essay_id
stringlengths 7
7
| full_text
stringlengths 712
20.5k
| score
int64 1
6
|
|---|---|---|
e1870ae | Relatively autonomous cars represent a great advance in technology, as it is observed in society today. Even though this technology represents a relatively large effective range, I am not for the use of mostly or fully autonomous technologies. Even though the use of machines and technologies for the enrichment of the human populace is important, allowing them to affect our place at the wheel will not be beneficial to the coming generations. By allowing these technologies to supercede the need for the human driver/passenger to actively think, we take away from our own capacities of understanding and adapting to the simplest of situations.
In paragraph 7, it is discussed how in 2013, BMW had developed a vehicular system called "Traffic Jam Assistant", which was capable of autonomously operating effectively at speeds up to 25 mph. This being said, there are sensors on the steering wheel that assure that the driver does not release the wheel. Also, when there are area-specific conditions, such as construction zones and accidents, the driver must take control when indicated. If so much input is required from the human driver, then why should we relinquish the wheel to these vehicles in the first place?
Information from various sources have indicated that when oneself is not exposed to the full extent of certain processes, it is more likely for errors to occur later. In other words, if a person is presented with a task or job largely dependant on technological assistance, and they are later given the same job, but without the 'tech support', then they are more likely to fail at the task. If we were to allow the coming generations to initially utilize these technologies in their everyday lives, as these technologies develop and progress, then they would be impaired in a situation where they would not drive a relatively autonomous vehicle. In short, the use | 3 |
e187cd5 | The Face on Mars is just a natural landform. This is not a face created by aliens. The picture taking in 1998 revealed it was a natural landform, if NASA would have said it was aliens they would recieve more funding, however they said it was an illusion of a face, and in 2001 the picture taken clearly shows that it is a natural landform.
In 1998 NASA captured a pictue of the face as soon as they could get a good shot at it. The picture revealed that it was just a natural landform, just like NASA had said in 1976. Also, when the original picture was taken in 1976 it was revealed to be an illusion of a face by NASA. If NASA chose to call the landform work done by aliens, they would recieve more funding. However, NASA was very truthful in there fundings and they didn't have any reason besides the truth to say it was a natural landform. Finally, the clearest pictue of it taken in 2001 clearly shows a natural landform that couldn't be mistaken for anything else. A quote from the article is,"Each pixel in the 2001 image spans 1.56 meters compared to the 43 meters per pixel in the best 1976 Viking photo. 'As a rule of thumb, you can dicern things in a digital image 3 times bigger than the pixel size,' he added, 'So, if there where objects in this picture like airplanes... or Egyptian-style pyramids... you could see what they were!'" This quote proves that the best picture ever taken so far of the Face clearly shows that it is a natural thing. The natural landform could not be mistaken as anything else in the pictures we have.
It is clear that the Face is a natural landform because the picture in 1998 revealed it, NASA comfired it was a natural thing which caused them to not get extra funding, and the picture taken in 2001 is the clearest one we have and it is very obvious that it is a natural landform. These reason show how the Face is a natural landform and not an alien made thing. | 3 |
e18839b | You walk in to class one day and find out that your teacher or whom ever actually knows how you feel . Would it be strange, ackward or understandable? This latest innovation called Facial Action Coding System from Prof. Thomas Huang and Prof. Nicu Sebe is a software that can recognize human emotion. Human emotion is communicated non-verbally which can be interpreted by muscualr units.
Your sitting in a lecture confused but decide not to say anything but do not realize that your teacher knows how you feel because of this software. This software may help with a lot in a classroom from depression to confusion and even excitment .
Prof . Huang predicts " A classroom computer could recognize when a sudent is becoming confused or bored" ( D'Alto, 6). This software may be the best innovation for schools now that many counselors can only get so little of information from students.
As many will argue that this software may not be getting the right information but it has been tested and put to work by Phsychologist , such as Dr. Paul Eckman. "He has been able to classify six basic emotions-- Hapiness, suprise,anger, disgust, fear, and sadness-- and then associated each with characteristic movements of the facial muscles" (D,Alto, 3). This just comes to state that this software is able to process human emotion by facial muscles and therefore it comes to tell your emotion by how you portray.
This just comes to conclusion that maybe this software can actually help schools improve on helping students in any circumstance. As teachers, there jobs are to make sure students are not confused but better yet understand the concept that was teached. I believe this software may do a lot and should be tested in schools. | 3 |
e18a71c | Changing the World We Drive In
I do not stand behind the idea of driverless cars. I think that driverless cars are too hazardous, costly and unnecessary. Cars that do not need a driver are not needed.
Driverless cars are extremely hazardous. Yes, the manufacturer can install numerous amounts of sensors and cameras to make sure that the car is on the right track, but can a car really be as reactive and functioning as a human? The article says, that cars cannot "navigate through work zones and accidents."
While the human is relaxing in the front seat of the driverless car, he or she is most likely not paying attention. If they are not looking ahead it is likely that he or she will cause more damage to the accident or more work to the construction zone when they slam into it for lack of looking forward. In support of this, the article says "wouldn't drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive?" Yes, while the driver is not paying attention it is likely that he or she will not notice when it is their time to drive.
Driverless cars are extremely expensive. With all the extra cameras and sensors, the cost of those cars are going to go way up. The article lists just a few of the necessary add-ons: "postition-estimating sensors... rotating sensor on the roof, video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor." The driverless cars need a lot more sensors and cameras than it is worth to pay for.
The article also mentions radar "that cost two hundred million dollars."
Is one, small car really worth so much money. Think of all the different activites, items, or trips that money could be used on rather than splurging on a driverless car, that a human is perfectly capable of driving.
Driverless cars are unnecessary. Humans have been driving themselves for many years. Why all of a sudden do we need to have cars that will drive us around? The idea of driverless cars just adds to the bunches of costs that people already have to pay for and the reasons why humans are considered lazy! The article says that "such cars would fundamentally change the world." Yes, the accessiblity of driverless cars could change the world, but who's to say it would be in a positive way? | 3 |
e18c6e9 | The invention of the automobile revolutionized the way humans traveled from place to place in the 20th century, but now since we have entered the 21st century, people are beginning to question why we implement the automobile so much into our lives. The automobile should not be so interconnected within our lives, in fact, limiting it's usage would have many advantages. These advantages include cutting down on our carbon footprint, and reducing the amount of stress and congestion within our streets.
Restricting the usage of the automobile can benefit the enviroment immensly. After all, transportation is the second largest source of pollution in the US, so restricting automobiles can severly reduce the impact of carbon emissions on our enviroment (Rosenthal). If we don't take action now, and start cracking down on pollution from carbon emissions, our cities will develop smog problems similar to what Beijing experiences, which is one of the most polluted cities in the world (Duffer). Fortunetly for Paris, a week of partial driving bans helped clear the five days of near-record pollution it was experiencing, and it helped it return to normal (Duffer). If five days of reducing the number of drivers by half manages to clear the smog from Paris, it's possible to delay or even halt the risng of global warming across the planet if the globe decides to enact restrictions on car usage. Therefore, restricting car usage could have inumerable benefits for our enviroment.
Another advantage of restricting car usage would be a reduction in the amount of stress and congestion crowding our city streets. For instance, when Paris enacted the weeklong half ban on automobile usage, congestion was down 60% in the city's streets (Duffer). Another instance of a city banning automobiles is Bogota, Columbia, which bans cars one day a year. The goal is intended to promote alternative transportation in the city, and this leaves the "streets of this capital city eeirly devoid of traffic Jams" (Selsky). Many citizens enjoy this day, and resident Carlos Arturo Plaza described the day as "a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution" (selsky). A city called Vauban in Germany are pioneering a new type community where no cars are permitted within the city, and the only area they are permitted are the outskirts of the city. This orientation benefits the residents by elimating most of the noise and stress of car engines running, and instead replacing them with the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children (Rosenthal). A resident of the pioneer city, Heidrun Walter, said "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way" (Rosenthal). Therefore, limiting car usage collosally reduces the pandomonium and congestion we experience everyday in our lives due to automobiles.
All in all, restricting car usage poses numerous advantages for everyone. The advantages include reducing our impact on the enviroment by cutting down carbon emissions, as well as decreasing the amount of stress and congestion found in our city streets. | 4 |
e195a3b | Dear Senator,
Every four years, citizens of the United States ages eighteen and up, gather at local voting locations to elect the President, our government leader. From Washington to Obama we have always elected our leaders as such. The Constitution has given us our way to vote- the Electoral College. This process, of course, consists of our 538 electors, the place where they meet to vote, and the counting of said votes. But how effective is this process? Honestly, I believe the Electoral College should be diminished.
Statistics show that direct voting is preferred by the majority of the citizens in the U.S.. According to a poll taken in 2000, 60% of voters would rather direct voting over the current system. With the current "
winner-take-all
" concept in most all states except Maine and Nebraska, many people find that even if 45% of all the votes in the state are for one party, all of the votes go to the opposition. Citizens may as well not even vote under this standard if they wont even be represented.
Although not one vote will decide an election if we had direct voting, many single votes can. Take the 1.4 out of 3 million people in California who voted one way and got all their votes thrown the other because of the other 1.6 million people. With that 1.4 million, mixed with tons of thousands of voters, one party may actually win the election rather then the canidate who would have won with the Electoral College process. For example, in 2000, George W. Bush won the election and most of the Electoral College votes. However ,
Al Gore got the most individual votes. How can that be fair at all?
When "we the people" vote for the president, we are not actually doing what we have come to believe. In reality, we are actually voting for representatives called
Electors to vote for the canidate. These electors cast their vote depending on the votes that we (you and I), cast. These electors that we choose are generally very trustworthy and reliable, being the reasons we choose these government officials to elect our government leaders. Sadly, however, not everybody is who they say they are, as we all have flaws and sins; occasionally one of these electors will be unfaithful and vote for the canidate they deem fit, instead of who we have chosen ourselves. Although this is rare, the possibilities would be negated completely if we simply had direct, individual voting.
To wrap up, I vote that we abolish the Electoral College and allow the citizens of the United States to vote for ourselves. It would make the majorty of the U.S. happier, it will make us better represented, and we will be directly electing our own government officials. I believe that we should amend the old ways and evolve and adapt to newer, better ways, as we always have in the past.
Thank you,
Jerica | 4 |
e196327 | If you dont have a car you will reduce greenhouse gas. it will rudeuce accitents. less people willl be fined so tht means more money for you. congestion was down 60 percent so thats good in the capital of france after five days of intensifying smog. cold nights and warms days caused the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions. the united states has a program called the environmental protoction agency is promting car reduced communities and, ligislators are satrting to act.
disel fuel was blamed since france has a tax poloicy that favors disel over gasoline diseles make up 67 percent of vichles in france compared to a 53.3 percent averqage of desiel engines in the rest of wester europe according to reuters. Delivery companies coplianed of lost revenue while exceptions were made for plug in cars hybrids and the cars carrying three or more passengers. public transit was free of charge from firday to manday according to the bbc.
Bogota colombia in a program thats set to spread to other countries millions of colomians hiked biked skated or took buses to work during a car free day yesterday leaving the streets of this capital city eeri | 1 |
e19825b | I think the use of this technology to read the emtional expressions of the students in a classrooomis valuable because how do we know if a student is learnng or being bored in class.
Another example," In fact, we humans perform this same impressive "calulation every day. For instance, you can probably tell how a friend is feeling simply by the look on her face. Of course, most of us would have trouble actually describing each facial trait that conveys happy, worried, etc. Yet Dr. Huang observes that artist such as a Vinci studied human anatomy to help them paint facial muscles precisely enough to convey specific emotions. His new computer software store similar anatomical information as electronic code." This in formation helps us understand that even the you can smile you could be lying about it. having practice anatomy like da Vinci and this technology can help understand how people feel in certain situations, like student's in a classroom.
The reason for having this type of technolgy can be very helpful, in some cases like school or in a classroom. For example," Th facial expression for each emotion are universal, obeseves Dr. Huang, even though individuals often show varying degrees of expression(like not smiling as broadly). Using video imagrey, the new emotion - recognition software can even identify mixed emotions( as in da Vinci's masterpeice). Each expression is compared against a neutral face(showing no emtion). And thats why I think it is improtant to have this kind of technology to understand if a student or person is or is not understanding in class. This could help not only the teachers but the student themselve understan how they feel and why.
I think it is important to have this technology to read students' emotional expression, because know can for sure no if you're lying when yu say yes or if you do or don't understand anything that is happening. This is why we should have this technology. | 3 |
e1a65d5 | As i read the article " Driverless Cars Are Coming " i think its would be a great idea for future. As a driver myself driving may sleepyness if driving for a long time so i best believe that " Driverless Cars " are a great a idea for some of us drivers on the road. For examples in paragraph 2 its said " In reality , Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. Their cars have driven more than half million miles without a crash.
That was a good way of saying about driverless cars. But they not really driverless cars in one of the paragraphs its said " Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents." Now that really telling me there i can't trust the computer to take over and drive for me. I best off driving the car myself if the computer can't handle stuff like backing out or in , or
parking the car. | 1 |
e1a6cbe | Have you heard about the face on Mars? There was indeed something that looked like an enmormous head that was nearly two miles from end to end that seemed to be staring back at the cameras from the Red Planet. This hug face is known as Cydonia.
