiting car use in cities can reduce the issues related to vehice usage to a minimum.
To begin, many cities have already set limitations on automobile usage such as Vauban, Germany and the outskirts of Freiburg near the Swiss and French boarders. Freiburg has actually banned cars except for the main thouroughfare and a few streets on the edge of the community.
70 percent of people in Vauban do not have a vehicle and 57 percent sold their car to move to Vauban. As we all know cars take a toll an the atmosphere itself by adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. 50 percent of greenhouse gasses in the United states are emited through cars, but on the other hand cars are responsible for only 12 percent. It seems to be that the car-less cities tend to be declining the negative effects in the atmosphere.
Next, Paris took the no-car rule to another level by banning all cars, depending on the day, to reduce conditions in the air quality because of the emitiones from the vehicles. A thick smof loomed over the city because of the gases produced form the automobiles. Drivers with licence plates with even numbers would not use their cars for the day and odd cars would be off the next in an attempt to redice the smog. After numerous days of reduced cars the smog began clear from it's usual state.
Also, another city that's cutting down car usage is Bogota Colombia. Bogota has created a "car-free" day to reduce the harmful gases created by cars and to encourage alternative forms of transportation. Anyone driving a vehicle would be fined $25. The turnout was big with many people participating showing reat results on the atmospheric conditions above the city. Another great thing that came out of this is the enthusiasm it brought to other countries who wanted some thing like this to encourage other formes of transportation and reduce pollution.
As seen in the article, limiting the time we use cars has a great impact on the environment and people around you. So what do you say? Put down the keys and ride a bike today! | 3 |
ba45666 | The author believes that Venus should be able to be explored. Venus should should be explored even though there are many dangerous weather conditions and things that could interfere with a mission. The author believes this because nothing should be able to stop humans from expanding their knowledge. In the article the author describes Venus in several ways which are the similarity to Earth's size,weather type, distance, and how dangerous it is.
Here is an example from paragraph 2 of how its similar to Earth and its' size. "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." What he is saying in this sentence is that Venus isn't very different from Earth and that they are close to each other in distance and sometimes farther apart than they normally are.
Another example in paragraph 2 is how dangerous it is. Even though the author does not state the word dangerous he describes how dangerous it is by stating, "Each previous mission was unmanned, and for a good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours." In this sentence he is describing that Venus is way too dangerous for a human to step foot on because not even a spaceship can surive for more than a day.
An example he gives of a challenge in Venus is the weather or climate. Here is an example from the article, paragraph 5, "At thirty-plus miles above the surface, temperatures would still be toasty at around 170 degrees Farenheit, but thr air pressure would be close to that of sea level on Earth." Here the author decribes venus as being very hot without a human touching the ground yet.
All of this adds up to humans having a challenges on Venus. Humans are very strong and will find a way to survive on Venus because they have already tested some simple electronics made up of silicon and the outcome was that the electronic survived for a couple of weeks. This wouldnt be easy for a human but it would be normal difficulty. | 3 |
ba47e27 | Dear State Senator
I think the Electoral College should stay, because even if its "indefensible", "Corupt", "Despised" the Electoral College has its outcomes; Big States, Run-Offs and Presidential desputes. Its a process, Are own founding fathers who where enlightment thinkers, who thought more then what was written on the script. They thought outside the box, they wanted to know the "why" and how it will affect and how to bring this nation to its highest. Placing it in the constitution, knowing this method will do justice on future on elections. Its one of the best laid method in the world and removing it will just misbalance everything.
In the United States, each states has a majority and manority. Where people consist the most is by the coast, west and east. Its in are human nature, its been around for ages that humans live more on coastal or river areas. Any area where it consist of water,Harbor and trading routes. They recieve the most of products around the world, and maintain abondens of humans. So the bigger states are California, Florida, NY, Virgina, Texas and etc. The electoral votes restores the balance. In campaigns propaganda is used alot. Comercials, ads, anything they can publish themsleves to show and persaude the people in allections. Largers states gets more attention from preseidential candidates then smaller states. Smaller states in the middle of the U.S consist of small polpulations so with electoral votes the weight using the population (census) lose by the virtue of mal-Appointment of the senate. Its all about propaganda that presidential campaigners use to get the big states attention cuase that where the points are at.
Electoral College avoids problem with run-offs in which no candidate recieves a majority vote cast, which is the popular vote. Presidential desputes accur when a campiegner manepulates the people with spitting out promises in Propaganda ads, winning the popular vote. But with electoral college, you have a second chance to look closely on whats happening. With electoral college and electing a president you need a system. If the majority of the states and senate are republican and the president is a democrate the two partys arnt gonna agree on anything. Desputes will accure and in 4 years the country will accomplish nothing. With electoral college theres a balance of votes, each states gets there political party they voted on and it evens out when the day comes. Voting is important cuase your choosing whos gonna lead your country for the next four years and electoral college opens up many doors that will help you analysis better in whats accuring and your setting up your country system.
The electoral college may have its problem buts a system that will carry out the nation longer without many torubles then without it. Are founding fathers knew what they where doing, they thought big the U.S and look where the U.S is now. One of the strongest nation in the world, thanks to the system they created and left us.
Sincerly Viewer | 4 |
ba4d6d2 | You can usally tell when a friend is upset right? You can tell by there facial expression. Well there's a new system called "FACS". It reconizes emotions.
"FACS" stands for Facial Action Coding Systems. It makes a " 3-D computer model of your face." In oder for this to work " all 44 major muscles in the model must move like human muscles." Dr. Paul Eckman is the creator of "FACS". He has been able to "classify six basic emotions such as happiness, sadness, suprise, anger, disgust, and fear." Then he sees which muscles moves with each one and associates this with each emotion. For example " when you move your 'frontalis par lateralis' muscle (above your eyes) it raises your eyebrows when you're suprised." Also if " your 'orbicularis oris' (around your mouth) tightens your lips to show anger."
How is this used in computers? It is used in computer when it reconizes which muscles move to make that facial expression. They say " Imagine if your computer could reconize when your happy or sad." For example " if you smiled when a web ad appears on your screen, then a similar ad might appear next time. But if you frown, then the next time the ad will be different." What if a "classroom computer could reconize when a kid is becoming confused or bored, then they could modifiy the lesson, like a effective human instrutor."
In conclusion "FACS" could help us understand emotions better. It could help improve kids grades in school by changing the lesson when they get confused or bored. It could help us understand early are work where it is a portrait. When could find out the emotion of the painting and maybe if the person was happy, sad, in fear, anger, or even disgusted. | 2 |
ba4f6db | The electoral college should be abolished and the popular voting election should be adopted. Two reasons as to why it is better to switch to a popular vote election is because it would make the election process easier and it is what the citizens prefer.
To start with, the election should be decided using popular voting because it would make the election process easier. If one were to read the information of the electoral college he or she would become easily confused. It would make more sense to just switch over to a popular voting rather than stick with the electoral college. Its simple, if a candidate were to recieve more votes than his or her opponent he or she would win the election and become president. Rather than now with the whole "Voters vote not for the president, but for the slate of electors, who in turn elect the president." mess. In the section "What's wrong with the electoral college" the text states that sometimes voters get confused about the electors and end up voting for the wrong candidate. Clearly, it would be a lot easier to rid of the electoral college and instead adopt the idea of using popular voting.
We should adopt the popular voting when electing a president because it is what the citizens of said country prefer. According to source 2: "The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong" over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now. Is this country oblivious to the fact that they are forcing citizens to participate in voting in a way that they do not enjoy? This country is supposed to give the citizens what they want, and are instead doing the opposite. Citizens also would like to have the person who is in command of said country someone they like and or choose, not some other candidate choosen with the least amount of votes. Do what the a majority of the citizens want instead of what the leaders of the country want. Obviously, we should abolish the electoral college and participate in popular voting because it is what the citizens of said country prefer.
In a nutshell, said country should adopt the popular voting method and abolish the electoral college method of voting because it is easier and it is what the citizens of that country prefer. The electoral college confuses citizens and as the result 60 percent of the country would prefer popular voting rather then the disaster they call an electoral college. | 4 |
ba4f724 | The author starts by introducing what she/he is going to talk about. The author gave information about his topic. The author includes soem reasons to why they should visit and explore venus no matter the risk. "Astronomers are fasccinated by venus becasue it amy well once have been the most earth-like planet in our solar system." Her's another reason why the author thinks that venus is worthy even if it is dangerous. "The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mouains, and craters. Furthermore,recall that venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit," The author also talks about why it would be a risk
to send space ship he/she gave an explanation to why it is a risk. In paragraph 2 he/she explains "since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours. Maybe this issue explains why not a single spaceship has touched
down on venus in more than three decades."
The author gave many reasons to why NASA should try to put more effort in trying to visit it. And since he gave some information he/she proved their point. | 1 |
ba59149 | Driverless cars, who would think of such a thing? In the article they give you many pro's and con's on these cars. I think that driverless cars are not safe. I'm against the driverless cars. These cars are not safe and unfair. These cars are unsafe and unfair because they can lose control, if you get in and accident its your fault, and you can bascially fall alseep at the wheel or do other things.
Losing control with these cars can be very dangerous. The car its self has a mind of its own. It's programed to drive without your help. Without your help this car can go off the road for no reason and lose control. Cars now go off the road just by people trying to miss things in the road. I can only image what the car will do by itself. In the article it said that if there happens to be an accident then it will be your fault or the companies. This most of the time means it's your fault.
Getting in an accident in these cars is most likely your fault when it comes down to it. It's mostly likely your fault because you're the one that wasn't paying attention to the road when "driving". Then again it wasn't you that was driving the car it was the car driving itself. The car is your responsibility there for it's your fault. I myself wouldn't want a car that can happen to go off the road and it be my fault not the company. All the contracts you sign for this car, in the fine print it says it's your responsibility.
Lastly you can fall asleep at the wheel. You can do things that distract you from driving or watching the road so, the car doesn't go off the road. This reason ties back to if you were to get in an accident. If you fall asleep at the wheel how are you going to know when it's your turn to drive? How are you going to know what's going on? Yes, the article says that you will be warned when it comes to that stuff but, what if you're not. Not all the time things go as thet're suppose too. I would be very scared to have a car like this. Many people will fall asleep at the wheel waiting on their turn to drive the car.
In conclusion I'm against this car. I dont think they are safe or fair. This car may lose control, get in an accident(and being your fault), and people will fall asleep at the wheel(or do other things). I myself would buy this car. In my opinion I think no one else should buy this car either. | 4 |
ba5ac94 | i think the idea is a good idea , but what if all the cars is gone in someone eles wanted to use the car it's gone be a big arguement or maybe a riot if its more people envolved in the sistuation.
i wouldnt wont that car because in the story it says its a navgation that tells u if theirs a accident etc .. but what if its messed up or doesnt work at the moment what if something happends to car and you dont have a phone or dont no how to use the navgation ?
Like the story says if someone is in a accendent or the technology fails who ault is it the drivers or the manufaturer ? What if something was to happen in it was the manufaturer fault ? what if something happends that the driver did in dont no how to fix the promblem right there or lies abough it ? i think regular cars should just be the opptuion or people should be able to pick on thier on . | 1 |
ba60110 | I know you may think that the face was made by aliens, but it isn't. How I know? Well in the article "Unmasking the Face on Mars" NASA lists a whole bunch of reasons against this alien conspiracy. Number one, it is probably just another Martian mesa, which are common around Cydonia. Number two, it looks like a regular landform due to comparisons to Earths landforms. Lastly, number three, sometimes the face isn't even there due to its missing shadows. Conspirators would probably think that NASA would hide evidence of alien acts but NASA is so confident that this is not aliens that they showed the face to the public. You're probably thinking: Why should I believe you? Do you have evidence? As in fact I do.