This shadowy face was discovered in 1976 when a NASA spacecraft was circling around the Red Planet. The photos that were taken of the shadows looked like an Egyptian Pharaoh. The text states, "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." Some scientists started to believe that the Face was an alien artifact. The text states, "Although dew scientists believe the face was an alien artifact, photographing Cydonia became a priority for NASA when Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) arrived at the Red Planet in Sept. 1997, eighteen long years after the Viking missions end."
Mars Global Surveryor flew over Cydonia for the first time, and the team took pictures that were ten times sharper than the original Viking photos. The text states, "Thousands of anxious web surfers wete waiting when the image first appears on a JPL web site, revealing...a natural landform. There was no alien monument after all." Even though people were given that information that the shadowy figure was indeed not an alien monument, some people were still not satisfied. So mission controllers decided to look again. The text states, "What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivanlent of a buttle or mesa-landofrms common aroung the American West." It was decided that the shadowy figure, was just a natural landform.
The shadowy figure known as Cydonia that was spotted on the planet Mars, was once thought as a alien artifact. Many studies from scientists have shown and proved that the enormous head was just a natural landform. | 3 |
e1aa1f6 | The value of using technology to read students' emotional expressions is an outstanding idea . The new software , the Facial Action Coding System , can help you understand everyone's emotions around us. This new software , has been develped to detect the feelings of others without them announcing their emotions .
In Mona Lisa's picture she looks happy and angry . The text states , "She's 83 percent happy , 9 percent disgusted , 6 percent fearful , and 2 percent angry" . With the computer software you can use video imagery to recognize facial movements . The software can identify mixed emotions and and any neutral expressions . For example , most humans wear their emotions on their sleeves , but most humans can't describe each facial trait . The facial expressions on each emotions aren't always very universal , individuals often express their emotions in different degrees . Dr . Huang states , "Most human communication is nonverbal , including emotional communication" . There are ways to demostrate emotions through computers too . Computers can become an effective human instructor if they recognize the different emotions .
In conclusion , the technology usage of "The Facial Action Coding System" is a great usage of technology to read students emotional expressions because it will allow us to have empathy for eachother . We unconsciously imitate eachother's facial expressions . We could all help eachother in the world , and talk out our feelings instead of holding it in . | 2 |
e1b3de4 | If I was a scientist
for NASA and I had to support the argument that the face on Mars wasnt alien, I would start by reasearching more pictures and start getting information to figure out does it have any form of life. What was all there and have anyone been there before many different facts. I would reasearch has any human life been to Mars.
then I would have to do reasearch on aliens to figure out are aliens real or is there any legit reason to believe that aliens exist or have they ever existed and has there been any forms of life ever been on mars ever. Then I would have to research more pictures of Mars to see if there are more similar photos of faces or humanly shaped objects on Mars. To figure out or not if there could be chance that there is any proof of different kind of speices or and type of living thing that could have lived on Mars recently. Another thing that I would have to do is get a more clear shot photo to actually see what it may actually could be because it says in the article that the picture was tooken in April when it was snowing so I would have to recieve a more clear photo maybe when its warm more around summer time, since last time it was around cold in the winter time then compare the two photos to predict what it might have been besides it already being predicted as it being an alien face. To support my argument that it isnt a alien face. | 1 |
e1b50d7 | Do you know what a Seagoing Cowboy is? They are more important than a regular cowboy. They are people who go out to sea after a war or something, and take care of animals that were shipped overseas. Doing this is a amazing experience and can change your life.
You might think that it is stupid, but I bet you do not think the military is stupid and that is who you are working for. It might not be out there battiling, but you are saving animals lives and providing food, clothing, transportation etc. When you bring them back to the people. Not only are you helping people you get to see amazing views. Plus there is more than one job on the ship that you can do.
While I was on the ship it was a huge adventure. Every now and then we get to go on tours and explore the world. When we were on the ship and there were not any animals aboard we played games, and just had fun while going to the next stop. We played games where we would have kept the animals. This is a serious matter, but you can also have fun and be responsible. When you are on the ship you have to be careful and responsible, You can have fun every now and then, but you cannot be playing all the time.
This was much more than adventure. I really got to see the world and the people there that had many needs. What the world really was that I had not payed much attention to. This is a lot better then trying to have two part time jobs. I am serving my country, and if you want to but do not want to fight I would say you should do this.
It is a once in a life time event. Coming from a small town and doing this. You can do it to, and you should. All you have to do voulenteer and maybe when you are out there and apply for the military they will keep you out there. Serving your country. You will not believe how it will change your life and make you feel accomplished. Besides all the tours and the fun it really is amazing. | 4 |
e1b8583 | all 44 major muscal in the model must move like a human muscles, six basic emotion happiness,surpris, anger disgust ,fear and sadness,even though indivduals often sshow varying degrees of expression like not smiliing as broadly.
in real face or in the panted face of mona lisa. by weighting the different units the oftware can even identify mixed emotions, most of us would have troble actually decribing each facial trait the conveys happy,worried.
the mona Lisa demonstration is relly intended to bring a smile to your face ,whike it just how this computer can do, putting on a happy face actually work,you can tell probably how a friend is feeling simply by the book on her face. the the mona lisa demonstration is really intendedvto bring a smile to her face, a classroom computer could recognize when a student is becomeing confused or bored.
based on when i have reand and uner stand peopel share not be jubget on thr facial expressins just like stying don't judge a book by it's every for instance in the story it sfgs imangine a computer that knoa when your happy or sad .
that would be unseen for there to be a computer of any such to even exist.
the other thing is why would there be anything that has to reand a persont feelings thats not the why it should be in some case we all assunc some time how he person is feelings every are has there won why of showing that emotins in different waya.
in same away lets say there was a camputer or anything that can read mines how would that computer express the feeling in what way would the computer there isn't anything of that matter peopel have mixet anything a minute there happy and the minute going through sometime.
most of the time in a classroom kids go through staff at have so basically saying that a simple computer would help a think that would't be amanzing. | 2 |
e1bc399 | Aliens making a face on Mars, yeah I don't think so. You believe that an alien created a face on Mars to show that something really does live in space. Well you hear all the time that on Earth people find certain landforms or even a persons body to look like something other than what it actually should.But how was it created? Nature? Aliens?
In the passage it states that "Although few scientists believed the Face was an alien artifact, photographing Cydonia became a priority for NASA when Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) arrrived at the Red Planet in Sept. 1997, eighteen long years after the Viking mission ended." So to my unserstanding I believe that from the information given there is no sign that the Face was created by aliens.
Further more there is more evidence given by Michael Malin and his Mars Orbiter Camera that him and his team "snapped a picture ten times sharper than the original Viking photos." "Thousands of anxious web surfers were waiting when the image first appeared on a JPL web site, revealing... a natural landform. There was no alien monument after all." After this it all means that no substantial alien creations were happening,or ever did happen.
In conclusion, by the evidence that has been given and from my prespective the "Face" is just a natural landform. The pictures shown give an excellent representation that over the years cameras have different pictures qualities, and also that the Face could grow or form differently after a long period of time. Being a scientist here at NASA and being given this information we have found and from others, our claim is more effective than someone believing that it was created by aliens. | 3 |
e1c6d96 | Driverless cars has been something that the movies have glorified and try to make popular. Driverless cars could be useful of you start to get lost or tired but your safety and well being is going to be at risk.
Driving is something that you can never be too careful about wether it is reckless driving, an animal running out into the road, or construction gone wrong. Today there are alot of dangers that come along with driving and that make it more dificuly for drivers to commute safetly.
Everything has it's pros and cons but in this situation there are more cons than pros. With a car that has a mind of its own you can never be too careful when it comes to your safety and well being and making sure you and everyone around you will be safe. First of all the cars will drive on their own and that might make you very tired and cause you to start to fall asleep, but the cars haven't been able yo drive through road damage, wrecks and there are alot of those everywhere and if your asleep you cant assist your car through the damage.
Driverless cars are most likely to be really small and in a small car you are more likely to get hurt in the case of a wreck.
There will be people to drive these cars but the car won't be a household car it will be the type of car that celebrities drive around and the price will probabily be through the roof.
Personally I dont think these cars would be a solid investment just for the simple fact its un realistic. There will be a select few to buy them but most of them will stick to the manual driving. | 3 |
e1c7ab2 | Limiting car usage could have many advantages on our planet. Many cities, such as Vauban in Germany, have given up on using cars to help the world around them. "Vauban's streets are completely car-free, except the main thoroughfare, where the tram to downtown Freiburg runs, and a few streets on one edge of the community." There is a movement going on called, "smart planning" and Vauban is just one example of a growing trend in Europe of limiting auto use. The article says that passenger cars are responsible for twelve percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe. It seems that the people in Europe are realzing that so much car usage is harming their environment, and they are trying to set a trend for other countries like the United States to follow to limit using cars.
How much people use their cars is very important. Polluted air is a very widespread problem in many regions of the world. Paris had days of near-record pollution, and decided to enfore a partial driving ban to try to help clear the air of the city. The article says that almost 4,000 drivers were fined, and twenty-seven had their cars impounded for their reaction to the fine. "Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after five days of intensifying smog." The driving ban helped clear the smog, because it reduced car emissions. Paris has more smog than many other European capitals, which is why reducing how much citizens drive their cars is a good idea.
Some cities have days that are completely car free. Bogota, Colombia is one of them. They have been having a Day Without Cars for three straight years. Cars are banned for the day and buses and taxis are the only exception. The city holds about 7 milion people, and had a large turnout. "It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution," said businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza. The mayor of Asuncion, Paraguay even said that, "These people are generating a revolutionary change, and this is crossing borders." The Day Without Cars has even helped stores and sports center come up throughout the city. Instead of shopping centers along a highway, those stores are now in the city and easy to get to without having to use a car.
Researchers have been studying America's ways of car usage and driving. America is home to the first cars like the Model T, or "Mustang Sally." Vehichles have always been a huge part of culture, but it seems now that that might not be the case anymore. "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." Researchers are actually hoping that the pattern continues because it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions on the environment. Transportation is the second largest source, behind power plants, of emissions. Many changes have now happened in America, which are making using cars not as important. "With all these changes, people who stopped car commuting as a result of the recession may find less reason to resume the habit.." The article says. If we could slow down the usage of cars and emission, maybe we could help the planet become a better place.
Since the percentage of car usage has gone down in America, so has the percentage of getting a license. There has been a large drop in 16-39 year olds getting a license, Mr. Sivak's research has found. Older people are also likely to retain their licenses as they age. Mr. Sivak and another man both have children of about the same age, 19 and 21, and live in busy cities where a car could be useful. Neither one of them has their licenses, even though they are interested, but they don't really see the need for one when they can use public transportation or car-pool with their friends. The article says that a study last year has also found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009. Whether or not this changes as these young people grow older, these decreases in driving are proving that cars might just not be as important as they used to be.
Our planet is just continuing to get worse from emissions from cars. Some countries are starting to realize this and are working hard to limit car usage and have citizens rely just on public transportation, walking, or riding a bike. Bill Ford proposed partnering with the telecommunications industry to create cities in which, "pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial, and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions, and improve safety." Citizens all over the world can work together to reduce car usage and better improve our planet. | 5 |
e1ca329 | The author seems to be an advocate for studying Venus despite its dangers, and even gives some ideas as to how humans could study Venus without ever touching the extremely volatile surface. The author gives some examples of solutions that the people at NASA have found might be solutions to the problem at hand, and some reasons as to why exploration of our nearest planet is worthwhile.
He talks about one of NASA's many possible solutions, saying "NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray.". What he is talking about is a vehicle that would hover above Venus so it would never touch the surface. It's genius! The reason why studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers is because "it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system.". Even today it has features similiar to that of Earth, like its rocky surface, mountains, and craters. Another possible solution to researching Venus while trying to avoid its harsh terrain is using old technology, used in World War II, and putting this old technology into a new use. The author says the reason these might help the future of exploring Venus because "Modern computers are enormously powerful, flexible, and quick, but tend to be more delicate when it comes to extreme physical conditions." these might be more resistant to whats in store for them on Venus.
While the challenges of visiting Venus are certainly disheartening, the value of visiting and exploring Earth's "twin", and one of its closest planets is impossible to know, but the pursuit of knowledge of the planet would make it a worthwhile endeavor. The only thing we know is that impeding danger can not stop our thirst for knowledge, and may even spark it. | 3 |
e1cdb9a | To the fellow citizens using cars, its very easy to go somewhere with a ride because you dont have to walk, But if i were you i wouldve choosen to walk because it very good for you because its like if you were doing exersice. A lot of people perfere to drve a car because there probably too lazy or something lol, th reason they like driving because its the fastest thing to go somewere quick, but you know its that big advantage about a car but the thing that sucks about a car you have to put gas in it, and thats oretty expensive for some people but thtas why some rich people are the only ones to be able to put gas in it.
Sometimes its kinda bad driving because the percentage of transportation is getting too high, also theres a whole bunch of drivers that are starting to find according to reuters so that caused to tthe people cars had their cars impounded for their own reaction due to the fine | 1 |
e1d1b25 | You wake up one morning and you think about how when you first learned how to drive, you actually had to drive by yourself. There wasn't anyone or anything doing it for you. Times have changed and now you have something to help you drive, a driverless car. Sounds so futuristic, like something you saw in a cartoon when you were younger, right? Well, as you can tell from the passage "Driverless Cars Are Coming", driverless cars are going to become a thing regardless of what you think. It might not be soon, but it is coming one day. They might make a huge impact to where every family has a driverless car or a small impact to where only the rich can afford it.