Number one, it's probably just another Martian mesa. Scientists have proven that there are a lot of mesa's around Cydonia, a region on Mars where the face is located. "Scientists figured it was just another Martian mesa, common enough around Cydonia, only this one had unusual shadows that made it look like an Egyptian Pharaoh." In this quote from the text it reveals how the face, if it is just a Martian mesa, is actually rather common on Cydonia. In that quote it also reveals that the face only has "unusual shadows" that give the face an effect of looking like an "Egyptian Pharaoh".
Number two, scientists claim it just looks like a regular landform. "What the picture acually shows is the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa--landforms common around the American West. "It reminds me most of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho," says Garvin." In this quote a man named Garvin has compared the face to some landforms on Earth. By comparing the face to a landform, it makes the face acually seem more like its just a regular landform.
Number three, sometimes the face isn't even there. "Thousands of anxious web surfers were waiting when the image first appeared on a JPL web site, revealing ... a natural landform. There was no alien monument after all." Before this quote had even happened a man named Michael Malin and his Mars Orbiter Camera took a picture of the face only to realize it was just a regular landform. When the face was not in the picture that was supposed to be ten times sharper than the original Viking photo's proves that maybe the face is just a landform with unusual shadows for a face afterall.
Conspiracy theories believe that the face was made by aliens, but scientists have proven with research that that the conspiraters theory has a very big lack of credibility. Scientists have proven, number one, it is most likely just a Martian mesa with shadows for a face because Martian mesa's are common on Cydonia. Number two, its most likely just a regular landform due to its comparison's to Earths landforms. Number three, sometimes the face isn't even there because the shadows are gone. All of this resarch by NASA just proves that these conspriacy theories about aliens are wrong. Who do you believe now? NASA's research or a conspirators theory? | 5 |
ba61675 | Every four years, the United States is turned into a political battleground by the campaign for presidency. The electoral College, the voting method used since the nation began, Is being highly questioned on its efficiency now vs the efficiency 250 years ago. However, the system has survived because it works. Despite its flaws, the Electoral College does a good job of simplifying the presidential election and eliminating disputes or a potential crisis. It produces a clear winner, it makes sure that the president is popular in all areas of the country, and it puts the weight of the campaign on the swing states.
In most presidentai races, the president wins only by a small margin. rarely is there a landslide victory or a complete vote for a president. This small majority can lead to many disputes over the credibility of counting the votes in the individual states. This is why the Electoral College helps the voting process. The Electoral College helps the voting process because it produces a more clear winner. For example, in line 21 it claims that "In [2012's] election, for example, Obama recieved 61.7 percent of the electoral vote sompared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and Romney". This shows that while the popluar vote can be extremely tight, the winner gaining sometimes less than 1 percent of the popluar votes, the Electoral College helps the system by giving the winner a landslide advantage and therefore clearing up any claims over the credibility of the popular votes which the loser can produce. Also, the Electoral College helps prevent the situation of no president winning the majority of the votes. the introduction of third parties can sometimes mean that no party gains more than half of the votes. However, the Electoral College helps deal with that situation. In 1968 and 1992, Nixon and Clinton both had less than the majority, but won because they had the Electoral College in their favor. This is why the Electoral College still works today.
There are some areas of the nation that are very highly populated. The southern and western regions of the nation are becoming more and more populated, and the northern regions are diminishing in size. By popular vote, a president who wins the southern regions alone would have a good chance of winning the nation. However, that system does not work under the electoral college vote. The Electoral College is a good system for voting on the president because it requires a president to be popular across the nation. Under the Electoral College, a president can not suffice by winning the votes in a couple of states. They must get points from states across the nation and then will it add up to a victory. This is good because a president with only a regional majority will mainly focus on the region which he is based on. The other regions will be disregarded, and not paid as much attention to. The Electoral College prevents this outcome. This is another reason why the Electoral College is a good method of picking the presidency.
Most states will have a tendency to almost always vote for a patricular party. The real difference in Electoral votes lies mostly in the states who will vote either way, or 'Swing States". The Electoral College is a good thing because it puts the emphasis on the states who will vote either way, ensuring the credibility of the candidate. These swing states know that they are the ones who decide the election. Therefore, it is the voters in these states who pay more attention to the campaign, who research the candidates more, and who listen to what the candidates have to say. This is a bonus for the Electoral College because it means that the candidate who will be elected is the candidate who will do best for the country, not necessarily the most popular. Because of this, the Electoral College should remain the system of voting on the presidency.
There are arguments that the Electoral College should be abolished. That the system of sending electors to congress to vote for them does not work because they can't guarantee that the electors will vote for who they are supposed to do. However, the chances of that happening today and the elector getting away with it are very slim. Today, The people and the government know exactly how much votes each state gave to each candidate, and they know exactly how much electoral votes a candidate should get. So even if you manage to add a vote to your candidate, It's very likely that someone will do the math and figure out that something's not right with the votes.
Like every system, the Electoral College has its flaws. However, the system is the best we can put in place to elect a new president. The system still is used after 250 years because it easily simplifies the disputes that can easily occur over the tight popular vote margins. So the next time you vote for the president, You'll know that you are voting in the most efficient democratic system to date. | 6 |
ba68192 | "The car of tomorow", " The future in automotive is here". We have all heard and or read these these sales slogans before. Wether in medicine,computers, or even cars; the technology of today is shaping tomorow. Of thoes changes the most profund one is the change in cars. So are they worth it?
The use of driverless cars is a wonderful idea. They offer a special saftey that wasn't their before. If you hate driving threw big citys or even at night driverless cars are the way to go. They offer an economic advantage as they " would use half the fuel of todays taxis.", as Google cofounder Sergey Brin states.
As we notice all the good in a driverless car we tend not to notice the bad. the disadvatages to the driverless car are many. Many people see this driverless idea as a good thing but how many of thoes people will be able to afford this new technology? As with all new technology it's going to be expensive to buy, and it could also be expensive to replace and have fixed. Manufacturers will also tend to look more at the profet and diveate from the qualty of their products. This problem can be the bigest that stops the cars from being released. As qualty goes down parts will tend to break. When a part breaks the coustmer will go to have it fixed or replaced, but this can be an issue. Since it is a new technology not alot of people will know how to replace a certian part that is broken. That means that Their will be a backup of cars needing to be fixed.
Another problem is in a driving senerio. What if your driving and another car with a person driving runs the stop light? The driverless car would'nt know to look right of left, it would just drive straight threw the intersection. If that was a human driving they would know to wait a second or to before driving off from the green light. This little detal can hurt or harm alot of people.
A flase advertisement could also harm alot of people after buying a driverless car. As the artical states the human interaction in driverless cars is needed. Some cars even "notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skill". That means that the car isn't allways self driving. As we saw in the case of the lady who put her RV in auto steer, took a nap, then the RV wrecked, false atvertisement is a crutial part of the cars sucess. Many people who buy a driverless car if they can afford one probally think it's all automated and will sleep or play around in the car. They could also not wear seat belts as these cars are advertised as safer than tratitional cars. The artical states that " the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires."
Theirfore after facts and opinions are stated a driverless car isn't worth it. Yes, it is true that it can save the enviroment a little but you have to think whats more inportant your life or the enviroment. As people strech the truth about these cars other people will start to buy them causing allot of suffering on thier part. Never the less people will make their own choices regardless of facts or opinions. | 4 |
ba76cb5 | I do not think that the new software would be of any use. Yes it is a good idea. But in the artical it gives us an example of if a student is confused or if a student looks mad or angry, the new software would explain the steps over until the student understands. The way I see it for example a student is working on a problem and the see something unusal in the problem and makes a confused face for a least a second the prgram would explain it to them. The student knows how to do the problem and knows how to solve it already but the program brought up step to exaplain it anyway. It would be useless the student could have soveld it already and would have been to the next problem but the Facial Action Coding System got in the students way just to show them how to do something they already know.
In the artical it also tells us to look in a minor or at a friend and make a "smiling face". The friend would see that you are happy yes, but we were told to make that face we had no desire to make that face happy or not, we just made the face, it was a forced smile. In the artical also it says that the computer program would be able to tell a force smile from a genuingly happy smile which what I just explaind that a smile is easy to manipulate. The program could be taking in false information and the program itself would not even know it.
In the artical it also exaplains that ads. That if a ad were to pop up and you would smile the prgram would show another ad just like the previous one and visvursa. The real question is have you ever ever seen a ad so many times that you become angry or frustrated and you smile because the "Skip ad" timer is getting closer and closer to zero the "FAC" would miss-understand your face and bring another ad just like that one. With this program I see very many problems that would not be able to be avoided.
"The new emotion-recognition software tracks facial movements!" Oh great but world class actors and actresses and pull the fake emotions off like no other. Some people dont show emotion and sometimes can be happy but no show it. with all these muscles in your face it could also mean that the face tracker would miss lead the face expressions. You as might as well have a dog look at you and be able to tell if your happy or not, becuase they are much better at reading face expressions.
It is a really good idea but it can be easily manipulated and also be in the way of varius things. I think it would be much much easier if you were to raise your hand and ask for help or just click a button that has different emotions that you could choose from to tell how you are feeling. | 4 |
ba7ac6c | There area couple of advantages to limiting car usage. The most common one would be less pollution. In larger cities pollution is a big deal with all the factories around, but some of that pollution can be redused if less car were used for transportation. To help reduse pollution, as stated in source 1 "[S]tores are placed a walk away, on main street, rather than in malls along some distant highway."
One way to enforce limiting car usage is to do like it say in source 2 "after days of near-record pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city." People were did not agree with the concept of not driving for the day in the begining and decided that instead of go along with not driving they would rather pay the fine, "almost 4,000 drivers were fined..., says source 2. The only car that was allowed to drive from Friday to Monday was plug-in cars, hybrids, and cars carrying three or more passengers. source 2 says "the smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for odd-numbered plates on Tuesday."
Another advantage to limiting car usage is that there are less traffic jams. "[M]illions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took the buses to work during a car-free day yesterday, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams," says sorcure 3. Not driving to work and using alternate transportation is "...a good opportunity to take away stree and lower air pollution," says businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza.
In source 4 President Obama said "recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by." most people seem to be understand and realizing the advantanges of limiting car usuage. in some cases you may think car are very important to our lives, which they are but in other cases they are not. Just sit down and think of what life would be like without cars and you will see it would be better. | 3 |
ba867f0 | Is studying Venus worthy despiting the dangerous it presents? Studies are doing whatever it takes to land a spacecraft on Venus despiting the downfall they had for more then 3 decades.I believe that studying Venus can lead us to something more about Venus.Three reason why I believe studying Venus is worthy are it's a planet that we know was once covered with water, we need to learned more about the others planet surrouding our planet, and more knowledge will developed.
First reason studying Venus should continued on is because it was once surrounded by water. Which mean plants could possibly grow in that plant."Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could supported various forms of life, just like Earth. Today, Venus still has some features that are analougous to those on earth." This reasons showes that studies should take they're time and go deep into their studying of Venus and find more reason to see if it's possible for humans to started their life in Venus.
Second reason is we need to learned about the planets that are closer to our planet because dangers can occur to our planet if we don't study about the surrouding of where we are."Venus is sometimes right around the corner-in space terms- humans have sent numerous spacecraft to land on this cloud-draped world."This showes that Venus is very close to Earth and anythig can happened if something was to happened in Venus.
The last reason is more knowledge will developed."Many researchers are working on innovations that would allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowledge." This showes that researchers and coming up with different type of machines to be place on Venus.