I do think that driverless cars are something that might take over the whole world one day, and it might not be a horrible thing. Driverless cars are more of a safty percaution in the way it is set up, rather than just you sitting in a car not paying attention. You will still have control over the car, but you do not have to be in control the whole time. That is what I think is so great about them, you don't have to worry about not having control of the car. The sensors in the car can detect when danger might occur, and when that happens, the car starts to warn the driver. All though, there are still many bugs and flaws with the cars, they oviously need to get more into the laws and liabilties and how that will all work out.
Overall, I just really think that even if driverless cars aren't that big of a hit, it would be sort of like symbol to represent the time peirod of inovation and creation. Just thinking about how far technology is going really blows my mind. I would have never thought to belive that cars like this would be on the market in my lifetime. That is just so crazy. The times have clearly changed. I just cannot wrap my head around the idea, epecially when I can remember a time when casset players where still in cars. Driverless cars honestly sound very safe and helpfull, especially for young drivers. Having that extra support can really prevent accidents from happening. | 3 |
e1d687a | Scientists have studied and implored the idea of understanding the solar system, specifically the Milky Way.
In investigating the solar system, Venus shows promises of exploration.
Though Venus itself is denser and hotter than Earth, both planets are one in the same.
The author of the passage utilizes this in explaining as to why investing into the research of this particular planet in the Milky Way is worth it.
The author does this by comparing Venus to Earth within Venus's geometric structures as well as its weather patterns.
Venus can be said to be Earth's twin.
Known as the second planet from the sun, Venus was once like how our planet is today based on scientists' knowledge.
According to the passage the planet,"...(W)as probably covered largely with oceans...".
Earth contains 70% of water and has life on it and with this quote describing that Venus had water at one point in time, it too might have supported life forms which is what the author is attempting to explain in his writings.
Like Earth, Venus obtains the same landformations.
Another detail provided from the article states,"...surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters" indicating not only that this planet once held water but, also sustains land structures identicle to Earth's.
In the final section of paragraph 3 it enscribes,"...(G)eology and weather present additional impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerfull earthquakes, and...lighting strikes...".
Along with the planets identicle features to Earth's, It also features weather patterns and conditions that are compatible too.
Combining all of this information, Venus can be idealized as Earth.
The author gets to the point by comparing the various landforms, weather, and natural disasters of the two space rocks.
Researching Venus could not only mean furthering the understanding of this particular planet but, also Earth too.
Lastly, continuing the study on Venus is so vital that by doing so, man could possibly land another planet. | 3 |
e1d9f00 | In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" the author suggest that studying Venus is a worth pursuit despite the danger it presents. Venus is the closest planet to Earth however its easier to see Venus and study this planet. There is differences in speed which sometimes Venus is closer and sometimes Mars. Venus is the second planet from our sun according to the author of ths story. Many Astronomers believe that Venus was once a planet like Earth in our solar system. NASA is sending people to Venus so they can keep studying Venus. On 1800s and 1940s during WWll there was old technology for example like computers. Now we have technology and its very good but can be sensitive. We need to have more adventures. Earth is having drastically bad sea level, the tempeture is constanly changeing, animals are extinging, forest are disappering each day. In other words, earth is dying. Because Earth is dying isnt easy for us humans survivial however this quote says: "Solar power would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth levels" (Venus 1). However this quote proves that Earth isnt in conditions thats why are studying Venus because maybe Venus was once an Earth. | 2 |
e1db186 | My position on driveless cars? i kind of like the idea of a car taking you to your everyday destination. i mean a future where these driveless cars could form into a public transport taxi system is amazing. the google cofounder sergey brin believes these cars would offer more flexiblilty than a bus. we humans could be using less fuel then today's vehicles.
I seen these "driveless cars" in movies and televison but, now drivless cars can become are a reality. for example google has had cars that could drive by themselves independently since 2009. their cars half drove more than half a millon miles without a crash thats pretty safe in my books. also if there are trafficc issues the car automatically alerts the drive to take control for even mor safety. driveless cars are game changing.
Orignally, many futurist believed the key to developing self driving cars wasn't that much smarter then smart road way. in the 1950s General Motors created a concept car that could run on special test track. the tracks was infused with eletrical cable that sent radio signals to a reciever on the front end of the car. these smart-road systems worked well. proof that these driveless cars could be a thing and a good thing. then in the 1980s automakers developed sensors for cars that could detect and respond danger. which could cause the car to apply brakes making diving safer. this alone tells us that driveless cars are the future.
In 2013, Bmw announced the delvelopment of ''Traffic Jam Assistant'' this car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph but specail touch sensor make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. but in all honesty none of these cars develop so far are nowhere driverless what means you ask they can steer, accerlerate , brake themselves but, if the human needs to take control of the wheel he or she can do the same. that means ultimate safety in my case.
Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? woullnt drivers get bored waitng for their turn to driver?
is what people who are against the idea of development for these cars might say. well dr. werner , a BMW project manger driver says "We have to interpret the driving fun in a new way." well i have some exciting information for you some manufacturer hope to do that, by bringing in-car entertainment and information sytems that use heads- up displays. an these displays could be turned off instaly if when the driver wants to take over. if you think about it these features is actuall a saftey feature in a way.
Traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driving that car, which also causes problems between companys and states resulting some states to ban driveless cars.
but even if traffic laws would change for the sake of driveless cars, we would need new laws hat could cover liability in case of a accident. cause the big question is if the technology fails and someones is injured, who is at fault the driver or the manufactuer?
My debate will end soon even though driveless cars are safe. automaker will continue to develop and think of new driveless cars and of the problems that are given ahead will be solved. the road to the truly autonomous cars stretches on. but i know that everday that passes we grow closer to are destination everday. | 3 |
e1de598 | Dear State Senator, it is more favorable to keep the splendid method of the Electoral College and not to change it to election by popular vote for the United States President. The Electoral College method is more perferable because it helps to advoid run-off elections, and less numerical values.
Using the Electoral College to vote is more efficent because of it's aid to advoid run-off elections. As Richard A. Posner states," The Electoral College advoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast." It also can help candidates running for president to advoid going to states that they know whose vote will have no effect. For example, Democrats in Texas and Republicans in California or how Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had only a 43% plurality of the popular votes while winning a majority in the electoral college. There isn't even any pressure for run-off elections when no candidate wins a majority vote that was cast leading to a clear winner.
Furthermore, using the Electoral College to select the President can help to reduce numerical values. Even though a citizen's vote doesn't automatically go to the candidate running for office and actually selects the electors that will select the President, the amount of votes it reduced greatly. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors, rather than a estimate of 500 million votes total. Only a majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect a President. This includes one for each member in the House of Representatives and two for Senators. With most states having a winner-take-all system it even more so reduces the numerical value to that of just electors to vote for the winning presidential candidate while voters in toss-up states are more likely to pay closer attention to the campaign. Those voterss are more likely to be more thoughtful on average. They also receive the most information and attention from candidates.
Although, some articles and people consider the Electoral College method to be unfair to voters. Bradford Plumer says,"Because of the winner-take-all system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning." Even so, knowing their vote will have no effect, they will have kess incentive to pay attention to the campaign than they would if the president were to be picked by popular vote.
Continuing, as was said before to the State Senator, it's a much more favorable idea to forward with the Electoral College method rather than popular vote because it will help advoid many time-consuming problems like run-off elections and high numerical values. | 4 |
e1de5e0 | I think that we should change the voting system from the Electoral college to the most popular vote. Let me tell you why I think we should.
The first reason is that it is unfair to voters and presidential nominees. If the voters can not get there votes in to the nominee that they want then how do the votes go to the right elector. For example,the winner take all system,presidential nominees go to the states that they know they have a chance of getting there votes from. A few states never saw a campaign ad such as Rhode island and south Carolina,voters from 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad.
The second reason is that most voters only vote if they they like him or her on the way he or she dresses,talks,looks like,race,etc. Real voters now what they are doing and know who is really better for the country on his or hers facts and statistics. Some people just don't know who they should really vote for but that's what makes the country bad off. For example,people could vote for a president who says to lower minimum wage so so the higher paid people get paid more but he or she don't tell you about cutting down the minimum wage to $5.00 and then the people who voted for the good nominee and get paid minimum wage are now getting paid less but really the other nominee is the good one.
The third reason is that even Richard Nixon,Jimmy carter,Bob Dole,the U.S. Chamber of commerce,and the AFL-CIO all agreed on abolishing the electoral system. Almost every one has agreed on abolishing the electoral system. But there needs to be more people with higher grounds and words to abolish the system.
In conclusion the electoral college has no really good side to it. Its unfair,outdated and irrational. Almost everyone says to get rid of it. If you want it gone your gonna have talk to someone of high authority. | 3 |
e1df4f0 | The NASA discovered face was a mystery to the public. While it resembled a face, the chances of 'The Face' being an alien artifact is highly unlikely. Conspiracy Theorists have battled these NASA claims since the image was first released. Very little NASA scientists believe in these Theoretical claims.
NASA first released the photo of the newly-found 'Face' in 1976. These photos spread very quick, and theorists everywhere published books, movies, and more science fiction entertainment about 'The Face.' NASA new from the start the unusual photo was only of arock fromation similar to buttes and mesas, common landforms in the West Americas. While the scientists do address the fact that the landform appears as a face, it is only the shadows of an extra-terrestrial mesa.
While people still release theories hoping for more evidence of alien life. The NASA experts deny all claims with their factual evidence, which easily combats any Conspiracies on the subject. NASA is still investigasting other mysterious evidence that could eventually lead to a real science-fiction dream, maybe an alien apocalypse or an abduction? Theorists can only hope. | 2 |
e1e06f9 | How would you feel working with NASA on finding a way to look at Venus and actually be able to go on Venus without being burnt or hurt with how hot it is. Being able to work with NASA would be cool because you would get to learn how to use alot of technology and learn so much about all the planets. Venus is worth the pursuit because of all the characteristics and features and how hot it gets.
Venusus is actually the second planet clostest to the sun. With Venus being so close to the sun it makes Venus one of the hotest planets in the universe. Even though there is a planet between the sun and venus the sun is making venus more hotter because it is about the same size as the the sun. Venus being the hotest planet is can reach up to 170 degrees Fahrenheit. Nothing has been on Venus in three decades because it it so hot that everytime they send something to land on Venus it turns to a liquid.
Venus has almsot the same features as planet earth. Planet earth is covered in oceans, and could have supported various forms of life. Venus Could have oceans, and could support various forms of life just like earth. Venus has some features that are analogues to those on earth. Today Venus has a surfacw of rocky, sediment and includes familiar featrues such as valleys, mountains and craters. Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for planetary. The value of returning to Venus seems indisputable, but what are the potions for making such a mission both safe and scienfically productive is because the NASA has one compelling idea to make blip like cahicle hoverign over 30 miles or so above the roiling Venusian landscape so they can get an idea of what the landscaping looks like.
NASA is on a misson to stat a project to get all the stuff they can to make somethign so that theu are able to get it to land on Venus sincce nothing has landed on Venus in three decades. If NASA
uses the blimp like vehicle to make it to Venus they will be able to see what Venus looks like and what they need to use and how to use some of the material to make the project / mission able to fly to Venus without VEnus making it luiqify to a liquid. NASA has been working on this mission for a long time and are hoping to find a thing to make to fly to Venus and land it up ther for the first time ina long time about three decades ago is when something was last landed on Venus
In this essay I explained to you why Venus os a worthy pursuit despite the dangers. There might be a lot of dangers with Venus but by reading the prompt NASA would do anything to get somethign to land on Venus. It would be cool to have something land on Venus for the first time in forever. This essay is why Venus is worth the pursuit because of all the characteristics and features and how hot it gets. | 3 |
e1e2a67 | Driverless cars are cars that will drive on its own, but they still need a driver right now for problems that happen and that needs a human, but are quickly become less reliant on humans for parts of the driving. Many different companies like Google and Volvo are making and testing driverless cars and there are some that we pass by everyday and we don't even know it.
Driverless are a good thing for everyone, for example you are a busy person and have a long drive to work? Well you can work one that long drive getting mroe things done, and when the car needs your assistance, you are there. They can help the enviroment because they can find the shortest route to the place you are going by GPS. And car accidents will decrease by a large amount if everyone, or almost everyone, drove driverless. Right now all of Googles car haven't crashed once except when another human driver hit them. Also if someone is a long road trip by themselfs they will get tired, that is a big cause of car crashes, but if driverless cars then the driver won't have to drive the car while tired on major highways, also reducing accidents. If we adopted driverless then there would be a taxt/ride-sharing for everone, just say you need a car and one will come and pick you up. Another big casue of crashes and deaths if drinking and driving, but with driverless car it will keep people under the influence from driving on roads and making the roadways a safer place for everyone. As our lives keep advancing, so does technology, and this technology and help us learn, live better lifes, be safe, and so much more. And driverless cars are just part of this technology push. Cars are another step to making our lives better. Most rockets and other veichles that go into space that carry people, supplys, and other objects are mostly automated by computers. If a computer can take a veichle to Mars, Pluto, the Moon. Then why can't it take us down the street. As time advances driverless cars will get better and safer for everybody involed. So why hasen't the world adopted driverless cars for the better of everybody? If more money was put into the research and production of driverless cars then they would be even better and safer.
All in all driverless cars are for the betterment of people and the advancement in technology. With more research going into driverless cars with big names behind it like, Google, Apple, Tesla, Volvo and more. Then why does it seem like the world isn't fully behind driverless cars yet. Once laws are passed and more driverless cars are put onto the roads the hopefully everyone can see why drivercars are good for the world and simply amazing. | 3 |
e1e6310 | Dear Florida Senator,
There is a major problem in how we elect presidents. The Electorial College has to be replaced with a direct election because of how misrepresented many voters are, and how a canidate could lose the majority vote and yet still win the election.
The first problem of the Electoral College is that everyone is not represented. According to Bradford Plumer in paragraph 10, "... voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president... Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always. Do voters sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong canadate? Sometimes." and because the voters cannot directly control who they vote for, the electors could choosing a different person than who they said they would, which means that the voters are misrepresented. Another way that voters can become misrepresented is because of confusion. Since voters sometimes get confused about who the electors are voting for, they could end up voting for the wrong person. Also, the Office of the Federal Register states in paragraph 7 "Most states have a 'winner-take-all' system that awards all electors to the winning presidential canadate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of 'proportional representation'". Due to the "winner-take-all" system, many people are not represented in the electorial votes, especially in large, one sided-states. As a result of this, many of the minorities do not even vote becuase they know that their vote will not win the state.
Another reason that the Electorial College should be replaced with a direct vote is because of how the majority does not get the canadate they chose. In paragraph 16, Richard A. Posner states that "It happened in 2000, when Gore had more popular votes than Bush yet fewer electoral votes, but that was the firs time since 1888." and because of the fact that the electoral votes are the deciding factor in choosing a president and not the majority, most of America did not get who they wanted to see as their leader and president. Even though this hardly ever occurs, it still hasto be fixed. As a result, Bradford Plumer states in paragraph 9, that "over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now." which would be a true democracy, unlike the Eectoral College. The Electoral College also has an even number of people in it, which means there could be a tie. However, the Electoral College "requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal" according to Richard A. Posner in paragraph 19. This is not a good thing because when a certain state or region is struggling, a transregional president will not focus their attention on that area of weakness. In a direct democracy, the voters could vote for a president that has an area of expertise in that region or state and could give them a much needed boost, leading to less weaknesses and an all-around better country.
To summarize this completely, the Electoral College has to go. It is unfair, misrepresentful, and is not even a democracy. Eventualy, it has to change. The question is, when is the government going to become on the same page with it's citizens and take the next step? | 4 |
e1ea8ee | Venus, sometimes called the “Evening Star,” is one of the brightest points of light in the night sky, making it simple for even an amateur stargazer to spot. However, this nickname is misleading since Venus is actually the second planet, in our solar system, from the sun.
Humans have sent numerous spacecrafts to land on Venus’s atmosphere which has clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid with a thick atmosphere of almost 97% carbon dioxide that blankets over Venus but each previous mission was unmanned, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours. Maybe this issue explains why a single spaceship hasn't landed on Venus in over three decades. On the planet’s surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet. These conditions are far more extreme than anything humans have encountered on Earth, but NASA is working on other approaches to studying Venus. For example, some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simulating the chaos of Venus’s surface and have lasted for three weeks in such conditions, 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 II.
Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, and not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also because a human's curiosity will most likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors. Our travels on Earth and beyond shouldn't be limited by dangers and doubts, but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation. | 3 |
e1f5327 | Voting for whos the next president can be hard. Theres so many things to consider, like who will support you the best and make the right desition. The government has made two types of ways to vote, Electoral College and popular vote. I believe that we should go with the popular vote method. When voting like this its not a confusing, Theres no missing ad campaigns, and in the winner take all you dont rule out another persons elector for his chose.
Using popular vote for electing our president is better then Electoral College i believe because its not that confusing. In Electoral College you vote for a wet number of electors and they give their own vote on their behalf. Now with popular vote say one state votes for president b rather then president a then the state votes for president b.
In ppular vote both presidents are trying to win you over so they will make a campaign. what if you never see the campaign? This is what can happen in the Electoral College method. If a president knows that a certain state will not vote for them then the president wont perade around there. Therefore the state cant make a correct decision.
The popular vote method is very diffrent as you have seen in the paragraphs above. One reason I prefer the popular vote method over the Electoral College is do to the winner take all in ruling out the electors that didnt vote for the president. So if theopposing pesident winns the election then he can single you out for note voting for him and i dont believe thats fair.
So when it comes to election day which method will you chose? Electoral College or popular vote you know that im going to stick with popular vote because Electoral College can be confusing, the ad campaigns cna be unfair and ruling out the opposing electors. | 3 |
e1f561b | The earth as you know it is where us humans live and we have been living their for many many decades. The thought of going somewhere far away from earth sounds frightening,and unbelievable,but it may not be as unbelievable as you think. The author tells us Venus is the second planet from our sun and Earth, Venus, and Mars are all "neighbors" but all these planets have differences. These differences could lead us to something new or something that us humans have yet to discover.
The author supports the idea that studying venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers. The authour states "Solar power would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth levels. Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans." The author is not declining the idea of studying venus but rather suggesting us readers that it is not dangerous to study venus. The author also states "Striving to meet the challenge presented by venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also because human curiosity will likely lead us into manly equally intimidating endeavors." He/She believes venus could point us into a new direction and it is worthy enough to study even if it means facing danger us humans have not yet expierenced.
We do not know what will become of us humans in the near future but rather of thinking that way we should focus on what we have here and what we have around us. Although at this current moment we do not have sufficent materials to study venus that should not stop us from exploring furthur into venus and/or studying it.
"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 quote provides a new outlook of what is to come and it shows that the author definitley supports the idea of studying venus despite all the dangers it could come with. | 3 |
e1f6a80 | I do not have a drives license nor do I have a learners permit. If I did have any of the two I would be against the fact about a self driving car.
I do think that it is a good idea, but it prohibits new learners from driving the correct way. It may be very expensive to purchase this kind of technology. I am also uncomfortable with the car having cameras everywhere including inside of it. It might make the driver feel strange knowing that they are being watched and the car is invading their privacy. Another reason why I do not like it is hackers could hack the system and cause someone to crash into something and cause the passengers to get seriously injured. Also their could be a time where the car malfuntions and crashes. I think that if this driverless car idea does not work out he way that Google planned it to be then they would lose lots of money. People all over the world may or may not like considering the fact that it is new to the world and it is not normal to have someting drive for them.
I think that this self-driving car is a bad idea becuas it myay be dangerous to people all over the world. | 2 |
e1f6a8f | venus is actually second planet from our sun simple to see from the distance but safe vantage paint of earth.Venus is the coloset planet to earth in terms of density size and occasionally the closet distance too. Earth, Venus, and Mars.our other planetary neighbor, orbit the sun at different speed These differnces in speed mean that sometime we are closer to mars and other time to venus because venus is sometime right sent numerous spacecraft to land on this. venus has hottest surface temperrature of planet in our solar system beyound high preesureand heat, venusian geology and weather present additional imediment like eruptiny colcanoes. powerful earthquakes, and frequant lightning strikes to probes seeking to land on it surface . Venus was probaly covered largelly with oceans and cloud have supported various forms of life like earth. Today. venus still has some features that are analogous to those on earth the planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features more recall that Venus can sometimes be our nearest for a planetary visit. | 1 |
e1f6e33 | Driving; Everyones dreams when there're just hitting those teenage years. The day their parents hand them a key to their brand new car. We shouldn't live off our cars, we should be able to go aywhere we want and not worried to see if you don't have gas in your car, or if your license plate is expiered. My fellow citizens there is many advantages of limitig car usuage. Not being tense, not worried about the resposibilites on your car, and helps us to stop polluting the air.
To start, there are many places that don't have cars and their life keeps on going they are even stressfree. For examle Vauban's streets are completely "car free." Heidrum Walter says "when I had a car I was always tese. I'm much happier this way." (Source 1). Living without a car is not that bad. Living without a car can be much better for us. However the fact that living without car can be an advantage to us not everyone agress to the fact of it. After days of near-record pollution, Paris enforeced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global cirty. Cogestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after five days of intesifying smog. Paris trypically has more smog than oter European capital. Delivery companies complained of lost reveue, while exceptios were made for plug in cars, hybrids, and cars carryig three or more passsengers. (Source 2). If the delivery companies and my fellow citizens can realize is that the cars that we so called center our development on is polluting our air causing smog in certain areas of the world, and you can see because Paris banned certain cars in its area the smog ended up going away. So instead of driving our cars everywhere we can use this to our advantages and limit our car usage, so we can prevet smog in our community and pollution in atmosphere.
In addition, gooig car less is a stress free zone. Business Carlos Arturo Plaza stated "It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution." Which is absolutly true in my view because in Bogota, Clombia a program that's set to spread to other countries, millions of Colombias hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a car free day, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams. (Source 3). The car free day in Bogota and how people walked, biked, skated, and etc shows a great way to to take away stress. While you are either walking, biking, and so forth you have the chance to clear your mind and at the same time your not in a car that can pollute the air which can't result in smog. Also going car free is also becoming the new tread, a study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009, there has also been a large drop in the percetage of 16- to 39- year- olds getting a license. (source 4) I'm here today to show that this new tread that is spreadig is one that we should take to our advantage and use it, it's making things better for us and also our communities.
To sum up, my fellow citizens we should limit our car usage. We all can enter this stree free zone together as one, we can help the place we all call our home. Don't be against it and just use it to your advantage. Going car free is the right way to go. | 4 |
e1f841c | In theory a self driving car is a great idea, but in reality it is an accident waiting to happen. Self driving cars have many flaws to them. I beleive the development of these cars should no longer continue.
The self driving cars are never self driving, they still require the passenger to be there when it does not know what to do. The artical says " The car can read the positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code." This means that someone can send a wrong message through a computer, causing an accident. The death rate from car accident could rise with the development of the self driving car. Whith hearing that would you trust your child to be in that car?
People who agree to continue the development of these cars have many of theair own opinions. They say that the sensors on the car help make it safer.
They also might say that its a lot less stressful for the driver. The accepters of this product may also say that all safty measures are taken care of.
There are many things wrong with many of the statements above. The sensors on the car can go bad, how will the person know before its to late? How is a self driving car less stressful for the driver? If anything they would have to pay more attention to the road to make sure the car was working correctly. The safty procations of these vehicals rely on the driver noiticing the car is speakinging to it or that the seat is vibrating. Sometimes people do not feel my phone vibrate in their pocket or hear if for that matter, how are we suppoded to trust a car to alert you if we can not trust our phones.
Through out this campaign to have self driving cars it seems there is no one out there that wants to ask the hard questions, everybody thinks it is a great idea because it is new. Will this product be safe, we dont know, but it doesnt look promissing. In conclusion i do not beleive we should continue the devlopment for self driving cars. | 4 |
e1fcb27 | " What's wrong with the Electoral College?" To be honest, have you ever thought where our vote goes. Just in case you forgot, when we vote we're not voting for the President. We're voting for slate electors who would vote for the President, but how could we be sure that they make the right decision for all Americn Citizens.
I write this letter in favor to inform you that the electoral college is an unfair advantage for American citizens. I see how from a stand point you may trust the electoral college due to abundance of knowledge and critique they have. Yes, I can tell why you'd chose them in a way that they may have strong critique. But how can you trust them with a decision held in their hands with willing citizens to think about. " At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winner take all system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the " swing" states". Why is it continuing base it off of this knowing how American's feel about this matter? Which brings me back to why Americans have to feel like they have an unfair say on who the President can or could be? Perhaps reasoning is the EC( Electoral College) knows whats best for the American future. Thinking about the effects of the EC voting for the President could possibly vary in results and mat be right. But shine a little light on the situation, it should be in America's people hands and hearts who the president should be."... candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no cahnce of winning..." Why should we feel like that? American's sould have the right to vote for our leader not people who vote for our leader.
Hold on, I'm not finished yet. Another reason why is when American's vote how could we be sure who to vote for. I agree that Americans can make and exercise their decisions when voting for the Eletoral College. American's are depended on voting , another fact I agree on. But American's sometimes dont know better when voting. " The American people should consider themselves lucky that the two - thousand fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century; the system allows for much worse. Consider the state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors , and that those electors could always defy the will of the people." Sometimes it would be the Americans that throw off the vote for the EC, but in other perspective that wouldn't be the case. Americans should vote wisly upon the information given. but yet the electoral college shouldn't vote for the citizens of the United States, Info should be viewed. I can visaulize someone else perspective it could be with different electorsl parties. But in reverse think about the the biggest election crisis in 2000." Consider the state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people". Keeping in mind that we should still vote for our President but at the same keep in mind who citizens are voting for so another voting crisis wouldn't happen again.
In conclusion, I hope you clearly thought it through and thorough. Its hard to rely on other's with a big responsiblity like this. So the Government should let us trust our instincts and but at the same time think them out. | 4 |
e203c24 | I am against the development of these cars. The reasons i am against it is because for one, why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver ? like they mentioned in paragraph 8.
I feel like thats doing to much , if your going to invent a "driverless car" make it so that it can do everything by its self without the owners help, so that way the human can relax while the car does all the work.