In conclusion I believe that studying Venus is worthy of our time because Venus can be the next planet for our next generation to live on. We also need to learned more about the surrounding of where we live on in despite of any dangers thing we don't know where they come from. | 3 |
ba8c337 | The natural face
I think the face is a natural landform. The article states that Scientsists figured it was just another Martian mesa, common enough around Cydonia, but only this one had an unusual shadow that made it look like an Egyptian Pharoh. The scientsts flew to Cydonia for the first to take pictures of the original Viking photos. Thousands were waiting for the image first appeared on a JPL web site. The web site had revealed that the face was not an alien, but it was an natural landform.
Michael Malin and his Orbiter Camera team snapped a picture ten times haper than the original photo. Face was located at 41 degree north matian latitude where it was winter in april, 1998. The camera showed the image and there was no alien monument after all. The picture actually shows the Marian equivalent of a butte landform common around the American West. The scientists tried it again and they just don't pass over the Face very often.
The face is an natural landform like the article said | 2 |
ba91a3f | The Face On Mars is famous, known for the first phtographs of it that came out in 1976. It's a rock formation in the area called Cyndonia. It gets its name from the way it's shaped, and the fact that when light hits it the shadows make it look as though it is a face. Some conspiracy theorists think that the Face is actually an alien artifact, but there's evidence going against these claims.
The Face on Mars isn't really a face, it's a rock formation called a mesa. The Earth has mesas as well, common in places such as the American West.
Mesas are common around the Cydonia area (where the Face is located). Shadows cast on the rock give it the appearance of a face. Though it is simply a natural rock formation on Mars that just so happens to resemble a human face.
Conspiracy theorists will say that aliens on Mars created the Face, and that NASA is hiding the fact that aliens exist. These claims and accusations make no sense though. It would benefit NASA if aliens were on Mars, so there would be no reason to hide it. Back in April of 1998, NASA took another photo of the face. Since the sky was cloudly and hazy, theorists stated that if civilaztion on Mars was there, it couldn't be seen due to the fact of how hazy it was. This was debunked later on in April 8, 2001 when NASA took a better, more clear photo, where if there where any pyramids, shacks, anything hinting at the fact that Mars did indeed have aliens on its surface, you'd be able to see it, and there was nothing there.
The Face on Mars is just a natural formation called a mesa on the surface of Mars. Despite claims that the formation had been created by aliens, those claims are considered false, and cannot be backed by scientific evidence. | 2 |
ba93660 | The use of a new technology called the Facial Action Coding System to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is valuable because the teachers can recoginze what is happening to the students or what they need. it will also be helpful for the students when they don't dare to ask or somthing that they can't explain.
The matchine are exact and they are able to detect exactly how other people are feeling even when they are trying to hide their emotions. This new technology is the latest innovation from Prof. Eckman, creator of FACS has classified six basic emations. They are happiness, surprise, anger, disgust, fear, and sadness. All of the emotions associated each with characteristic movements of the facial muscles.
Movement of one or more muscles is called an "action unit". The software read people's face and tell what is happening to them. Dr. Huang observes that,"The facial expressions for each emotions are universal". For example, our frontalis pars lateralis muscle raises our eyebrows when we are surprised.
Using a classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored. Imagine a computer knows when we are happy or sad. Dr. Huang predicts that it could modify the lesson, like an effective human instructors. sometimes, it is hard for the teachers to guess the students. Human may know 50% of what they need acording to face emtions but the Face Action Coding System might know about 90% of human,s emotions by scanning their faces.
Therefore, the use of the latest software is good to express the emotions of students in a classroom is very valuable because it saves time and also can offer the students what they really want. Whoever thought that making faces could reveal so much about the science of emotions. | 3 |
ba95cd3 | Lukes participation in the Seagoing Cowboys program allowed him to expierence different adventures and visit many unique places.
Also he can take care of hores,young cows,and mules that are shiped over sea and on there way to greece Luke turned 18 which meant he could be drafted for military school.They were on a cattle boat for a trip
By
the time he was discharged in 1947 Luke had made nine trips which was the most of any Seagoing Cowboy Luke had fun when the animals were releasted out of their cage the cowboys also played baseball and volleyball games in the empty holds where animals had been housed
thoses games also helped time go by.
Sea Cowboys were much more than a trip to Luke Bomberger it oped up the world it helped other countries and their needs and to help them survive and to stay healthy
and to have a good life and good choices.
That stayed with Luke Bomberger and it led him to leading a number of internalional students and exchange visitors for many years.
I think that Luke made a good choice to help other people and to take care of animals. | 2 |
ba98667 | A driverless car is a dream that most believe can come within the near future so long as technology continues to advance the way it seems. However, many also know that sometimes, technology can malfunction and cause devastating accidents and injuries to the populous in factories, as well as on the roads in car crashes. Driverless cars can improve the efficiency of roads in that they require less gas to run, but their combined safety hazards still influence state governments to disallow these types of cars. Right now, in present day, driverless cars will not be accepted into development as there are still many things to change and improve on before they can be considered "safe" by the general populous.
Driverless cars provide a safety issue in how they are run, in which they are run through multiple sensors. These sensors are the only judges on what is obstructing the road and what is around that the car cannot crash into. There are sensors all around the exterior of the car, like on the rearview mirror and the roof of the car, for example. The problem with this is that if any one of these sensors were to malfunction, this could lead to catastrophe as the car wouldn't know what was around and what wasn't. This is a main issue with driverless cars that many state governments take into account when restricting the use of these cars.
In many states, it is illegal to test computer-driven cars. Only in a select few states, such as California, Nevada, and Florida, have limited restrictions on the use of semi-autonomous cars. Even then, the states do not fully allow the use of driverless cars, due to the notion that human driven cars are the most safe. This creates a problem in the development of cars, as if the state governments restrict the use of these driverless cars, many will be disheartened to use the semi-automated cars and most likely prohibit their children to drive cars like these too, as these cars still require a driver at hand to maintain focus on the roads, in case there is an unexpected event that occured in traffic.
One thing that most people fear about the driverless cars is that they are semi-automatic. This means that it is not a fully driverless car, but rather a more assisting car on the road. The reason for this is that the sensor cannot track everything, such as if there were an accident on the road, and driver assistance is needed. This means that the driver must stay alert on the road and cannot become distracted or else risk a crash. This becomes dangerous for the distracted driver when a sudden message appears that they must take over. If they are not prepared, it can lead to major injuries and even death. Of course, there are some automated cars that use the feature of sensors on the wheel, so that the driver must have hands on the wheel most of the time.
Now, there is always the arguement that driverless cars are safe because they have so many sensors working for them and that the driver can maintain focus with the combatants that manufacturers place in automated cars such as heads-up displays and cameras to make sure the driver is focused on the road. But the arguement still stands that as of now, it wouldn't be best to develop any automated cars. There are too many risks and hazards that could come into play with the car, as well as the major support of the government against these automated cars. The idea could be sound in the very near future, however in the mean time, a traditional driven car would be best. | 5 |
baa2f42 | I think they should change the electoral college to election by popular vote for the president of the united states. The electoral college consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 votes is required to elect president. Your states entitled allotment of electors equals the # of members in its congressional delegation: one for each member of the House of Representatives plus 2 Senators. Each canidate running for president has his/her own group of electors. They are chosen by the canidate's political party, but state laws vary on how they're selected and what their responsibilities are. The presidential election is held every 4 years. Most states have a "winner-take-all" system that awards all electors to the winning of the presidential canidate. In the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president. The single best argument against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster factor. 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. At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. The electoral is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The arguments in favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality. And the arguments against direct elections are spurious at best. | 1 |
bab0037 | Can aliens really create a face on the moon? No, they cant! I know this because the picture snapped of the face from 1976, was bit blurry, once they got abetter camera the picture became more clear and looked less like a face. Only some of the scientist beleived the face was a 'alien artifact'. There is proof that it is just a landform that looks like a face.
The picture from 1976 was a bad quality picture, it was blurry and you couldnt see much of the real features that were there. Once cameras got better and more HD the pictures got more clear and you could actually see the cracks and the rough parts if the landform. In 2001, the picture was good, it looked less like a face when the cameras got better, but it still had that face effect on it.
Only some of the scientist beleived that the face looking land form was created by aliens, not all. When they snapped the first picture in 1976, some of the scientist noticed the face and the first thing that came to there mind was that aliens did it. They started to go back and capture a picture of the face looking landform. Cyndonia became a priority for NASA when they arrived at the 'Red Planet' in September 1997.
They finnaly figured that it was just a regualr landform that had been created like face, not by aliens but by nature. The picture actually shows is the Martain equivlent of butte or mesa, those are landforms common around the American West. Scientist state that " It reminds me most of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho". Also he says "Thats the lava dome that taks the form of isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars".
The face on mars could have been crated by aliens though. Aliens cpuld have easily managed the curves and the ways the face looks, the nose, eyes, ears, mouth and the way it was even shaped looked like a alien head. It is very possible for it to be alins who have created this face, maybe it was a sign that aliens are here or asign that aliens know about humas.
Most landforms mostly get created about how the surroundings are or whos there. There is stuff called man made and thats made by human, but no ones ever heard of alien made. Since they used the better camera with better pixels and better HD, it turns out that the face looking lanform on Mars was just another weird looking landform, no aliens, just landform. | 4 |
bab2753 | You should join this program because you can see new things. When i was on the ship i saw new cool things. The SS.Charles W. Is a great ship. If you join this program you could see China. If you love animals then you need to join this program. We have to take care of lots of animals.
If you love the water,and if you love the Ocean then you will love this program. we are on the water/Ocean 24/7. In August 1945, we recived orders to go to New Orleans. have you ever wanted to go to Europe? Now you can if you join this once in a lifetime opportunity. Trust me you wont regreat joining the program. I know I didn't regreat it. In the year 1947, i had made nine trips and i don't mean to brag about my self but nine trips is more than any other Sea Cowboy. if you join this program you could beat my nine trips. I was a little smal town boy but when i went on a adventure it was a great unbelievable opportunity. It took about two weeks to cross the Atlantic Ocean. If you ever get board then just play a game like me and my friends did. Man we played all kinds of things. We played baseball,volleyball,table-tennis,fencing,boxing,reading,and whittling.
Being a Seagoing Cowboy is munch more than just adventures. you have to have responable and respectfull. One time i fell and brock my ribs. You have to be carefull. So if your responsable,respectfull,carefull and loves water,animals,and the Ocean then you sound perfect for this program. Remember to stay safe and don't mess around. The SS.Charles. W is not a place to be messing around. | 2 |
bab8e9f | Growing up in the more modern times I see many things that would seem almost impossible to someone not born in this time. Cars are becoming more advanced than ever. Although they have their advantages, the use of cars also has many disadvantages. They polute the air and they can be very dangerous. The pros of cars are by far outweighed by the cons, if you look at them in the long run. Limiting car use could preserve the earth, relieve stress, and reduce the amount of overweight people in America .
Although cars make everyday life easier, lessening the use of them could potentially "save the world." Polution is at an all time high and car emissions are largely to blame. In paragraph five it states that, "Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Euope... and up to 50 percent in some car-intensive areas in the United States." This is saying that the emissions from cars are destroying the earth. Though going to the grocery store that is two miles away may seem easier by just hoping in the car and arriving in less than five minutes, walking or biking would be better for you and the environment. Many cities are even focusing on becoming more "pedestrian friendly" to help boost the enthusiasm of cutting the use of cars. Walking is not the only option either, using hybrid cars, carpooling, or public transportation is also an option. Though still involving the use of cars, emissions would be reduced greatly. Also, emissions can cause sickness. In large cities where cars are depended on there is Smog. Smog is a thick black cloud of pollution that hangs in the air over large ciies. Smog can make you very sick if you injest it. Many people in cities that do have smog have to wear face masks when walking outside. I do not think that face masks are a new trend that everyone would like to start wearing. Lessening the use of cars around us would be a healthy step towards restoring our environment and could start a trend for others to do so aswell.