For two, if the owner has to still do work and take over at certain times and certain parts whats the point?, you might as well just get a car you can control fully (a normal car) not a car that controls half the stuff you could be controling while you still have to conrtol certain parts/things.
What about new beginners that are just now learning how to drive ?, they need to know how to work/control the whole car NOT certain parts, what if they end up banning these "driverless cars" because its to many accidents and new beginners only know how to control certain parts because they were so used to the "driverless cars" that controlled most of the things in the car they arent used to the normal cars.
I honestly feel like they should just stick with normal cars and let the owners do all the work.
The owners are the ones paying for the car so why not let them control the car i could see if they werent making payments and stuff on the car and all they had to do was pay for it and its all theirs but their still going to have to make payments so why not let them control it themselves ?. What about if there is an accident the car shouldnt have to warn them anything, if the owner was paying attention to the road like your supposed to you would know if its an accident or if its about to be an accident. if someone is hurt who would be at fault the driver or manufacturer? i feel like it would be the manufacturer fault because their the ones that make these "driverless cars" thats supposed to do mostly everything and thats supposed to warn the driver when something bad happens.
What if the car makes a mistake and dont warn the driver ? , they should make it safe and confortable if thats the case because their the ones making these cars not the owner. It would honestly only be the drivers fault if they were the ones controling the whole car and all the parts because if they werent paying attention to the road and they controlled the car and an accident occurs then its 100% the drivers fault for not paying attention to the road like todays car , they wouldnt sue the manufacturer they really wouldnt even do anything because its the owners fault.
This is my argument for or against the development of these cars. | 3 |
e209f98 | Cars are a very useful means of transportation, but there are advantagess to limiting the usage of cars. The use of cars creates greenhouse gas emissions, creates smog, backs up traffic, and depletes our natural resources. Limiting the usage of cars can decrease all that, along with improving safety. There has already been places to have test a "car-free" environment, such as, Germany, Paris, and Colombia. All of which had positive results.
The use of cars may not seem it, but actually causes more of an inconvinence and takes up a lot of space that can be use for other things. If there were to be no cars, stores would be placed in walking distance. This is where cars are inconvienent. Because so many people own cars, stores don't build in walking distance, but instead in malls along distant highways. People can't just walk and get whatever it is they want, but instead wait forever in traffic jams to get to a store and then wait again to get back home. We also lose a lot of space because of cars. Lands that could be used to built for parks, bycicle paths, ect., are instead used to make garages, or parking areas for cars.
One of the most worst things that is caused by the use of cars is air pollution. The emissions from tail pipes creates greenhouse gases. In fact, passenger cars are resposible for twelve percent of green house gas emissions in Europe, and up to fifty percent in some car-intensive areas in the United states. Another effect of using cars is smog. Paris had actually banned the use of cars at a point to lower the levels of smog, and diesel fule was blamed. People were fined for driving cars, and delivery companies complained of lost revenue, but the limited use of cars helped clear the smog.
There are ways to limit the use of cars, not just in means of driving less, but by the number of those who are driving. People can limit the use of cars by changing the type of transportation they use. For example, instead of driving everday, a person could take a public bus to get to where they need to go, or that person could car pool with others that they know. A person could even organize the majority of what they do to where they rarely are need of a vehicle, and simply walk. There are many advantages to lowering the use of cars. It reduces greenhouse gases, lowers the level of smog, and it conserves our natural resources. | 3 |
e2130c6 | In the near future cars will be able to self drive themselves without the need of someone in the drivers seat. This is something many look forward to, but others find it a waste. Many flaws occumpany the autonomous cars that alarm me and many others. The interest in driving will deminish and millions will loose jobs of transportation. If one day the systems controling the cars crash everyone will be forced to walk to get to where they need to be. Self-driven cars will lead to lack of attention on the road which in turn could lead to accidents.
As a young teen the one thing everbody looks forward to most is getting their drivers license. Everyone looks forward to the wind in their hair as they drive around without the company of an adult. If cars become autonomonus teens will no longer get to look forward to acheiving their licences or get to experiance the thrill of driving a car for the first time. Driving is a privilage that shouldn't be taken away from future generations. Millions of people work in the transportation buisness today, earning a paycheck that supports them and their families. If cars become able to drive themselves millions of people will be out of a job. New jobs will have to be persued, and quite honestly there aren't enough jobs out there for everyone that would need one. The unemployment levels will reach an all time high, pushing America further into dept.
Imagine waking up one morning and getting inside your autonomous car, you sit for several minutes before realizing it isn't moving. You call several friends and they inform you that the same thing happened to them. The system is down and there is no way for you to get to work. Systems crash, it's inevitable, all it takes is one crash for people to realize they rely to strongly on these vehicles. What if the systems crash while on the road? Hundreds of accidents will take place resulting in hundreds of deaths and injurys. Autonomous cars are a major accident waiting to happen.
Along the lines of accidents, self-driven cars will allow riders to not feel the need to focus on the road. Attention will be on their phones or on the "in-car entertainment and information systems." If attention leaves the road many accidents could occur. Say a car malfunctions and shoots out of a side road right into the side of the car your sitting in. Your car slids into incoming traffic, right into the path of an autonomus semi that doesn't have time to stop. Doesn't sound very safe, does it? These self driven cars are a bad idea waiting to happen.
If Google cofounder Sergey Brin and the many manufacturers along side him continue their work the autonomous cars should be completed and ready to hit the road by the year two thousand and twenty. Though we grow closer everyday to the autonomous car many road blocks still stand in our way. The lack of attention on the road and the inevitable system crash must be consulted before many even consider purchasing the self driving vehicle. Our saftey should never be put over our strive for an easier life. Autonomous cars will put our saftey in the back seat and make life easy for a short time. | 4 |
e214a1e | Dear State Senator,
The Electoral College is unfair for voters all around the United States. The Electoral College is a Winner-take-all system in each state, the candidates don't spend time in the states that they know they have no chance of winning. They only focus on the tight races in the swing states. For example during the campaign in 2000, seventeen states did not see the candidates at all. Voters in the twenteyfive of the largest media markets didn't even get to see a single campaign ad!
Further more, "voters vote for not the president, but a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president." Voters cant always control who their electors vote for. The voters sometimes even get confused about the elector and vote for the wrong candidate. If you lived in Texas and wanted to vote for Bob Smith (just an example), you'd vote for a slate of thirtyfour Democratic electors who are pledged to Bob Smith. If those electors won the statewide election, they would go to Congress and Bob would get 34 electoral votes toward his presidency. The electors can be anyone not holding a public office.
Did you know that over 60% of voters would prefer a direct election more tham the kind of election we have now. According to the article " a Gallup poll in 2000, taken shortly after AI Gpre-thanks to the quirks of the electoral college-won the popular vote but lost the presidency. Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S Chamber of Commerce, and the AFL-CIO, in their time, all aggreed on one thing, abolishing the Electoral College. This years voters can and will expect another close election in which the popular vote winner could lose the presidency, once again.
The best argument against the electoral college is called the disaster factor. Americans should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century, but the system allows for worse. " Consider that the state legislature are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people." In 1960, segregationists in the louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with brand new elecors who would go against John F. Kennedy. Some faithless electors have even refused to vote for their party's candidate and instead they vote for whoever they want.
So its official now, the Electoral College is outdated, unfair, and irrational. The name makes no sense also why is it called the Electoral "College"? The Electoral College should just be abolished like Bob Dole said. So who is actually voting for the president? We the people? Or the Electoral College? | 4 |
e217305 | The idea of technology being able to read peoples emotional expressions is actually kinda cool. This idea can be actually kinda wierd too because you can be on the computer just minding your own buisness but also knowing the computer is watching your every move to detect your emotional expressions. One thing I do like about this facial action coding system is how they use science to make this work. Proffessor Thomas Haung says that the computer constructs 3-D model of the face and it scans all 44 muscles of the human face and can tell what your emotional expressions are. Another good thing about
this technology has that is pretty good is that when your on the computer and the technology is scanning your emotion , that can determine the ads that pop up , so if an ad pops up that you dont like and the technology can detect that you dont like it the next ad will be something that you like or will be even better. I think this is pretty good for advertising because advertisers are always trying to figure out what people are interested in , want or need and what puts a smile on their face. Overall I think
this technology is pretty good to me so far based on the information I am given. Other people may disagree with this technology and may not like it because not everyone wants there expressions to be known or used because some people may want to keep there feelings to there self. At the end of the day this technology hasn't been realeased to the public yet and people haven't had a chance to use it yet, but until then this is just an idea. | 2 |
e21cc71 | Driveless cars shouldn't be countinued because they are dangerous, cost more, and only go to 25 mph.
Currently, driveless cars is that they shouldn't be aloud because they are dangerous.(paragraph 7.) " this means the human must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires." this shows that you do have to be alert but what happens when you are in a situation when it doesn't give you that notification that something wrong happens? that is going to show that the system is unreliable and would need more work.
Secondly, they are way too expenisve.(paragraph 3.)These smart - road systems worked suprisingly well, but they require massive upgrades to exsiting roads, something that was simply too expenisive to be practical. This shows that not only are the cars are a lot but it shows that a lot of work has to be done to make it availible to the highways which costs a lot of money which a whole lot of companies don"t have.
Finally, it says that it can only go 25 mph.( paragraph 7.)
" the car can handle driving functions at speeds of 25 mph, but special touch senors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. This shows that the car is very slow and won't work well on highways which have a speed limit of 55 or even higher.
In conlusion, driveless cars shouldn't be continued because they are dangerous, they are too expenisve, and they are too slow. | 2 |
e2202d5 | The development of driverless cars, although is a step into the future for society and the world, should not be continued. These cars offer more negative aspects than positive, and suggest many conflicts for the future.
With today's technology, even though there is usually someone in complete control of the car, many faults occur and lead to issues anyway. Technology of all kinds are known for breaking down and malfunctioning; so if you can't trust a human to operate a vehicle with the chance of there still being some sort of problem (collisions, breakdowns, etc.), then you can only infer that when a driverless car is put into the same situation, that there will still be problems. Also since these driverless cars will consist of newer and unknown technology, they will be more prone to breaking down and causing difficulties for the passengers.
This leads to the problem of: who will be blamed for the accidents? Will the owner of the vehicle be blamed for, or will the manufacturers? What will happen when the technology fails? According to the passage, completely new laws will need to be made to cover things such as liability for accidents and new traffic laws will have to be created as well. A few states actually have a band on driverless cars which means that
if these vehicles do prosper, then there will be a few roadblocks ahead for those who choose to operate these cars. Unless the states lift the bans, owners of driverless cars will not be able to travel through certain states.
The ban could potentially be lifted, but what is the ban really protecting people from? According to what companies have already created, cars are still not fully capable of driving on their own. They require human asisstance in certain situations, which means that the driver will have to remain focused on the road as well. This is most likely not the point of having a "Driverless Car".
With today's technology, current laws, and the developement of what you could call semi-driverless cars, the world- or at least the country of the United States- is better off without these vehicles for now. Untill further projects and research has been done, these cars should not be developed and driven on roads unless the correct technology is created. | 4 |
e221e9b | Dear Senator,
We the people of the United States of America, desire a president who will not only care for the wellbeing of the citizens, but know what to do during times of crisis. The Electoral College is but one method of deciding this. There are many reasons as to why we need the Electoral College, and there are many reasons one can list of why we do not need it. If we were to get rid of the Electoral College completely and determine the win on the vote of the American citizens, chaos would ensue. Let's be honest, there are plenty of voters who have no idea what they are doing. If America were to base who would lead and call the shots of the country on the votes of everybody, then one person would end up being in office who is no better a ruler than a goldfish.
The Electoral College is noted as a process, not a place. This is correct. You don't just walk up to the Electoral College and say "hey, this is who you should put into office". Each state in the U.S. has a certain number of representatives(electors). For example, D.C.(is treated like a state) has 3 electors. People may say that the Electoral College is unfair and outdated. While in some aspects this can be true, but if the electors know what they are doing and are willing to stay true to their country, then maybe the correct person would be elected in. The EC is known to require a Presidential candidate to have trans-regional appeal. A trans-regional appeal is when one area of the U.S. is known to be in favor of the presidential candidate.
Among the other things the Electoral College is known as being, it has been widely regarded as an anachronism. An anachronism is a person or thing that seems to belong in the past and not fit into the present time. While yes, the Electoral College is very old, it does have its uses. It is perhaps one of the final things that will determine what direction this great country gets set into, be it forwards or backwards. The larger the population of a state, the larger number of electors it has. Most of the states in the U.S. have what is called a "winner takes all" system. This system will award all of the electors to the presidential candidate that wins the election.
Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, what is known as the AFL-CIO, and the U.S Chamber of Commerce all agreed on just one thing. That thing that they all agreed on was to abolish the Electoral College. Over sixty percent of the U.S. population would rather have a direct election over what we currently use. Out of all the arguments against the Electoral College, one of the "best" is the Disaster Factor. One of the other worrying views on the Electoral College is what would occur if there were to be a tie in the vote. If a tie were to occur, the election would thus be thrown in the hands of the House of Representatives.
While there are many reasons to like, and dislike the Electoral College, one of the most re-assuring should be that it (most of the time) will keep idiots out of the Oval Office. Among the reasons to dislike the Electoral College is that it is unfair, and keeps the majority of American people from using their voice. The Electoral College is the fine line between a country going backwards and causing the rest of the world to hate it, and a country going forwards, causing the rest of the world to hold it to a higher degree. If theres anything that the American people should want, it is a powerful and respectable leader who will do anything and everything they can for the citizens. Sincerely,
An American. | 4 |
e224edd | Driverless cars have seem to have made a name for themselves throughout history. Not only have you seen some driverless cars on movies, they are actually being tested for human use! Even though it seemed to be some kind of fantasy, it is coming, and coming fast. Driverless cars should be created for humans to not only avoid accidents but for other uses.
The most common use for a driverless car is safety. Humans are fond of making mistakes, its nature. Sooner or later, driverless cars will take care of accidents for you. Some are being tested by Google, BMW, and GM. Though, none have been released for public use, many have been able to test with some driverless cars.
The convenience of driverless cars can be a full list. People who have jobs one day will run late. If so, that one day can be taken care of by a driverless cars, not only getting ready in your car is a convenience but a blessing. It could and might just save you your job! Many laws are enlightened to keep both your hands on the wheel, but with driverless cars you don't need any. Just think of the things you could do in a car driven by a computer.
Safety has seemed to be a problem with the cars being built lately. Some driverless cars have had malfunctions here and there. Cameras have been installed inside and outside of cars to see where many occur. The side of the car is the most dangerous to get hit by. Creators of these cars have made the car resond to computer-based brakes. These special brakes not only are more powerful but also much more quick.
Driverless cars will be out before you know it, and maybe some day everyone in the world will own one. The world is changing in many ways to reassure safety and innovation. Creators of these cars are very optimistic when it comes to the statistics for the cars. Not only will innovation be powerful but a key point to the future of these cars. Driverless cars will be the future of cars someday. | 3 |
e22abc7 | My opinion on driverless cars is that i dont think
they are a good idea because some people enjoy driving, like me for example i have never gotten the chance to drive but i would really like too. If they were make driverless cars i might have to "wait my turn". Which means that when the car decides that it can't handle it anymore its going to make me drive it. I would like to drive the car at all times like it says in the article." the google simple announces when the driver should be ready to take over.
The idea of a driverless cars just make me want to know why someone would think of this i mean if you have a driverless car it ,ight toose funiction at anytime, and the driverless cars is basically all technology which mean it would malfunction at anytime just like your computure, or phone. A driverless car is a danger to society because so may things can go wrong with it. A driverless car could cause a big accedint if something goes wrong with it when its in motion.
If your cellphone or computer needs to be traded out every two years would it be the same with a car? I mean if the car starts doing things that could put people in dantger is it going to be bad.If there was to be in accedint would it be the cars fault or the drivers fault? If the car was in an accedint some people might say that it was the cars fault they might lie and try to sew whoever made the car.like it says in the article " who is at fault the driver ot the manufactuer. No one would know so i think that the car is a bad idea.
The car might also have a positive effect like somepeople like to text and drive like they have an addiction to there phone. If someone decides that they want to send a text messege while driving they wouldn't be driving and i thyink that thats pretty cool. If tyhe cars would be invented would textuing and driving still be illegel? Cops wouldn't be able to pull you over because you weren't driving i also think that is pretty cool. That is my opinion on the driverless car. | 4 |
e22dbf3 | Driverless cars would be an outstanding invention and even though we have some cars that can speed up, brake and steer on their own, thier not "driverless". There are many things wrong with the whole driverless car idea. Most of the cars already developed with high tech features concluding that the car is somewhat driverless all have to have the human holding the wheel. Wrecklessness is also a big concern. If something happened with the car would it be the owners fault or the manufacturers. If driverless cars made it to the world then all car laws would have to be changed. The question is, would we be willing to change our nation as we know just to be toted around?
The problem with the driverless car idea is that humans will have to be alert, no matter how high tech the car is. In the passage it mentioned only few car companies that developed a somewhat autopilot car, but the driver still has to be alert and have his or her hands on the wheel to sense that someone is in the car. Throughout the years colleges and other people have tried to make this fantasy of driving cars come true. For example, in 1950 General Motors found a way for cars to drive themselves by putting them on a track and having an electrical cable send radio signals to the car. But the project was simply too expensive.
Safety would be a concern to many people. Would people be comfortable being driven around without the control to stop anything if something were to arise? Yes, there would most likely be a decrease in traffic and accidents. But, who says nothing can happen. What if someone got injured somehow, would the blame be on the owner or the manufacturer?
Driveless cars are completly different than manual driven cars. That means the laws would be completely different. The reason we have laws for manual cars is so that nothing wreckless happens. Of course problems do occur but thats because we're human and we aren't perfect. But, what would the laws be for driveless cars? For example, speeding laws wouldn't need to be in place. Since the driveless car is self-driving then it would be able to sense what the speed should be. Whether its in the cables controlling the cars or a satellite in space. Road rules would be replaced because we would have to completely change the roads so that the driveless cars can be controlled. We would be changing our entire nations.
Next time someone asks about driveless cars stop and think for awhile. Do you really want to change the nation so that you don't have to drive? Of course people would, but you have to think about all the cons of it. Do you really want to risk the safety of others or changing the laws you've been accustomed to for so many years? Do people really want the goverment to put all this money into this idea just so they can say its not completely driveless? After all, thats what everyone wants, a driveless car. | 4 |
e22df36 | I will be informing you about why people should join the Seagoing Cowboys program, if anyone had the opportunity.
Some reasons people should join the program is because people can save life's. A lot of countries need help and it's not very much people to help them. Anyone can make a difference in the world. It doesn't always have to be people you help, it could be animals too. You would be able to travel the world, go places some people have never even heard of before. Luke Bomberger says, "I'm grateful for the opportunity, it made me more aware of people of other countries and their needs."
Luke Bomberger traveled to, New Orleans, Greece, Europe, China, Venice, and, Italy. That's all over the world. Would you want to travel to all of those places if you had the chance?
Luke had a awesome experience being a Seagoing Cowboy. He got to see the world in different ways. If someone called you to invite you to the Seagoing Cowboys program would you go, or would you pass the opportunity? | 2 |
e233513 | 25 years ago something hysterical happen around Mars.
NASA'S spacecraft called Viking 1 was circumnavigating the planet, snapping photos of possible landning sites for the other spacecraft viking 2.
When Viking 2 was found, it was a shadow likeness of a human face.
It was huge, its length was two miles from end to end. The caption noted it was huge rock formation, but it resembles a human head formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose, and mouth.
That does not mean it was an alien, it just means that thats the way the natural landform formed.
The "Face on Mars" has been everywhere from Hollywood films to grocery store checkout lines for 25 years.
Very few scienists believe that he Face was an alien artifact, phtographing Cydonial became a priority for NASA and Mars Global Surveyor arrived at the Red Planet in Septemebr and the year of 1997, about eighteen long tirinig years after the Viking mission concluded.
It says in the story that the team which is called MOC snapped a picture ten times sharper that the original Vikings photograph.
Thousands of peoples anxiety were coming out when they searched the web waiting when the image first appeared on a JPL web site revealing the answer.
The answer is a Natural landform, there was no alien monument after all.
On April 8, 2001 a war summer day in Cydonia.
Mars Global Surveyor drew close enough for a second look.
"We had to roll the spacecraft 25 degrees to center the Face in the field of view,"
said Garvin.
Malin's crew captured and extraordinary image using the camera's absolute maximum resolution.
Each pixel in he 2001 image spans 1.56 meters, compared to 43 meters per pixel in the best 1976 viking photo.
But as a rule of thumb, you can discern things in a digital image 3 times better and bigger that pixel size.
So if there were objects in this picture like airplanes on the ground or Egyptian-style pyramids or even small shacks, you could see what they where.
The picture actually reveals that there is a martian equivalent of butte or mesa landforms common around the American West. | 1 |
e233bf6 | The author suggests studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents.
Studying Venus can be dangerous but NASA thinks it will be a compelling idea. In "The challenge of Exploring Venus," it says "Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation." (8) Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray. Venus has the hottest surfaces and rocky sediment but can be our nearst option for a planetary visit.
Venus can be a hard place to go because of how dangerous. Humans have sent many spacecrafts and each mission was unmanned because the spacecraft didnt survive the landing. In "The challenge of Exploring Venus" in the text it says "Scientists seeking to conduct a thorough mission to understant Venus would need to get up close and personal despite the risk." (6). Venus conditons are not easy, but survivable for humans. Venus is a challenge but humans are trying to go and explore even with the dangers they might face.
Venus has a thick atmosphere of 97 percent carbon that covers venus. The planets temperature is over 800 degrees. In the text it says "Venus is simple to see from the distant but safe vantage point of Earth, it has proved a very challenging place to examine more closely."(1) Venus is dangerous place to visit but scientists want to risk going to gather up information and explore. Doesn't sound like a good and safe idea but the author and NASA think it's a good oppurtunity.
In conclusion in "The challenge of Exploring Venus," the author suggests "studying venus is a worthy pursuit depite the dangers it presents." There are many reason Venus is a dangerous planet to visit. The authors and scientists think it is a good idea, it says "what are the options for making such a mission both safe and scientifically productive," (4). | 3 |
e24bc2b | Should we keep the electoral college? No because when you vote for your canidate in the presidential election you are actually voting for his/her electors. Also because electors can be anyone not holdin up in the public office. Finally because voters cant always control their elected electoral college member will vote for the same canidate. Over 60 percent of todays voters would prefer a more direct way of electing our officials than how we are electing them now.
Did you know that when you vote for the canidate that you want to be elected into office you are not only voting for that canidate you are actually voting for that canidates electors? Under the electoral college system us voters dont vote for the president but we vote for a slate of electors which in turn elect the canidate we voted for. Say that you voted for Obama in last years election you didnt actually vote for Obama you voted for his electors to vote for im in turn of you voting for them. Many people see this to be fine but say that your canidates electors turned and voted for someone else thus leading you down a road of betrayl. This is one important reason for the electoral party to be disbanded.
Electors that represent a canidate in the presidential run can be anyone not holding public office. Who chooses for these electors? Not the voters of course but the state and sometimes the people who you are actually voting for the electors you havent even heard of or seen in any flyers or ads. That state chooses their officials from state conventions,and even sometimes at the state partys committee or the president has his own party of electors for himself which would in a way be cheating by having your own officials vote for you.
What if the electoral party you voted for to vote for a specific canidate and they went off and changed their mind mid election and passed that countries vote for a different xcanidate in the election? You cant always control the eletors to stick with them voting for the elector you voted for but without the electoral college that group of voters who voted for a canidate would actually vote for the canidate that they actually want to win. Thus making the electoral college irrelevent because they dont need to form a party and change their vorte mid election.
We should not not keep the electoral college because of all the flawls in it and the deciving image it holds up. Because you do not vote for the canidate you vote for the electorial party member representing that canidate. That the canidate can be anyone chosen by the state and you cant always control that the member of the electoral college that you voted for to vot for a different canidate that the ended up voting for during the election. This is why we dont need the electoral college to help vote for the presidents we should have a more direct way of voting. | 4 |
e24bee7 | Cars have essentially become a necessity in this day and age, and technology that surrounds them is becoming more and more complex everyday. Based on this, it was only a matter of time before the idea of driverless cars came about. A controversial ides which is already being sold commercialy worldwide. I am not a fan of this idea and feel that there are more negative aspects to the concept than positive. Based on the amount of fatal car accidents every year, data shows cars are already dangerous enough. Revoking a persons control of their car entirely will only make the problem worse.
Cars driving themselves sounds like a great idea, but in reality it is not. There have been an abundance of occasions where machines malfunction and cause serious or even fatal injuries. In fact, less than 20% of commercial plane crashes are caused by human error, meaning more than 80% the crash was caused by a problem at the manufacturer! Those number are scary to think about and this is on a much smaller scale than cars. Those numbers show that machines are not as reliable as humans. To give the machine complete control of your life is very scary, not only that it would be extremely dangerous.
As I stated earlier in the prompt cars are a necessity in this day and age, meaning that knowing how to drive is just as important. If these cars were placed on our streets and sold to the public, then generations down the line, the skill of driving would be lost. Knowing how to drive is an extremely important skill to have and these so called "smart" cars would extinguish this skill.
The idea of driverless cars is unrealistic, seeing the danger that comes with them. There would be way to many negative aspects than positive. Yes, you could sleep while you go to work, but death or injury is massive price to pay for laziness. Driverless cars in theory sounds like an amazing and innovative idea, however the idea is unrealistic, dangerous, and will only bring negative reprocautions. Driverless are not and should never be aloud on our streets. | 3 |
e250c3b | Scientist know that the face is created by something else, but someone thinks aliens created it. I don't think aliens can do that. Many things could be the cause of the face on Mars, but I'm sure it's not aliens. Scientist have not proven that aliens are even real yet. If aliens were real scientist would know about it, and they might try to capture one. The face would of been causes by wind, the spacecraft, or it could of been a natural landform.
The face on Mars could have been caused by the wind. When planets rotate it could have cause some wind, and the wind could start to form piles of dirt. The dirt could have been moved into the shape of a face. The shadows give it an illusion of eye, nose, and mouth. The face didn't have any footprints around it so aliens couldn't done it. On Earth the wind blows, and pollen from one flower goes to another. Dirt on Mars could of blew to one area, and it could form a face.