Another advantage of cutting the use of cars would be less accidents. Thousands of car related accidents happen every minute around the world in automobiles. If everyone started walking, biking, or using pubilc transportation less cars would be on the road leading to less accidents. Families lose loved ones everyday just because the driver of the car isnt paying attention. Drivers have many extra responisbilities when opperating the vehicle. They have to watch everything around them, including being responsible for everyone else in the car. Many people have reported being "less stressed" after they lowered the use of cars. Heidrun Walter said "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way," when talking about moving to a car free community. Thousands are converting to the trend of using the car less and others are cutting the use completely! Following this trend would be a large benefit to yourself and the enviornment around you.
Lastly, America is known for being obese and cars support this idea. Cars make it easy for someone to get places without putting any physical work into it. Cars encourage people to be lazy. Lowering the use of cars and walking more would help reduce the percent of people that are overweight in our country. Instead of wanting to get in the car and drive to do something they could walk and get some excercise or even take a bike if they wanted to get there faster. Walking and biking are low intensity excercises making it easy for everyone to participate. Many overweight people always feel lathargic, getting out and walking or biking would also help them to feel better. Doing this would help our people and environtment become more heatlhy.
Cars are a great invention but it is not necessary for every individual to have one. Walking and biking are better alternatives. The use of cars has gone through the roof creating problems around the world. A healthy environment for our children and grandchildren is what we imagine. One does not think of using a car as damaging to the enviornment until after they have done it. Limiting car usage would turn the world into a healthier, stress reduced place. For these reasons I think it would be of best interest to try and find other alternatives to driving as much. | 5 |
babf897 | Some people think that the face was made by aliens well I'll tell you right here right now that the face you are looking at is not made by aliens but just a natural cause. I will be giving you many reason why this thing on the moon has no sighn or even romotely have anything to do with aliens. One reason that i find this face to be created by nature because even the earth has these kind of landforms just look at some of the mountains just really zoomed out. If there were aliens why wouldn't they made it more defined I mean if i make something i want it to look as real as I can make it and if you look at it closly you can tell that if aliens did make it why did they make it so bad like if it's just nature it looks beautiful but if something such as aliens made this im sorry but they did very poorly because if they can make pyrimids look a pretty as they do then i think they can manage a face or some sort on a place such as the moon. There is also another reason that i say there is no way the aliens made it, how can the pyrimids stay together as well as they did but on the face on the moon fell apart with in that short of time i mean look at it from 1998 to 2001 it looks like it a bomb went off and thats only 3 years what would it look like in 100 or even 20 years. Besides we dont have any hard core evidence that aliens actually exist. When they show me some hard core hands down evidence that i can look at and say "Wow you opened my eyes now I see what you have been talking about." Untill then I will always believe that the face on the moon was just a natural cause and that mother nature made that face. | 2 |
bac389a | I had no idea that becoming a seagoing cowboy would impact my life that much. There are many reasons that seagoing cowboys are amazing. I will be sharing 3 reasons why I think becoming a seagoing cowboy is an amazing opportunity. Maybe you will want to become one to.
One of the reasons I think becoming a seagoing cowboy is a amazing chance is because, there are so many amazing site to see. In paragraph 5 it says "'The cattle-boat trips were an unbelievable opportunity for a small town boy," he says. 'Besides help people I had the benefit of seeing Europe and China. BUt seeking Acropolis in Greece was specail' he says. 'So was taking a gondola ride in my Venice, Italy, a city with streets of water.' Luke also toured an excavated castle in Crete and marveled at the Panama Canal on his way to China." This shows he really did enjoy seeing the sites.
Another reasons why I think you should become a seagoing cowboy is because you are helping people. In paragraph 2 it says "UNRRA hired 'Seagoing Cowboys' to take care of horses, young cows, and mules that were shipped overseas." This program helped people that are depending on livestock get what they need over seas.
My last reason why I think you should become a "Seagoing Cowboy" is that we have a lot of fun on board. In paragraph 8 it says "Luke also found time to have fun on board, especially on return trips after the animals had been unloaded. The cowboys played baseball and volleyball games in the empty holds where animals had been housed. Table-tennis tournaments, fencing, boxing, reading, whittling, and games also helped to pass the time." It is very enjoy able to play with friends on the way back.
There are many reasons why being a "Seagoing Cowboy" is fun. There are many sites to see and they are all so beautiful, You are help people that depend on livestock, and it is very fun on board playing baseball and volleyball. I think being a "Seagoing Cowboy" is a opportunity that you should take if you get the chance ever in your life time. | 3 |
bac3c69 | Cars use a lot of gas and make the world polluted. There are communities that have given up their cars and are sticking to walking and riding bikes. There is a town in Germany called Vauban that make you pay $40,000 with your house if you want to have a parking space. Also in this town there are only two places to park and this means that 70% of the population there down own cars and 57% sold their cars to live there. People in this town say that living there with no cars relieves stress.
In the city of Paris after days of pollution they made a ban on driving to fix the smog.
On mondays motorist that had even number license plates were told not to drive or face a $31 dollar fine. On the next day odd number license plate couldnt drive. 4,000 people were fined and 27 had their cars impounded do to their reaction to the fine. Their were a couple exceptions like plug-in cars, hybrids, also cars carrying more then three people but they make plubic transit free from Monday to Friday.
These acts are happening in countries like Colombia. In Bogota, Colombia they celebrate their third year where cars have been banned with the onmly motor transportation being buses and taxis. They call this day "The day without cars" in the capital city which has about 7million poeple. They are doing this to pormote other mean of transportation and violators adn fined $25. A lot of people like to participate in this because it lowers air pollution and stress. Because of this day this city has made 118 miles of bike paths.
In America scientist have found that people 16- to -39 years old are not etting their license. With this drop scientist think that pollution will go down in America. In 2005 the number of miles was at its peak and dropped steadily after that. In April of 2013 the number of miles driven per person was 9% below the peak and is even with the the amount in 1995. All of these are ways to cut down on not only pollution but also stress. | 1 |
bacae94 | Google has had cars that could drive independently since 2009 under certain conditions . Driverless cars would have a huge impact in our world today with both a positive and negative affect. Google cofounder Serger Brin belives that the future of driveless cars a form a future of public taxi system. This would have a postiive affect because the cars would half of the fuel of todays taxi and would more flexible than a bus. Driverless cars are coming soon and has been used before, these will soon be able to help us and change the world, they will soon change the way we look at cars today.
Google cars have been known to drive more than half a million miles without a crash . This showes that they are safe but arent completly driveless. The use of driverless cars beneifits use because they arent driverless in certain conditions. These are arent driverless and require the use of the driver conditions like pulling in and out of driveways, getting through complicted traffic issue, and getting through road work. This will have a negative affect because they should be able to work under all condition of driving. Driverless cars can have negative aspect and positve aspect on the driving laws . In a negative way these cars cant function in certain areas and this can disrupt driving , it is also illgeal to even test computer driven cars in most states, and in a postive way these are allowed to be tested in most states and upgraded to the point of the driver can receive alters to notify them on things.
In 2016 Telsa has projected the use of a computer driven car, with 90 percent of autopilet driving system an used most of the time. otyher cars like Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan have pakned to relase the version of a computer driven car in 2020. These cars a ere soon to realese and they will help with many driving difficulties that we encounter today. This will have a positive outcome in our world. | 3 |
bacd8f3 | In this article "Making Mona Lisa Smile" is about how the author describes new technology called the Facial Action Coding System which identifys the human emotions. This technology shouldn't read the students' facial expression. It shouln't read a students facial expressions because first off there's no reason to do it at a school especially. Second of all there's more other emotions than happiness, surprised, anger, disgust, fear, and sadness to tell of your face or mood. And the last reason is there's other new technology that can copy the 3-D face plus it could be dangerous.
First off, there's no reason to do it in a school. Mainly because at a school you learn about different subjects like math, english, science, etc. I do not think this is some "lab experiment" either. Although the computer constructs a 3-D model of the face, and has all the 44 major muscles in the model to move like the human muscles. Do we really need all that just to tell what your facial expression is saying.
Second of all there's other emotions than happiness,surprised, anger, fear, and sadness. Also there is lots of names on your face of what shows the emotion you are in. Orbicularis oris tightens your lip which shows anger, the zygomatic major lifts up the corner of your mouths,oculi pars palpabraeus make the crow feet, the zygomatic major is having your mouth stretched sideways while the risorius is a different muscle. According to the article you have to make those "fake smile" that has all those to test your facial expression.
The last reason is because there's new studies that basically copies your facial expression or movents to a thing on the IPhone X called the Animoji. Animoji is basically an emoji coming to life and it can talk, copy your facial expression , and if you move your head around it'll move it's head around. Plus it's also a 3-D model as well. If the Animoji see's that your eyebrows are up or down, the corner of your mouth is lifted, or that your eyes are squinted it will copy every movement. Its dangerous beacuse apparently once it captures your face, basically the government or polices will know where to find you or how you look like all because of that.
Those are my reasons why this technology should not be used on students is because first off there is no reason to do it at a school, second of all there's other facial expressions other than happiness, surprise, anger, disgust, fear, and sadness and my last reason is because there's new studies and it could be dangerous fo student. | 4 |
bad6c34 | The face is just a natural landform and not evidence of an alien attack. There are many reasons why this landform is only natural and not any type of alien proof. One of those is that if NASA found a secret alien civiilization they would tell us because it would help increase their budget. Another reason that it's just a natural landform is because it is just like some other natural landforms on Earth and other mesa's on Mars. The last reason that I will be talking about in this essay is that NASA is scietifically trained and would know if it was proof of alien's existence but the conspiracy theorists aren't scientifically trained and would be less likely to know exactly what it is.
The first reason that it's just a natural landform is that NASA would tell us if it was proof of an alien attack. It states in the text that "defenders of the NASA budget wish there was an ancient civilization on Mars" which shows how it would help increase their budget. Since the Face is so popular and has even become a pop icon if NASA were to find out it was proof of an alien attack they would most likely tell us because since it is so popular it would give them a significant increase to their budget. That is just one of the three reasons that I will b talking about in this essay.
The second reason that the Face is just a natural landform is because it is just like other landforms on Earth and around that area on mars. In the article it says "What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a buttle or mesa--landforms common around the American West". That passage from the article shows that there are landforms on Earth that look similar to that one on Mars so it couldn't be proof of an alien attack. The article also says "scientists figured it was just another Martian mesa, common enough around Cydonia, only this one had unusual shadows that made it look like an egyptian pharaoh". That shows that other landforms that resemble the Face on that part of Mars isn't uncommon. The only thing that made the Face stand out from other landforms was the shadows which made it appear to have a face that looked like an egyptian pharoah.
The third and final reason that I will be talking about in this essay is that the scientists would know better than any of the conspiracy theorists would so we should believe them. NASA has no reason to hide the Face from us because even if it was an alien attack, as I stated in paragraph two, it would help increase their budget. Other conspiracy theorists believe NASA is just trying to hide the proof of an alien attack but if that was what they were doing, they wouldn't have released a picture of the Face at all. Also when NASA realeased a new high resolution image in 2001 and a 3D altimetry of the Face, the landform no longer reseambled a face, which is proof that it is just a mesa.
Those 3 reasons are the reasons you should believe scientists and not think it is an alien landform. NASA has nothing to hide since it would increase their budget. They also are more trained in knowing what landforms on mars are than any conpiracy theorists are. The other reason is because there are many other landforms on Earth that resemble faces which could be compared to the Face. Those 3 reasons are why we should all stop trying to make conspiracy theories and just believe what NASA is trying to tell us, that it's just a mesa. | 5 |
badadc1 | Driverless cars may be coming in our future, but they most likely will not be commonly used. Driving a car run by a computer allows a number of problems to occur. Since 2009, driverless cars have been around. These cars are only considered driverless under certain conditions though. If the car is not reliable in all traffic conditions, people should not rely on them to get them where they need to go safely.