Spacecrafts flying around Mars could have cause the face to appear. The air that is blowing out of the spacecraft could of blown the dirt into piles. Piles of dirts can form since the scapecraft is big. When the scapecraft takes off it could form the face because when air is blown out it leaves a mark. A spacecraft couldn't have left a mark by the face. The fuel on the spacecraft could of left a mark after blasting off Mars.
The face on Mars could be there naturally. It is the third planet from the sun. If there's any volcanoes; lava can explode out of it. Aliens wouldn't come out, and randomly make a face to scare people. The face on Mars must be natural because I don't believe that aliens are real. If aliens are real we probably would have seen one by now. Aliens can't be alive; if they were alive they would have to find food sometime.
However, the face could be have been maded by aliens. I'm stil shocked that people think they're real. I've never seen one before. aliens could be able to fly, and they don't have to touch the ground. The could pick up the dirt, and place it where ever they want to form the face. Inconclusion I still don't believe in aliens, but something had to happen to Mars. It could of been a natural landform or it could of been a spacecraft flying around Mars. They world may never know how the face was created, but I'm positive that aliens didn't create it. | 4 |
e253356 | Driverless cars can be a great thing, but they can also be harm your safety and peoples safety. I believe that driverless cars are something that is made for the future and it should stay that way. I don't think that we need driverless cars because the regular cars we have are fine. Todays technology isn't that great to make driverless cars.
It's ok to have a driverless car for long road trips because they could protect you more and react faster on a high way then on a everyday street that gets drove on everyday. I think the GM's idea on having the seat vibrate when backing up into a object is a great idea.
Antilock breaks would be a horrible thing to put on a car because if your driving down a street and its raining real hard then out of no where your antilock breaks come on and you stop on a busy road that would be scary and its dangerous not just for you, but for everyone that would be involeved in that predicument.
However, they explain how great driverless cars are and how they will help many people when it comes to driving, but anything could happen once you get behind the wheel and actually drive it and test it out. I don't think anyone would want a car that could steer for them that's more dangerous then having antilocks.
In all, driverless cars are cars that should be made for the future. The world today doesn't need anything like that no time soon a regular motor car is doing perfectly fine. Driverless cars will be great for the future, but right now its not a good idea to make them the technology that we have today wouldn't be enough to make the car as accurate as the people who believes that the car would be perfect if they where made right now. | 3 |
e254feb | When i heard about driverless cars i was shocked that they really were coming up with such a thing , yeah its cool but at the same time it is extremely dangerous.
As you can see the automobiles are still having to alert the drivers ! How can it be a driverless car an still need assistance to get out of certain situations? I feel they shouldn't be realesed on the car lots, they can put many adults and children at risk.
The pasage states ''wouldn't drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive." The main concern is would the driver actually be alerted by the methods they have,when it's their turn to take control of the automobile. Also in the passage it states the car will look for any road trouble but will the car or driver be prepared for any kids darting across streets or any citizens on bikes .
I believe thats another reason why this car should not be realesed is because in the passage it says ''and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers.'',''Presently traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times." There are to many flaws in these Driverless cars for them to get on the main roads just yet.
I feel if the public is concered about the safety of themselfes an their loved ones they would want to really postpone this driverless car situation, because a accident can occur in just a blink of an eye, you would basically be putting your life in danger by trusting technology that still has many problems and flaws .
This is why I believe that these Driverless cars should not be realeased . | 3 |
e2565cd | Some people choose to say that the Face was created by aliens, but I am here to tell you that it definetly is not an alien structure, simply a natural landform. In 1976 I must say, it certainley did resemble a man made face. Though now that we have a clearer picture from 2001 it is very obviously just a natural landform. It resembles landforms similiar to the ones around the Amercian West. It is really just the Martian equivilent to those particular landfoms. The two are so similar in formation and shape.
The most recent picture is so clear and high definition that even if it werre some kind of shack or Egyptian pyramid, you would know it for a fact. The picture taken in 1998 was on a slightly cloudy day, so I understand the doubt from some of you. Though we did take another picture, and it was on a very clear summer day, and it is mothing but a simple lava dome, that has taken the form of an isolated mesa about the same height os the Face on Mars.
It was very hard work just to try and get that picture, and I would like to assure you that it is definetly no "Martian Made" structure. We got very close on a very clear day, and you can definelty see that those were just shadows, and nothing short of a dissapointment. What you don't understand is, that it would benifit us if it was a Martian's craft. It would give the tax payers evidence and reason to support us and give us their money to support the cause. SO therefore I rest my case tht clearly we are not lying because it would benifit us if there were Aliens crafting these thing, but the simple fact is, there isn't. | 3 |
e25a788 | In this article, the author suggests that despite Venus' inhospitable conditions, it is a very good idea to explore and descover more about it. He supports that with developing technology, it would not be impossible, just a complicated engineering challenge. The author supports that if the correct methods and technolohies were developed, humans might be able to visit and even live on Venus.
The author's main reason for claiming that exploring Venus is worthwhile is because Venus is often referred to as Earth's "twin", and for good reason. It once had lakes and oceans that could have supported life. Even though those are gone, it still has similar landforms (mountains, valleys, etc.) and it's surface is made of rocky sediment, similar to Earth's. It is aslo often the closest planet to Earth, trading out with Mars every so often.
In summary, the author's reasons for supporting the exploration of Venus are that Venus is often the closest planet to ours, it sports a similar geography and other planetary characteristics, and that it might be possible for humans to one day visit and live on Venus, which might be a good thing with the current rate of our population growth. | 2 |
e25f91c | Driverless cars are coming, no matter how much you may like it. They have their many pros and cons, like how they still need to be driven by a human to get in and out of a driveway, or to navigate a crash or roadblock, and how it went over 500,000 miles without crashing (paragraph two). This still fairly remarkably, even whilst it is still in it's prototype stage.
Although still proving to be an expensive alternative to normal cars, by being made by brands such as Tesla and Mercedes-Benz, to name a few, the evidence given in the article states that driverless cars can have the potential to be an incredibly safe method of transportation, as compared to human driven cars. They can be proven even safer to both pedestrians and policeman alike, by being utilized by people under the influence of alcohol, to drive home safley, and not harm any people utilizing the sidewalk or other drivers.
Although having to be driven by humans to do things like drive into driveways or navigate traffic, which would ultimatley void my previous statement on how it could protect passersby. Remember that these cars are still in the prototype stage of their lives, and developers are still working hard on making these cars as skilled as a driver as any human. These cars are coming closer and closer to becoming a reality that could be in every house by 2020. Much like everything else, they have their pros, and cons, but ultimatley prove that ve are one step closer to a better, safer tomorrow. | 2 |
e265aa8 | You should join the Seagoing Cowboys program. This program is where people like me help rcover other countries with their food supplies, animals, and more. 44 nations joined together to form the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA).
When I was frist asked I know that I couldn't say no. I belive that the cattle-boat trips were an unbelievable opportunity for a small-town boy. I got to see Europe and China. To me seeing the Acropolis in Greece. Also in Venice, Itily. The streets were water!
Caring for the animals while crossing the oceans kept me busy. I had to feed and water them three times a day. I also had to claen out the stalls.
Once I served as night watchman. i had to check on the animals every hour. Once I slid down a slipery lader and almost fell overbord. I was cought by an pice of metal.
Even though being in the UNRRA could be dangours it is all woth it. It could also be a lot of work. But when you get to see abunch of special stuff it is like all of the hard and dangours worck wasn't even that hard. | 2 |
e265ef2 | In the article "making monq lisa Smile" itll describe many things on how the new technology can figure out the facial expressions of people. Like it said in the first paragraph in the article "She's 83 percent happy, 9 percent disgusted, 6 percent fearful and 2 percent angry."
I think that using this technology in a classroom would be valuable. i think it would because, when a student is acting up in a different way but doesnt really like to show his emotions the computer can detect it and the teacher can help him out through what he is suffering through.
Second, i think it would be a great thing because the facial action coding system could allow us to interact with one another and globalize each other around. i think this becuase their are times when students are mad and fired up and just do not want to be bothered so using this can help out a lot. This new technology can benefit the teachers too because they can know what his or hr students are feeling whether they're bored, about to fall asleep becuase then they can figure out another way to figure out a way to teach the class in a better sucessful way.
Third, the system can a smile to your face when you realize what the computer is capable of and not only will it detect that also the little facial expressions you make time to time such as confusement, boredum and ETc.
In conclusion i do think that the facial acting coding program is a good one and should be allowed in classrooms because it could help each other out and the teachers by makking the class a little better just by a different way of teaching. not only the education but also with being friends and your family because now you can check up on them. | 3 |
e26876b | Automated vehicles are nice and all, but when it comes donw to it, ahuman should be responsible for his or her own actions on the road. The use of automated automotives just seems to be a liitle too risky to use on roads within the next few years. Automated automobiles might sound like a good idea in theory, but technology fails all of the time and I would not be surprised whatsoever if lawsuits sprung up in the near future, due to accidents caused by so-called "smart" cars. There are currently no laws regarding smart cars, smart cars are unreliable, and smart cars would not offer the same experience as a normal vehicle would.
One would assume that driverless cars are 100% safe. That is a very false statement, as drivers may still take control of the wheel. Who is to say that a driver would not just grab the wheel, drive off of the side of the road, and attempt to sue a car manufacturer for a faulty product? There are little to no laws regarding self-automated vehicles in most states. New sets of laws and other rules would have to be put in place in order to maintain peace between civilians and car manufacturers. Paragraph #9 states that new laws would have to be made in order to assure liability to a specific party if one got in a crash due to the smart cars. It seems highly impractical, and it also seems like a waste of precious time and money.
Smart cars may sound very safe and enjoyable in theory, but all technology has the capability to fail at any given moment. Imagine a world where driverless cars are simply rolling along down the streets, and perhaps one combusts here, or another veers off of the road there. Paragraph #7 talks about how some cars are only partially automated, and that is honestly the best way to handle the situation. A driver should still be responsible and should be able to make his/her own decisions on what to do on the road. There are dangers in this as well, because some people are not bright enough to use and understand the technology to its full advantage, and could cause problems in the process of maintaining the vehicle. If a vehicle has multiple sensors scattered around its body, those sensors can be tampered with and can malifunction; whether it be intentional, or a simple mistake, accidents do occur on the road.
There is no experience in the world like driving a car. Kids look forward to it their whole lives! Girls will get cars on their 16th or 17th birthday and SURPRISE! YOU DO NOT ACTUALLY GET TO DRIVE IT! A computer will do it for you! To me, that does not sound appealing or very fun in the slightest sense. Imagine sitting at the sterring wheel and dozing off, due to the fact that you have not had to touch the sterring wheel in miles. Dozing off at the wheel could be a fatal experience. Making drivers operate a vehicle is much safer than allowing a computer to do so, because it should be the choice of the driver as to what happens on the road. In paragraph #8, a psychologist states that automated vehicles could cause drivers at the wheel to get bored. Boredom leads to weariness, which will eventually lead to sleep, which in turn could result in a fatal accident to the driver, a passenger, or pedestrians/cyclist. If someone did not want to drive or take responibilty for it, they could have someone else drive, they could ride a train, or fly in an airplane! It just seems so unrealistic and kind of ridiculous that someone would actually want to be driven by a machine. If a person owns a car, they should be responsible for managing it and whatever occurs on the open road.
There is no practical use for smart cars in a modern day society. Perhaps in the future, when technology is more advanced and when the people of the world are even more brain dead than they currently are, we could have smart cars driving people freely throughout the streets. Smart cars will never live up to the security and safety measures of vehicles operated by a human driver. Smart cars are a lot more trouble than they seem to be worth. Smart cars would require new laws, maintenace and regular repair (so a malifunction may not occur), and trust in a machine that could fail at any given moment. Smart cars will only make the human mind much more lazy, and we will continue to degress as a society if we allow smart cars to become our preferred mode of transportation. | 5 |
e268cd1 | NASA discovers a mesa and mistakingly takes it as a sign or symbol created by Aliens, First of all we are hard working humans striving everyday wasting time on things that don't make sense but we care about. So even if it was something like going to space for a few days you're down because its something new, Now.. think about this if you were on a ship in space what would you have done? Taken over the world below? No. because you're already gonna be used to space like we are on earth as we also are too much wanting. We can never be satisfied. We want to see it all! But think again is it possible to do these things? Travel in time or Ride a hovercoaster? No. Well at least not in our generation, But a time is coming most likely we will have those things before we even know it. We only can be sure of things we see not what we can hear. | 1 |
e26c4cb | Studying Venus is a dangerous pursuit but could be very helpful for gathering knowledge about the plant and about the solar system. We could learn how Venus works and what the planet could have been like long ago. Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of size. It is also the closest planet to Earth and can be seen without any powerful equipment. Venus should be studied in greater detail and can be with the use of the new ideas that NASA is coming up with. I have good reasons why we should attempt to study Venus in closer detail. With new technology we can get closer to the planet, learn how the planet works, and learn what the planet used to be like.
Venus is the hottest planet in our solar system despite Mercury being closer to the sun. What makes Venus so hot is that its atmosphere is 97 percent carbon dioxide, the clouds are made of sulfuric acid, and the temperatures on the surface average of 800 degrees Fahrenheit. Something else that makes this planet dangerous is that the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than Earth. These conditions are to harsh for humans to explore but NASA has a possible solution that would help us get closer to the planet. We could fly a blimp like vehicle 30 miles above the surface. That way we be at about 170 degrees and air pressure that is like what sea level is on Earth. There would be enough solar power and normal levels of radition so that humans would be able to survive these conditions.