Society today relies on technology and computers for almost everything from talking to friends to sending military signals hundreds of miles. At times, even the most advanced technology glitches. Driving a car that is controlled by technology would pose the same problems. Would the car still drive if it started raining? What would happen if the rotating sensor on the roof glithched? A driver, assuming the car is driving, may not be attentive and see the signal given by the car for the human to take over. The car could crash causing even bigger problems than just faulty technology.
Crashes occur even when human drivers are in control of the car. It is inevitable that crashes are likely to happen in the autonomous cars as well. Paragraph 9 states that, "in most states it is illegal to even test computer-driven cars." If these driverless cars are better than having a human behind the wheel, most states would allow them to be tested. Even if they were tested and allowed to be driven new laws would have to be put into place. In the case of an accident, would drivers or manufacturers be at fault for the accident? Drivers might claim that they did not see the signs that the car gave them signifying that the human was supposed to take over. Manufacturers would argue saying that the driver was unattentive to their surroundings.
Drivers who rely on computer driven cars may loose the skills needed to drive a car over time. If they do not drive in favorable conditions, because the car is driving, how will the manufacturers expect them to be able to drive in hazardous conditions. Practice makes perfect; without practice, a driver will not be close to perfect. Switching to cars being driven by humans in times of unstable conditons could potentially cause more accidents.
Driverless cars might sound like a fantastic idea. When the different risks are taken into consideration, a human life should be more important than not having to drive. The reliability of the autonomous cars is not strong enough at this time to be considered safe. Humans should keep driving cars and computers should stick to sending text messages. | 4 |
badc888 | In 1976 NASA's Viking 1 spacecraft was circling Mars taken photos, when it took a photo that favored a human head. Scientist said it was common on Cydonia where the photo was first taken. They also said it isn't easy to see Cydonia, also that when the picture was taken a second time it was winter and cloudy. When the picture was taken a third time it was clear and you could tell it wasn't a face.
When the picture was first taken in 1976 scientist said that it was just another Martian mesa, which was common enough around Cydonia. This one just had unusual shadows that made it look like an Egyptian Pharaoh. Scientist took another picture in 1998 but when that picture was taken it was winter time, so it was fairly cloudy in the sky, so you couldn't see it clearly.
Scientist said "it wasnt easy to target Cydonia in fact it is hard work." They said that they just don't pass over the face that often. On April 8,2001 a cloudless summer day another picture was taken. Unlike all the other pictures in this one it had the best camera and was zoomed in all the way. When the picture was taken that day you could tell that in fact it wasn't a face.
The picture that was taken in 1976 was a very serious thing and was looked at for many of years. People thought it was a face made by aliens to show life on Mars but as the pictures were taken you could tell that it wasn't. When the picture was first taken you could tell it wasn't, scientist said that was common for where it was. Also scientist said it wasn't easy to see Cydonia where the picture was taken. So now pople know from all the evidence that it isn't a face . | 3 |
bae2934 | Have you ever wanted to know about the planet Venus? Some of you wouldnt want to study or pay attention to the planets in space. Some of you would like to pay attention to the streets or what not. It does not matter if you dont like space or planets but if you thinking about it, then now is the time to learn about the planet Venus. In the excerpt, the author explains that Venus is sometimes called the ¨Evening Star.¨ This something that you will be shocked about because I wouldve never known. He also explains that studying Venus is worthy pursuit despite the dangers. He explains the idea very well because want to welcome many people to study the world to see whats its like to know when something is gonna happen or how its gonna happen.
Sometimes studying things can be real helpful because you can learn so many things about it. The article states, ¨These differences in the speed mean that sometimes we are closer to Mars and other times we are closer to
Venus.¨ This indicate that anything could happen if we touch one of those planets. He addresses the speed in the planets when it orbits the sun. Anything can go wrong if its always going like that. Its like having something spinning around everyday. Eventually, something is gonna go wrong and its gonna mess everything up. On the other hand, People who study space would know the answer to what will happen if they was to touch. The author basically wants others to care about the world. He wants others to see both parts of the world. It doesnt matter if something is bad you should still have respect and love in it because its here for a reason. He 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 means that if we are traveling and something goes wrong we shouldnt have to stop traveling because of the dangers. We should be able to still travel to avoid giving people so much worries. Traveling should be expanded to reach like different destinations so people can see whats its like to care for the world and whats its like to not csre care for the world.
In conclusion, studying the world can be a big part of helping the world understand the parts of whats going on around. What the aurthor does is he explains his thoughts on Venus and give real facts after to show that he understands some parts of Venus. Despite the fact that he is caring about the dangers that can be caused around us; he wants to take a look at both sides. Thats how he supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despte the dangers so well. | 2 |
bae29d5 | Chaos on Venus? Venus is one the hottest planets in our solar system and the most dangerous planet to explore. The author beleives that trying to explore Venus isn't worth it despite all the dangers in presents. Venus isn't safe for humans to explore. Our mechines wouldn't be much help to explore Venus. Even if we get humans close to Venus, they would still to get close enough to take simples.
Venus isn't safe for humans. Venus is to hot for humans to vist and is constantly expericencing natural dangers. In paragraph 3 it states that," Beyond high pressure and heat, Venusian geology and weather present additional impediments like eruping volcanoes, powerful earth quakes, and frequent lightning strkes to probes seeking on its surface." This shows that Venus is safe for humans.
Our mechines wouldn't be much help againist the dangers of Venus. Because of the atmosphere pressure, most thing would just get destroyed or crushed. In the paragraph 3 it states that,"the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet .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." The proves that our mechines wouldn't be much help.
Even if we can get humans to Venus safey, they would still have to get close to surface to takes samples and there are risk to getting closer to surface. In paragraph 6 it states that," 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 form of light cannot penetrate the dense atmosphere, rendering standard froms of photography and videography ineffective. more importantly, researchers cannot take samples of rocks, gas, or anything else, from a distance. Therefore, scientists seeking to conduct a through miss to understand Venus would need to get up close and personal despite the risk." These are all good example as to why visting Venus would be worthless and how humans would have to get close enough to Venus to take some type of sample.
In conclusion, visting isn't safe for humans. Mechines would be much help exploring Venus. Even if humans got to Venus it wouldn't make a difference to the risk and dangers of being on Venus. There for studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. | 4 |
baed3dd | Face on Mars? Aliens? What? Some conspiracy theorists believe that a face found on Mars from a photo taken by Viking 1 - a Mars Global surveyor -
was created by aliens who lived on the planet over 300 billion years ago. NASA released information and a picture about the 'Face on Mars,' to the media, with the caption, "huge rock formation...which resembles a human head." The face believed to be found on Mars is nothing less then a rock formation, and was not created by aliens.
Mission controller Garvin says, "It's not easy to target Cydonia." He also noted that his crew does not pass over the Face very often. This rock formation is nothing more then a piece of the planet that has been wore down by the clouds on Mars. Research shows evidence that this formation has been on Mars for billions of years. Over time the wind and atmosphere has shaped the rock into the form of what looks to be a Face.
NASA leaked evidence about the Face on Mars when they unveiled the image for the public and media to see, stating clearly that the Face was formed by, "shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose, and mouth."
Thousands of anxious web surfers were waiting to see the image on a JPL website, the text in fact quoted, "It was a natural landform. There was no alien monument after all."
The people that do believe that there was alien life on Mars, think that the aliens markings were hidden by haze, and believe the Face is "bona fide" evidence of life on Mars. Contarary to what skeptics and other theorists think, there is no actual piece of true evidence discovered by NASA to prove otherwise.
Garvin and his team said, "As a rule of thumb, you can discern things in a digital image three times bigger than the pixel size, so if there were objects in the picture like airplanes on the ground of Egyptian-style pyarmids or even small shacks, you could see what they were!" So this actual NASA evidence that the mysterious "Face" found on Mars was nothing but a simple landform.
The NASA Space Program has been around for decades. NASA has not yet found evidence to consider the Face on Mars was alien artifacts. Even with NASA's best cameras, there just isn't a theoretical proven fact that this could have become an artifact from ancient aliens. The Face on Mars, is not a face, but simply a landform, that was formed over billions of years ago. | 4 |
baede82 | By learning more about Venus we learn what are the mistakes that we are making. The idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers. Because every single time we learn new stuff about Venus, how we can despite the danger of Venus to d not happen again. We have learn that Venus ground is really hot. but
however, peering at Venus from ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited insight on the ground conditions because most forms of light cannot penetrate dense, studying Venus is a great idea because we are discovering new ideas. scientists seeking to conduct a thorough misson to understand Venus would need to get up close and personal despite the risks or maybe we should think of them as challagnes. And it makes scientits to think more, get new ideas many researchers are working on innovations that allow our machines to las long enough. NASA is working on other approaches to studying Venus. for example, some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simulating the chaos of the Venus surface.
Another project is look back to an old technology called mechanical computers, These devices were first envisioned in the 1800. These devices make calculation by using gears and levers and do not require electronics at all. To study Venus we could make new aireplanes for not touching the ground of Venus. By comparsion systems that use mechanical parts can be made more resistan to pressure, heat, and other forces. | 2 |
baeebc5 | Do you remember when you went on a long trip from Indiana to Texas and it took 24 hours or more of constant driving? Or the time that your dad was falling asleep on the road on the way home? Or even heard of that guy that got in a car crash while he was intoxicated? What if there was a car that didnt need you to drive but drove you from Point A to Point B? Well, Google is coming up witha driveless car. Driveless cars would a big change and benefit because it would reduce accidents, give more freedom for drivers, and there would be a less need to buy cars.
Many people have been in many car accident due to intoxication, sleepiness, and texting and driving at the same time. People lose focus of the road when they are distracted of different things around them also. Google has been creating and programming cars so theycan drive accident free and so cars become more efficient. Driveless cars have many sensors to help with conditions of the road and work zones. If Google was to develope a perfect driveless car we would have nothing to worry about.
Also it would allow the drivers to have more freedom to talk to their family and friends without keeping their eyes off the road. Google has created driverless cars but are not technically driver free. Google's driverless cars are not entirely driverless. The cars need the driver for pulling in, pulling out, traffic jams and work zones. If any of these things were to happen the driver would need to take
control of the car so they wouln't crash. In the 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could save energy and gas.
With the supply of driverless cars, the less they would need to buy a car because there would many taxi driverless cars that will drive people to their destinations . Many people have different opinions about driverless cars . Although Google says they try to make your car safe as possible for you and your loved ones. Driverless cars are coming and will make a huge impact on everyday life. | 3 |
baf354c | Driverless cars would not be a good envision for the future. Disposing of normal cars to create autonomous cars would be putting our faith in technology with no human control. Driverless cars promote unfocused and unaware driving. Also, they effect the economy by putting the country in more debt and causing conflict between people.
There are not any guarantees for the safety of humans for all ages, even animals, if laws are made. How do you put a law on technology? The technology is programmed to do what it is told, but that can easily go badly. We have all seen the movies where humans build robots and the robots end up having a mind of its own. Is that not a possibility for these "driverless cars"? This leads to driverless cars putting a negative impact on the economy. They will provide more cons than pros by adding un-needed debt.Think about the cost to have them all over the country when there are already regular cars. Sergey Brin "forsees" that the driverless cars would use half the fuel of today's taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus. What proof, facts, data, and studies are there that can ensure this happens? "Driverless" cars are not that "driverless" if they still need a human in the drivers seat for emergencies. Sensors, monitors, and vibrating seats are not the solution to ensure this country's safety.
In conclusion, "driverless" cars are not a good envision for the future for many reasons. The article states that "even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault ----the driver or the manufacturer?" Efficiency and half the use of fuel does not solve all of the problems ahead. Work and research based on assumptions are simply not enough. | 3 |
baf92ad | New technology called the Facial Action Coding System allows the computer to identify humans emotions. They say the process starts with a 3D
computer model of the face that has all 44 major muscles that they believe will move like human muscles. While Including the six basic emotions happiness, surprise,anger,disgust,fear,and sadness to then try and associate each of these characteristic movements of facial muscles to help read a human emotions. This technology has no true value there is many reasons i say this because how can computer truly read humans emotions or mix emotions with knowing its actually how they feel is real or right? Humans emotions can be made to seem one way but not be right at all just because a person is smiling doesn't make them happy or mean they are they could deep down be mad. Trying say this technology is able to read human emotions Can not be true one the tested subjects was a painting project that's not alive. How can we believe this techonogly truly works when there is no live test subject of a random person. Basic facial expressions can not truly tell you if someone is happy, or sad, computer technology can not understand persons emotions we are living beings not picture human being made by artist. Just because the way are face or mouth muscles move does not say anything about humans emotions in that moment. Conclusion the Facial Action Coding System technology has no it dose not have the able to read humans emotion facial expressions can be different from ones emotions , and how they feel. How can computer understand us better we humans know ourselfs it's not possible the human facial expressions can not define are mindset ,and the way a person actually feels human emotions are a unqiue thing. Every human is different the way
I smile vs another person can mean two emotions or mix emotions behind my smile and the person who is smiling opposite of me. Basically if there is research in the world saying that every human that smiles really means their happy without any mix emotion ,and can show proof that makes you feel happy. Then i would feel this technology maybe had chance of actually being real deal in terms of reading a humans emotions but we as humans continue to develope ,and are getting smarter by the the generation there is multiple ways to try determining how human feels. Facial expressions and eyebrows moving is just one of many. We humans also have ability to decieve anything especially technology we ourselves created we know hte flaws in our own inventions. | 3 |
bafc4a6 | Facial Action Coding System can be extremely useful in todays time. Being able to tell a childs emotions can be very useful and affective. Children do not always explain their emotions through words or body language. Sometimes you cant even tell how a child is feeling at all.
Studys shows that children of all ages learn better when they enjoy learning. Some students might be depressed or simply sad because they do not understand the material or just need help all around. The ability to being able to know a childs emotions through face expressions can slso benefit in faster aid to helping the child. It can serve as a way to get faster help to children who most need it.
This system can also benefit in different types of ways. What if students are having trouble at home? What if students are not getting the proper care at home? Sometimes there is no way at all to tell if these are true. Thats when this system comes in handy. Some students can appear sad or depressed just due to the fact that they are tired. This system can seperate the ones that need help and the ones that are mislead and could be a false alarm.
Facial Action Coding System can be extremely useful in todays time. A system telling when a child needs help can lead to a healthy and succesful solution. Systems like these can help shape the future of education. Birthing a whole new era of class participation and preperation. | 3 |
bb05c80 | you should join the Seagoing Cowboys program because you do not know how your life going to be and it is a huge and amazing opportunity.
You will be helping others who been affected by World War ll. You will be able to travel places you never been like China or the Pacific Ocean. You can get a chance to go to Greece and see wat it is like out there and get a chance to get out of the USA.
You should join the Seagoing Cowboys program and help the poor and homeless people get in the UNRRA so they will not be hungry and live a better life. You casn help all the people. in Europe and give them food and stuff so they do not starve to death and try to get them a home and thery will not be left out and hungry.
If you join the Seagoing Cowboys Program you can see the horses and feed them and stuff. Some people love animals so they can help out with the horese and other animals. You will have the Nightwatch and go and see iuf all the cows and horses are on the ship. But when it is raining and nyou on nightwatchb you will have to be careful because you can slip and break your bone or crack them and even worse you caN slip off the deck and be in the ocean or where you go but if you slip off there are some strong currents that can pull you down and you can drown or they can pull you away from the ship and take you to a island | 3 |
bb09a77 | Do you like the ocean and sight seeing ? If you do then the Seagoing Cowboys program is right for you ! In this program you can go on adventures and go to many cool places . This program will change your life forever . You don't get to go to places like Europe every day . This is a once in a life time chance .
In this program you will get to help people in need and help take care of animals that are shipped overseas . You can also go to places like Greece and see the Acropolis . You may also get the chance to go to China . During your trips you can go sight seeing if you have time . Some times when your done with you work you get to play baseball and vollyball .
Remember that this is a chance of a life time . You get to go sight seeing and play games . You also get to save animals and help people in need . Most impartantly you get to have fun doing what you love . Please , join the Seagoing Cowboys club . | 2 |
bb0c484 | Vroom, vroom goes the 1998 Chevy Impala next to you at the stop light. Driving has become apart of culture that is standard to the developed world. But the culture is slowly changing because the driving epidemic is becoming limited. Cars can be very expensive, harmful to the environment, and troublesome. Limiting car usage can help the environment, help finances, and reduce stress.
Cars are defined as metal cases with lether seats powered by gas or diseal. Gas and disel are fuels that are harmful to the Earth and can cause harmful emission and greenhouse gases. These gasses can cause smog, or smoke and fog mixed together creating a grey cloud of unbreathable dense air. Smog is very harmful for the environment and can heat the Earth which is not the ideal for the human body. In France, smog, caused by car emissions became unbearable, thus causing the entire city of Paris to ban cars for five days. According to Robert Duffer, "Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after five days of intensifying smog" (Paris Bans Driving due to Smog Paragraph 14). Therefore cars and its horrible blow can cause a blanket of harmful reactant. Cars can also cause greenhouse gases which is when the heat of the day and the cool of the night trap in the harmful emissions of a car. These greenhouse gases can also heat the Earth and can harm humans. Elisabeth Rosenthal states, "Passenger cars are responible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Euorpe...and up to 50 percent in some car-intensive areas in the United States" (Car-Free Cities Paragraph 5). In effort to save the Earth and the human race many cities and communties have adotped car-banning, reducing the amount of population caused buy cars.
A 2014 Lincoln MKX runs about $45,000, which is the equvialent to the salary of a high school teacher annually. Cars can be very expensive to buy, maintain, and to fuel. The price of oil is about $2.45 today. But over the past few years gas prices have fulcutated up to almost $4.00 a gallon. The average driver might buy gas every two weeks at 20 gallons, that equals $116 a month for gas. The money used to fuel the car has turned into a gas bill, not to mention the sparatic mishaps that can happen while on the road. Cars today have become an invesment instead of a luxury. Although, "transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions," does not mean it should remain. The advance in technology and resources has allowed people to reduce the use of cars, and ultimately save themselves money. For example, many people have co-workers that live near one another. Thus, both persons can carpool on alternate days. Mimi Sheller suggests, "the Internet makes telecommunting possible and allows people to feel more connected without driving to meet friends (End of Car Culture Paragraph 35). It is much easier and cheaper to carpool, take the bus, or take the subway. Limiting car usage would save money because more young people are "interested[in driving], but it's not a prority." Therefore, parents do not have to spend $30,000 on a new car for their 16 year old. "A study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009," which is putting money back into the pockets of parents and public transportation companies (The End of Car Culture Paragraph 39).
Road rage is the disease the that overtakes a person when another person is driving idiotically. Road rage is sitting at a green light at a complete stop because the person in front of you is too busy texting their BFF. Road rage is caused by driving. Driving can cause stress because cars are out of your control, traffic is out of your control, and time is out your control. When things are out of control, human nature is to panic. Driving is not the time nor the place to panic. Limiting car usage can reduce the effects of this stress caused by driving because there would be less people on the road, less traffic, and less crashes. Heidrun Walter says, "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way" (Car Free Cities Paragraph 3). Less cars means less drivers which then means a safer environment for pedestrians. Less cars means less traffic which means no more road rage. Less cars means less cars because there are less reckless drivers grazing the road. Limiting car usage can also make people come closer together because it forces them to interact in order to get around. For instance, instead of hopping into you 2013 Camry you call an old friend who happens to work on a different floor of your office building. This interaction can spark a new realtionship and brightens your day. Cars and driving causes stress because it is out of control, but if cars are limited then the stressed caused by driving will be reduced.
Road rage, smog, and tickets, driving is the mush pot of the many problems of this world. Limiting car usage can save the planet, save money, and save you blood from boiling. The priviledge of driving has been taken advantage of and has caused the world to decay at its own expense. The human race has the ability remit from the tragdey of cars one city at a time. | 5 |
bb0ee48 | In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus," the author suggests that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. The author saying that many people are very interested in discovering Venus because it's very similar to Earth. But this planet is also a challenging place to examine closely. With thick atmosphere, high temperatures, and the atmospheric pressure is greater than Earth, no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours. That making it difficult for humans to discover it.
The author supports the idea of how studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers is pretty well. Because he had good evidences and details answering the questions. The text 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 curiousity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating 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." This shows how well the author supported the ideas about studying Venus.
Venus is a dangerous place for humans to visit and examine. But it's worth once you tried it. Many people are interested in Venus and wanted to study more about it in the future. The author did a good passage to supported his ideas about Venus. With many helpful evidences and details. | 3 |
bb0f3b1 | Technology that can be used to tell how we are feeling has many uses. Using technology like this would have plenty of benefeits, but there is a good argument to be made against it. The benefeits of emotion recognition technology in th eclass room do not outweigh the cost of it.
Technology that can recognize emotions in a class room could be used to help students who are bored or confused. The ability to tell when someone is bored or lost is a very valuable tool for a teacher. This would change everything about how we learn. That is the problem. We could change a system that has put people on the moon.
The school system we have right now works to educate people very well. Changing our system in such an extreme manor would have equally extreme consequences. We may fail to educate the generation this is tried on, or we may fail to make people as strong as they are now.
Another problem is privacy. This technology would take away any hope of hiding ones feelings. If I am angry at a classmate and this technology tells the teacher, then everyone could be forced into a situation no one wants to be in. We have the freedom of speech and the right to remain silent. This technology would force us to share more than we might want. This could destroy relationships within schools hamper eduaction.
Another factor that must be considered is cost. How much would it be for one student to have one? Howmuch for all the students? Many schools struggle to provide learning materials and having risky technology that costs so much could limit a tight budget even more.
Technology that can read emotions is valuable and has many uses. In a school, the benefiets do not outweigh the costs. Privacy and risk in using new techniques amongst with the amount of money needed to buy the technology far outweight the possibility that it could slightly improve a working system. In conclusion, this technology should not be brought into schools. | 4 |
bb1372d | Driverless Cars Are Coming? Maybe so driverless cars may sound like an awesome concept, but this can cuase issues in the long run. for example a driver needs to be aware and has to keep his/her eyes on the road ahead.
My position on driverless cars my sound interging at first. I feel like the developement can turn out to be the best invention in the history of car manufactures. WIth driverless cars we will not have to worry about so many crashes as we have been having ln the last couple of years. The concept is already invented we just have to make sure it stayes safe and meets all the standereds. Driverless cars can casue a big chaos for some states many arguements will break loose. Sure we will hvae to keep the passenger aware of his/her surroundings at all times by keeping thier hands on the wheel at all times. As stated in paragraph 7. With the technology advancing we coulf have driverless cars on the road by the year 2020. Google has been working on the google car since 2009 it has been 7 years the car has drivin millions of miles without a crash as stated in paragraph 2. That is saying something big. Cars are now becoming more smarter then ever with technology added into them we can now have a car drive by itself up to 25 miles as staetd in paragraph 7 with BMW's Traffic Jam Assistance. Already car manufacturers are having thoughts about haveing cars drive themselfs by the year 2020 with Tesla projeccted to release a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time as stated in paragraph 10.
Lawmakers are not to happy with the idea of putting driverless cars on the streets. I understand they are trying to keep pedestrians safe also the passengers. If and injury happens who will take the blame the passener or the manufacturer? I strongly feel if the driver is in the drivers seat and has his/her hands on the wheel then the driver will be taken the blam they also have to be aware at all times.
Driverless cars are not so far from becoming a reality we are not so far from seeing driverless cars on the streets or on our own drveway. With technology we can make the roads a safer place with less injuries and less deathes would you not agree? | 3 |
bb15869 | The Challenge of Exploring Venus
The author suggest that expolring Venus can be striving despite the challenges.The numeros of challenges presented by Venus are worthy. Eventhough studying Venus consists of many dangers it is closest to Earth, can be a planetary visit, and leads into human curiosity.
To begin with, Venus is a planet, meaning their could be life on Venus. In our solar system, Venus is the second planet. It has proved to be a challenging place to examine closely. Venus is the closest planet to Earth. It is another planetary neighbor orbit. Which means we are closer to Mars and other times to Venus. Humans have sent numerous spacecraft on to this world since, it is sometimes right around the corner.
Venus has a number of challenging reputations for human to study. People ask their self "If the planet is so inhospitable, why are scientist discussing further visit?" The answer is Venus has once been the most Earth- like planet in our solar system. Long ago Venus may have been covered with oceans, and could have covered various forms of life just like Earth today. Venus still today has some features just like Earth. It has features such as valleys, mountains, and craters. This is why Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit.
Finally, Human curiosity will likely lead us into equally intimidating endeavors. NASA has one compelling idea on sending humand to study Venus. This can be a option of making such a mission both safe and scientifically productive. Striving to meet the challenge has value because insight will be gained. Humans on earth are expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation. Human have curiosity on seeing what life on Venus consist of.
In conclusion, Studying Venus has many values despite of all the challenges. It is worth striving for due to human curiosity, the planetary visit, and how close it is and can be conisderd life on Earth. | 2 |
bb18184 | How well does the author supports his details. The gives reason abotu venus that make it sound intresting to reserch and find information about. As the Author sayed Venus used to be mabye just like earth that had oceans and etc.
what the author is stateing. The author is stating that even thought thier is some dangers on Venus onday might have to leave earth and have to move to a driffrent planet. Venus is the only one that is most likey like earth and used to have oceans and rivers and mabye even used to have living creatures. The earth won't always be thier one we will have to leave earth one day which is like not intill a billion years.
Resonsings about Venus that make you carious about or want to do some reserch on it. Venus is the brightest light in the night sky and it is a evening star. Venus looks just like the other stars up in the sky only ecept venus is the brightest. Venus is the one closet to earth and is more like a twin to earth. Venus could have had living orgnasim living in Venus.
NASA has tryed many times to land on Venus. NASA has tryed to land on Venus but have never been able to get it to land on Venus without seomthing gouing wrong with it. NASA and scientist have work on trying to land on venus and to see what on it so many times bu really haven't been abel to accoplish it.
NASA won't give ethier way intill they make it to a diffrent planet. The author is saying to just imagine what it would be like to be abel to land on a driffrent planet and see what is on it and what you can find. Mabye someday that will happen and we can see if thier were living things that survived on the planet. | 2 |
bb1ec86 | I have some very good reasons for why I think that you should join the Seagoing Cowboys program. There are going to be some reasons why I think you should join the program. There will also be reasons why I took the job.
What you need to know about how to be a Seagoing Cowboy.
I think that you should join the Seagoing Cowboys program. I think that you should join it because I love it, I love working with the animals; I have a feeling you would too. It is a once in a lifetime opportunity, you can't pass it up. You will also get to go sightseeing in a lot of cool, different places.
These are some reasons why I think that you should join the Seagoing Cowboys program.
Here are some reasons why I took the job; and why I think you would like it.
When I first got out of highschool, I did not think that I would be working two part-time jobs. Or be so busy all of the sudden, the jobs were so boring, it was time for a change.
Then my friend Don Reist invited me to go to Eurpoe on a cattle boat. I couldn't deny it; this was a once in a lifetime opportunity.
I think that you will love the experince with the animals and nature.
But this job can also be very dangerous, I cracked my ribs and couldn't work for a couple of weeks because I fell off a slippery ladder.
You might need a love for animals and nature, and experince with working on a farm; but you also need to be very brave and be ready for anything that comes your way.
These are plenty of reasons why I think that you should be a Seagoing Cowboy. There are also reasons why I became a Seagoing Cowboy and what you need to know to be one. Please take my advice and try out the program. I think you will love being able to see cool stuff in different countries and working with the animals. Do not forget to be ready for anything that comes your way while you are on that boat.
Your friend,
Luke | 2 |
bb1fd4d | The idea of useing technology to read students emotions can have two different sides to it.
People can like or hate this subjuect because it could cause alot of problems for that student ifthat student dose want to talk to the school oficals about something thats going on with them then studensts shouldnt have to talk to school aoficlas about their personal problems.
The other way this could go is that useing this machine or whatever it could be to read students emotions could be a way to try to stop the student suicides.
The ways that this argument would go could have many many problems even getting into the school.
The way that the school would have to use this if the students would not want to talk would be an evation of privacy which is against school reguations and is against the law.
In order to get this into the schoolsthey would have to get this past through not only the board of dirctors but through hte court to because of the way that they would have to use this machine they would have to have it pasted through the court system and have them say that thaey agree to allow this to happen and alow them to invade peoples privacy in hope of helping them with what is going on in their presonal life that they are having trouble with.
The other way that this argument could go is that the way that the machine could help is that it would give the people that dont want to ask for help or are scared to ask for it a chance to be helped and a chance to be saved form whatever they would try to do to themselves.
This machine could help stop bulling this machine could also stop alot of the student suicides that happen every year because students are afriad to speak up and they dont think that doing so could ever help them.
The different sides of this argument have very imortant details.
The way that is could hurt or help students is something that really should be looked at.
If it helps more than it hurts it should be looked into because that could mean alot of saved lifes. | 2 |
bb2243a | In modern society people tend to be scared to voice their opinions, espescially students. With pressure of teachers, deans, and other peers most students would rather keep their hand down if something they disliked arises. If schools incorperated this software, invented by professor Huang and Sebe, then schools would get immediate feedback on how students felt about classes, teachers, homework, and school as a whole.
Prof. Thomas Huang and Prof. Nicu Sebe have worked together to invent a software that is one of a kind. This software constructs a 3-D computer model of a face, and calculates the movement of 44 major muscles in the model to determine their emotion. If this solftware could somehow be applied to school computers and labtops the results would be amazing. A school board would know if students enjoyed school computers, or enjoyed a new software they were trying out. Teachers could understand if students were getting the current lesson. These are all examples of topics that students feel pressured to speak out on, and without them speaking one word a teacher or school board would understand how they felt about it.
Being able to detect the emotions of students could enhance the school experience by a jurastic difference. Since students in modern society are taught to be quite and listen to the teacher teach, this emotion detecting software by Prof. Thomas Huang and Prof. Nicu Sebe could be the next improvement of schools. | 2 |
bb2dd28 | Technology in society is constantly innovating and becoming more complex. Over time, different manufacturers have tried to create successful, driverless cars. People have mixed feelings towards this for many reasons including safety and control. However, these people are not thinking about the greater outcomes of what could happen with these innovative cars. Overall, driverless cars would be very beneficial to society and the world.
Driverless cars can open up many new windows for society. Companies like Google are already experimenting with this. Since there is not legislation completely prohibiting the use of semi-autonomous cars in California, Google has taken advantage of this by using their cars to aid them in mapping the world. They have used their driverless cars to help gain more info for Google Maps. Society will gain more information about the surrounding land. This is just one possibility with these new cars.
Along with gaining new information, driverless cars can help people multitask. This is also prevalent with Google Maps. As the car scans and takes pictures of the land around it, the person in the car is able to track down and record the appropriate data. People will be able to do more with driverless cars which is more efficient. This will benefit large companies as they will be able to do more with their time. However, for many this leads to problematic thoughts. People are in fear that these cars will have safety problems and that humans will lose control. In the article "Driverless Cars Are Coming," the author discusses this possible problem thouroughly. There is common misconception that driverless cars will be completely automatic, but this is not the case. Driverless cars are more for assisting rather than they are for driving. The person in the car still needs to remain alert in cases where they might need to take over. This shows that the car does not have complete control.
Another major concern is whether or not these cars are entirely safe. In the article, the author also mentions how the in-car system itself is a safety feature. The article mentions how manufacturers hope to bring in in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays. Anytime the person needs to take over the car, these displays can be turned off instantly. This is something that is not availables to drivers who are texting while driving. This shows how these driverless cars may even be safer than regular, self-driven cars.
To conclude, one of the greatest reasons that society should move forward with this innovative idea is that this groundbreaking technology can be beneficial in fields outside of automobiles. If engineers can successfully create an automatic car, what else will they be able to produce? More automatic devices could be created with this technology. In this fast-paced world, emptying up time is incredibly beneficial as people will then be able to do greater things. This is something that has been proven to be true since the beginning of time. Innovations such as the printing press, for example, showed this. As technology took over the mundane task of handwriting papers, printers now had more time to complete their own duties. This lead to more efficiency as well as more time for newer innovations. This ultimately helps society as a whole, and this is why driverless cars need to become successful. | 4 |
bb2ea78 | Dear State senator,
The Electoral college is a process that was established by our founding fathers in a constitution as a compromise between election of the president by a vote in congress and election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens.The electoral college consists of the selection of the electors then that carries into the meeting or gathering of the electors.In that type of meeting of the electors they vote for the president and the vice president,Next is the counting of the electoral votes by congress.The electoral college consists of 538 electors,Did you know that a majority of those elector's votes are required to elect the president.Well 270 electoral votes to be exact.Well how did the number of electorals get chosen? The way that exact number got chosen is because tehere is one electoral to each member in the House of Representatives.Don't you agree that that was a wise choice? Also dont you think that our founding fathers really sat back and but real thought and effort in to a decision like this,something to put into the constitution.
Personally,I believe that the Ellectoral College should be kept in place and not depend on a popular vote to elect our president,for two reasons.The first reason is because most people who are about to vote they dont actually sit and take the time to see who they are voting for,they just "christmas tree" all of the options that they have. The second reason why i believe that i believe that the electoral college should stay in place because that this is a good process to have in place.
How many people do you think actually sit there and research and put thought into the president that they are chosing to run their country? Do you really belive that everyone does that? Think about the young and inexperienced voters who are fresh out of highschool and probaly just getting into college,Do you think that on top of their school work that they'll sit there and add something else on to their plate? To be completly honest i would not. I would either not vote or just pick at a random.Many people have a family and a job or jobs and have alot on their plate so the last thing they're gonna do is take the time out of their busy schedules and researchand find information on something that they dont need to do.
I also believe that the electoral college should stay in place because it's a good process to have. Having the electoral college in effect takes the stress off of the voters so they can continue on with their busy lives and not have to stand in those unreasonably long lines in the cold,hot,rain, or even snow. The people workers out in those lines are irritable and dont want to be there along with the voters,They look at it as a a waist of their time. No one likes to feel like their time was waisted because "Time is Money".
I hope you actually get this letter,read it,and but thought into what you just read.The Electoral college is a very good process to have in effect. Remeber that it keeps peole stress free and less irritable and if you use the Electors and not citizens you will end up getting a more educated vote because they sat back and analyzed the actions from the past of each canadate that is running and is making a vote based off of knowledge,not picking at a random.
Signed,
PROPER_NAME | 4 |
bb2f055 | The driverless cars are dangerous and useless for people . In the article ¨Driverless Cars Are Coming,¨ the author compared both positive and negative aspects. But in my opinion, the negative aspects are far more greater than positive aspects. The bad aspects are such as the car not being completely driverless and still need to be assisted by the driver. Also, the price is going to be too expensive to be practical. That ´s why people should not buy such things as driverless cars.
First, to get in or buying driverless car is frightening. No matter how much science is devoloping today, it still can´t mimic the skill of humans. The driverless cars they are talking about here is not completely driverless. They still need assisting. According to the article, the purpose is to make people relax and help accidents rate get smaller. But how can people relax when they know nothing about what´s going on? It will only just help people grow anxiety. Also, take over when the situation comes? There is no gurantee that the drivers will be able to get adapted and know how to solve the situation right away. It doesn´t really seem to help people if this is the actual situation.
Also, the price is not going to be that cheap to be pracitical. According to the article, a lot of things are needed such as position-estimating sensors, rotating sensors, video cameras, automotive radar sensors, GPS, dubbed LIDAR, and spining sensor. All those things are needed just to be on same skill with a human behind the wheel. So the expenses are definitely not going to be average. So for normal people who live their days working and doing house chores can´t afford them. Maybe rich people will but it won´t become a hit or something that totally needed.
So people doesn´t really need the driverless cars. People don´t need a car that need people assisting when they can drive it just fine. And the money isn´t going to just fall down to earth to buy it. Maybe some people will get interested in them. But as there is no significient to be proved of, it will just be an amusement without no purpose. | 4 |
bb318ad | The author said that " twin venus is the closest planet to earth" that proves that he is saying that the planet is closer to us and could potentally be more dangerous. He also said "Not a single space ship has touched down on venus in more than three decades" this also shows that they are trying to figure out a way to be able to touch the planet without injuring more people. The author said that "no space craft lasted more than a few hours" its really not safe that people are still tring to go on the planet but, some really want to be able to. The author says that "studying venus is a worthy prosuit" and i agree with him because people are going to start to get curious and there needs to be a way by now that we should be able to get on the planet without blowing up in the few minures we are on there. In conclusion i think that we should be able to get on venus and i think we should find more safe ways to be able to do it. Yes i agree with the author | 2 |
bb33eb0 | To most people, driving can be a chore. Driving makes you have to stay awake and and focus less on distractions like texting or talking on the phone. Most people would appreciate cars that do not require actual drivers but that does not mean that they should be invented. Driverless cars are practical but not safe. The development of these cars would cause for even more fatal and extreme car deaths across the world.
Driverless cars are even more dangerous than regular cars. People would have to understand that although the car may be drving itself, it still requires some human operation. In the article "Driverless Cars Are Coming" the author states that " none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. 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 means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires" (Paragraph 7). People would take advantage of the freedom of not having to actually drive and they would cause serious car accidents. They would blame the car companies for their carelessness and laziness.
Even though driving can be dreadful and tiring driverless cars would not be able to change that. The driver would still have to be alert and awake the whole time despite his or her drowsiness. Driverless cars give people a chance to slack and be lazy, but what they fail to understand is that it would make the streets twice as dangerous. If everyone had driverless cars and half of them were careless and did not pay attention to their cars, there would be multiple car accidents. Driverless cars are not safe at all and many innocent lives would be lost due to the cars. | 3 |
bb35211 | In my opinion, I think driverless cars would be a great idea for our future. Driverless cars have many postive things about them for example, they use less gas than cars today. People would love to save money. Lets say a person had to babysit until midnight and then that person has to wake up early in the morning to go to work. Well, that person with a driverless car would't have to worry about driving or perhaps having an accident. The car could be driving by itself and the passenger(s) could be on their phones or doing any other activity. Of course, someone should pay attention and make sure there is no roadwork or accidents. Many items have already been improved so making a big change like this could make everything different. The companies who make these cars (Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan) will also make lots of money because I'm sure that many people will want to own a driverless car of their own. To all the people out there that don't know how to drive, these driverless cars could make their lives easier. Today's technology is very advanced so there wouldn't really be any problems with the cars. We have everything we need and maybe even the government would use driverless cars. Imagine ambulances, police cars, fire-trucks, and taxi's being availble for the community! Driverless cars could be used all over the world and they could make our lives better. These cars even give signals when someone should take over the wheel. For example, the seat might vibrate or just announce it. This would be a new way to drive and it would be much more entertaining. Driverless cars shouldn't be illegal or banned. There is nothing wrong or bad about them. People should just be responsible and everything will be okay. Since 2009 cars like this have been developed and now its 2016, so the chances are that these cars could be even better and safer. Our future is supposed to be better and that's why I think that driverless cars should be created and sold. | 3 |
bb44e30 | Studying Venus would be a worhty pursuit despite the dangers because it would provide great information and it is very unique. Venus is like no other planet; but if it is so dangerous, why do scientists want to find out more about it? Astronomers are interested in Venus because there is a possibility that Venus was the most Earth-like planet in the solar system years ago.
To start off, even though Venus is very dangerous, exploring it would provide a lot of intreging information. With an atmosphere of nearly 97 percent carbon dioxide and 800 degrees Fahrenheit, scientists are already trying to find out more, but they are not sure how, without having to be on the rocky yet toxic surface. "Imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape"(5). If NASA can put the blimp tactic in motion, scientists can start getting a much more magnified look at the mysterious planet. Even if the danger is extremely high, one scientist one of these days eventually is going to try to explore and find out more amazing facts and imformation about Venus. So why wait now?
In addition, exploring Venus would be worth it because of it's uniqueness. If any group of scientists were to go on a safe trip to observe the Evening Star it will probably be the most memorable day of their lives. Because there is nothing like Venus.
"Numerous factors contribute to Venus's reputation as a challenging planet for humans to study, despite its proximity to us"(2). This shows that scientits have already attempted to learn more about the mystery planet, but haven't been very succesful. These scientists need to take flight. The only way that they will be able to get as close as possible and get the most accurate and approximate information is by being inside an aircraft hovering above the gasous planet. If the practices are completely correctly and safely and all of the precautions are met, there shouldn't be a problem with trained professionals to take on the unique ball of gas.
In conclusion, Venus is a mysterious planet that needs some research to figure out all of the different functions it has. And it's purpose for our world and solar system, because if it didn't have a purpose, it would't be in our galaxy. Studying Venus is definetly worth the risk because there is so much information that scientists could use to their advantage and to truly see how unique this planet really is. | 3 |
bb4c434 | People tend to use there cars so much, they basically can't live or get through the day with out their car. We use the car to go every where rather it's to the grocery store , work or just to go hang out with friends and family! Just traveling in general. Well imagine if we limited the usage of cars in our community! I strongly believe that doing this would have many advantages to our community for many reasons like it will make people less stressful all the time, there would be less accidents and it would definitly be better for the environment.
OMG I ran out of gas or OH my i have to take my car to the shop to get it fixed is usually the two main things you hear people stay when the word "car" comes up. Having a car comes with alot of stress because it of expenses and having to take of its every need and usually when someone is stressed they are not the best person you wanna have a conversation with. I think that if we limit the usage of cars a lot of people in the community will be alot happier. According to the article
"Car-free Cities"
by
Elisabeth Rosenthal in source 2 a lady name Heidrun Walter says " When i had a car i was always tense. I'm much happier this way." and i think that is a perfect example of limited car usauage can make a person happier.
In addition, I feel that if that if we limit the car usage in our community it will make this community a much safer environment. We hear and see about many car accidents in our country and community and cars can be very very dangerous. People often get injuried and/or die in car recks to. So limitting the car usage in the communitry will keep people more safe and most importantly alive . Kids will be able to run aroumd the neighborhood and play with their friends and also cross the street safely without the disruption of a car coming and stopping them from what they are doing because they do not wants to get hurt from the car coming because they do not know who is driving the car.
Last but not least limiting the use of car usage in the community because it would definitly be better for the environment. In science class we often talk about how cars polute the air and just mess up the waehter in the car and me my self i can also feel the car changing the more i see cars more cars in the streets. I think that it makes the days hotter and i also think that it makes the winters come around earlier and it makes it alot more colder. I live in the Sunshine florida and in the south. So all year round its usually hot extremly hot but has i realize more people are driving around the winers seem ALOT more cold then it usually is and the cold last for longer periods of time.
In conclusion, I belive that if we limit the car usuage in our community it will make it a better place for many reasons. Like it will make people less stressful and be happier, there will be less accidents on the road and it will also help the environment a lot. | 3 |
bb4fc90 | I am for the value of using this technology in students reading emotional experssions because it helps understand more what the paintings are trying to show, for example when the atricle said in paragraph 1 ( she is 83 percent happy, 9 percent disgusted, 6 percent fearful , and 2 percent angry) A software is the latest innovation and it developing better ways for humans and computers to communicate. Other reasons why im for the technology because the process begins when the computer constructs 3-D computers model of the face: all 44 majors muscles in the model must move like human muscles. The movement of one or more msucles is callled an " action unit"
A professor Eckman has classfied six basic emotions- happiness, surprise, anger,disgust,fear, and sadness then this would associated each with characteristic movements of the facial movements. ( paragraph 2)
My conclusion is that techonlogy is helping us better undertand cultral and seeing the true beauty of it that even in person we can see the diffrences of peoples experssions and their meaning. Most human communication is nonverbal, including emotional communication.. notes Dr. Huang. | 1 |
bb515f8 | Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Bob Dole are some of Americas most beloved politicians, and all of three of them have agreed on the abolishing of the electoral college. This system needs to go. It does not represent this country's ground rules because its non-democratic and does not give enough recognition to some states across the country.
For starters, the electoral college is non-democratic. How can a nation that prides itself on being a democracy not have a democratic way of electing its president? With this electoral college system voters do not vote for the president instead they vote for their states electors which presents a problem in my opinion. As stated in "Source 3" "each party selects a state of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee (and that trust is RARELY broken)." While some may feel that a system that is rarely broken is acceptable i do not because this is such a big event in our country and we can not afford to have a flawed system. The trust of an entire states vote can not be put in the hands of one elector. America does not get what its people want through this system as you can tell when "Source 2" states "Al Gore-thanks to the quirks of the electoral college -won the popular vote but lost the presidency." This is not a Democratic way of doing things as the people should be able to elect there president and not have a state of electors do so for them.
Now that the issue of Democracy has been taken care of i want to talk about how some of the states in this country do not get the recognition they diserve. Everyone agrees that all states should have a say in the election of the president and all should feel that there votes matter but this is not the case with the electoral college. As "Source 2" states that during the 2000 campaign "seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina." This is not acceptable because all voters no matter where they live should feel that there vote is wanted and matters. This could be part of the reason that about only half of the countrys eligable voters voted in the 2012 election as stated in "Source 3". While some may say that the electoral college is a great system because it prevents ties i disagee because the likely hood of a tie in the first place when doing popular vote is extremely low and it does not out weight the fact that the people should elect there president.
In the end it is obvious that the elctoral college has to go. There is many reasons why but the two main reasons are that its non-democratic and it does not give recogniton to all the states in this wonderful country. | 4 |
bb54676 | Is the face on mars a natural landform? I see that the face is just a natural landform. The face is just a natural landform to some others think its artificial. There are many reasons why it is just natural.
In 1976 a photo that was taken on mars was perceived as a face. Since it was 1976 the photo wasnt that great, but then again in 1998 and 2001 more photos were taken and they showed that it didnt resemble a face anymore due to better cameras. From the pictures in the article it looked like a face at first but then the next pictures add a bit more detail and removed some of the shadows, thus it did not look like a face. NASA also put in the caption of the image " huge rock formation . . . which resembles a human head . . . formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose, and mouth." ,this means it was just an illusion given by shadows. NASA also showed the people just to bring attention to mars and they have scientific research on the face being natural.
In conclusion the face is just a natural lanform. when you compare the photos you can see the difference in shape and detail. Some research in the article states the picture shows a martian equivalent of a butte or mesa---landforms common around the American west. Scientist state all it really is is a martian mesa. | 2 |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.