Getting closer to the planet could help us to understand more of how the planet works. This planet has many volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and lots of lightning. If we could get a sample of some of the rock on Venus, this could help us better understand these conditions and what has happened to this planet. Long ago Venus could have been like Earth and this could tell us how.
People think that a long time ago that Venus maybe used to be like Earth. It was covered in oceans and supported life forms. Venus is alot like Earth because it has a surface made of rocky sediment, valleys, mountains, and craters. Venus is the closest and most like to Earth and I think that we should explore it to learn more of what it used to be like.
Venus is a dangerous and hard planet to study put I think if we can get close enough to it to study than it is worth the risk. Venus is alot like Earth and it would be cool is we could what it was like a long time ago and if it had life forms on it. We would also get to learn how the planet works and why it is so hot. I think that we should explore Venus more and that we should try NASA's blimp idea. | 5 |
e2714d3 | The Electoral College should remaining our countries voting system when deciding whom the president of the United States will be. The Electoral College is a process our founding fathers established as a compromise between election of the President by a popular vote made by citizens (Source 1, paragraph 1). Citizens elect electors who will then elect the president. This system is affective in many ways and shall not be abolished. These electors are concious of every decision they make when deciding on our president and are here to look at things we may overlook. They are here to help us make the most affective decision. Afterall, this is an enormous decision. It is the decision of whom the president of our country will be.
The Electoral College has 538 electors and a majority of 270 electoral votes are required to elect the President (Source 1, paragraph 3). After the preisdential election, your governor prepares a "Certificate of Ascertainment." This lists the candidates whom ran for president in your state and the names of their respective electors. It is a well organized and thought-out process. This process helps us make the best decision as a country on whom our future president will be.
In source 2, paragraph 13, it states "Because of the winner-take-all system in each state, candidates don't spend much time in states they know they have no chance of winning in." Candidates don't take their time in these states because they don't want their beliefs and ideas shut down. They spend some time in these states. The electors for each state help them vote wisely, therefore the absence of presence by these candidates should not be a big ordeal. People want to abolish the Electoral College due to citizens not being able to vote for the president yet they do not realize what this system has provided for us. It provides organization and avoids many, many problems that would likely take place without the Electoral College.
In source 3, paragraph 20, discusses how voters in toss-up states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign due to the fact they have recieved the most information and attention from the candidates. These voters are the most thoughtful and should be the ones deciding the election. Also, in paragraph 22, (also in source 3) it states how there is pressure for run-off elections when no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast. That pressure is reduced by the Electoral College because it produces and reveals a clear winner.
The Electoral College was created many years ago and has brought organization to our voting system. Why should we try to fix something that is not broken? Changing the system would be illogical. Electors are wiser at making these final decisions than we are. Wwe deserve an input, which we can all agree we recieve, but we shouldn't make the final decisions of our country aimlessly. Electors are people who know exactly what to look for in a president and they are more knowledgable on the subject. The Electoral College is the wisest process we can use in electing our presidents. | 4 |
e272e4a | The author suggest that studying venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents because.In the passage it talks about how no space craft has survived landings. on paragraph 2 it says "Each previous missions was unmanned, and for good reasons, 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 also explains how Venus's weather condition wouldnt cooporate with us humans needs. On paragraph 3 it states."On the planet's surface, temperatures avarage over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and 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".The author is trying to explain to the audience that Venus is a facinating place to do research on or exploar but very dangerous and Venus's conditions would kill a human because of its dangers. | 2 |
e275b16 | Have you ever wanted a car that drives its self ? I have, and i think it si a great and cool idea. If all cars were driverless and used as a transportation system and ran on electricty, there would be less pollution from diesel and gas from normal cars, Gas prices could go down a lot because of less usage in it, and with the technology, having a driverless car could potentially prevent wrecks. Driverless cars would be a great thing to have.
One reason having driverless cars is a good idea is because it could be more eco-friendly. less pollution would be produced if all cars were ran on electric and were driverless. Today's cars, trucks, etc.. cause a lot of the pollution in this world. electric, eco-friendly vehicles could lessen the amout of pollution.
Another reason to why driverless cars would be a good thing is; gas prices would go down because of less usage of it. No car would need gas and you might only need a gallon or two if you have to mow your lawn or something. it would save a lot of people money.
My final reason to having Driverless cars is, with the technology we have today, the could bulid the driverless cars to prevent wrecks. if all of the cars on the streets were driverless, there would be no problems caused. The cars would detect the others and prevent the crash. people could text and make phone calls all they want without having to worry about an accident. Texting and driving is a big issue and a major cause of most of today's accidents. A driverless car would cancel that number out becuase you cant text and drive without a driver.
All in all i think having a driverless car is a great idea. It will lower pollution on the earth, Lower gas prices signifigantly, and prevent a lot of wrecks caused by mistakes drivers make daily. i think car manufactuers should consider making driverless cars a big thing. | 3 |
e2763c4 | In the article "The Challenge of Exploring Venus," the author is very supportive of the idea of exploring Venus even though it's very dangerous. He goes on to explian the dangers of Venus and what NASA is doing to avoid those dangers. He also tells the reader how at one point Venus may have been a lot like Earth. That very statement may be the reson why the author believes that the Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents.
Many times in this article the author metioned how challenging it would be to study and explore Venus. Some of the challenges were presented in paragraph 2 when the author was expaining how most of missions to Venus were unmanned the spacecrafts could not survive the landing on Venus grounds. He even stated that not a single spacecraft has touched down on Venus in more than 30 years. Also at the end of paragraph 2 the author says "Numerous factors contribute to Venus's reputation as a challenging planet for humans to study, despite its proximity to us." This shows that the auhtor truely believes that Venus is very challenging to explore and he even gives evidence to prove it. And yet he is still very supportive of the idea of exploring this planet.
In 3 paragraph the Author goes into more depth about how difficult it is to explore Venus. He tells the reader how the atmosphere is 97% carbon dioxide. Or how the average temperature is 800 degrees and the atmospheric pressure is 90 time greater than it is on Earth. Even a submarine ment to explore the deepest parts of the ocean would be crushed if brought to Venus. After discribing all of these facts the author reveals that even though Venus is far more dangerous for humans than Earth, there is a chance that at one Venus was much like Earth. He discribes how Venus may have been covered in oceans and could've supported various forms of life much like Earth.
With Venus possibly being much like Earth scientist and NASA wanted to explore it. Another thing that was mentioned in the this article was how Venus is our sister planet and if annything were to happen to Earth then we could just go to Venus. This would make people want to explore Venus even more no matter the dangers.
So in conclusion the author supports the idea of exploring Venus, even though it would be very challenging and dangerous, because he believes that exploring shouldn't be limited to danger and that at some point if we ever had a problem , farming issues, on Earth then we could go to Venus. On top of all of that the author believes that at one point Venus was much like Earth, but there's no offical way to go there and see for himself. So it's normal that author would support the idea of exploring such a dangerous planet out curiousity. | 4 |
e277f2c | Wow! The world has hit a new level of science by using (FACS) to detect human emotions. I am both for an opposed to this technolgy. The way this tech should be used is for intructional help only in the classrooms, but other than that if people want to use it in their own lives go ahead. This tech should be used in classrooms, at home, and used to dectect when someone is lying.
The FACS system should be used in classrooms but only for class and if the student needs help. The article told us that it could be used to help students by telling us when they need help or if they had the topic down and udertsood. This could send real time data to the teacher so they could determain if they need to change the way they are teaching the lesson. This technolgy should only be used at school for this one reason and it should wipe the data at the end of the day. The computer should not store any data of what the kids look up and that just for privacy reasons. So in school this tech will help students and teachers but only if its used for the lessons and nothing else.
When it comes to home its the users choice if they want this tech to implied on their computer. The article states that the FACS system could detect what we like and what we are interested in. This could help us find books and articles we like to read or videos we like to watch. This could help block things that you aren't interested in from showing up when you search for things. This will also help with ads that you don't want to see but it works the other way around too. So if you want to see certain things this tech will help with areas and give us new places to look for things. This can show us things we could never dream of and now it could be at the tips of our fingers.
This tech can also detect when some one is lying by the way thier face moves. The article said,"that it could detect when a politician was lying just by their facial movements. This tech can be used to help us make judgement calls when we need them the most. This could help us determain if we can trust someone and also make hiring people easier but also harder. We need to take this slow and really find out what its potenial is. This could lead the world down a dangerous place and we need not to be so depentent on tech because one day it might not be here. So I am both for an opposed to this FACS system.
The FACS system will have its up and downs. The technolgy can both be used for good and bad. If it is used in classrooms, homes, and workplaces it will be okay. If the technolgy falls into the wrong hands who knows what they will be able to use it for. We may never know what this could do if we dont try it but we must be cautious for may different reasons. | 5 |
e2797ec | Alot of ignorant theorists claim that us, NASA, is purposely editing these photos and spewting lies to the general public to hide evidence of alien civilization. One of these people is this man, named Billy Bob. Billy Bob claims that a few blurred photos immediately mean that there used to be civilization on Mars. So, how about you guys help me convince that Billy Bob here, is wrong. So let's get started!!!!
So once upon a time, in 1976, we sent an MGS to take photos of Mars. One of these said photos, with our technology at the time, blurred different parts and shadows of a Martian butte or mesa to look like a face. A few days later, we, "Unveiled the image for all to see". We reasoned that this human-esque photo was going to enchant the public and attract attention to Mars, which it ineed did!!!
The "Face of Mars" has appeared in various forms of media for twenty-five years. Some think it immediately proves an ancient civilization on Mars. There are many here at NASA that wish it was true, but alas it isn't. Few of us believe in the Face. Years after, with a ten times sharper camera, we got a great shot of it, revealing it to be a natural landform.
But the problem is that many conspiracy theorists still try to bring in people to their rediculous false theory using either a)No evidence to support their claim or
b)Extremely bad evidence that has no sense to it, such as; The theory saying that we are trying to hide the ancient civilization of Mars to somehow benefit us. How rediculous is that?!?! First of all, how, in what way, would that benefit us? Second of all, wouldn't it benefit us if it was a civilization? Because with active evidence of aliens, the government would most likely fund a great expedition to Mars to either examine the remnants of this old civilization, or to see if they are still there, to perhaps set up peaceful relations with this new alien race of sentient lifeforms.
Now, there are many other theories to somehow suggest that the Face is real, but the simple debunking of that one should be able to prove that the Face isn't even a face, but a simple natural landform that got blurred with old technology. Plus, not only that, but I doubt that anyone wants this type of "rant" to go on any longer. So, I'd say that Billy Bob has learned the truth, wouldn't you? | 4 |
e27d0c4 | Limiting your car usage has benifits to yourself, the community and the environment. In these aricles there's examples of way communities have given up ther cars and how car usage has gone down over the years.
In Vauban, Germany residents have given up their cars. In this expeirimental community, street parking, driveways, and garages are almost forbidden. Car ownership is however allowed, but the only place to park are large garages at the edge of the development. If you own a car and decide to park there, you must buy a space for $40,000, plus a home! The outcome of this has been most of the community don't own cars. "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way" this was said by Heidrun Walter, mother of two and a media trainer. Also this communities idea has been adopted around the world.
An effect of extreme car ususe can be smog. Paris, France has the most smog out of all the other European capitals. They had "147 micrograms of particulate matter (PM) per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in london, Reuters found." After days of heavy pollution. A partial driving ban was enforced to clear the city's air. Motorists with even-numbered license plates were told to leave their cars at home. If they didn't do so, they would be charged with a 22-euro fine. The same order wouls be given to odd-numbered plates the next day. Almost 4,000 driver's cars were fined for using their cars.
In Bogota, Colombia they set up a program, The day without cars it's when cars are banned and only buses and taxis are permitted. Their goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog. "It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution" stated by Carlos Arturo Plaza a businessman. The day without cars is part of an improvment campaign that began in bogota in the mid-1990's. during this year's anual day without cars, authorities from others countries have can to see the event and were very pleased by it. " These people are generating a revolutionary change, and this is crossing borders" said by Enrique Riera, the major of Asunci`on, Paraguay.
In recent studies it's shown that Americans are buying fewer cars, getting less lincenses, and driving less as each year goes by. Many beleive America's love for cars is deteriorating. The number of miles driven has gone down since 2005. Some think it's because we simpliy can't afford new cars."A study last year found driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009" Even the number of cars per home has gone down. "What most intrigues me is that rates of car ownership per household and per person started to come down two to three years before the downturn" said by Michael Sivak, a research professor at the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute. If this patterns persists it will be very benificial to the environment. Mimi Sheller, a sociology professer at Drexel University thinks the internet makes people feel more connected, therefore we don't feel the need to drive out and meet friends.
In conclusion, limiting your car usage benifits you and the environment. As quoted in the essay people express how they feel less stressed from not using their cars. Countries and communities around the world are taking part in less car usage and feeling great from it. So i advise you do the same and help yourself and the environment. | 3 |
e27d629 | In the passage "Driverless Cars are Coming" gives plenty of examples of why and why not driverless cars are a key step to the future or why they should be left out. In my oppinion, it should be used as a stepping stone for a brighter future in mankind. It shows what a terrific upbringing that these cars could have on society, and with flaws that can be fixed over time.
These cars have shown that they can be a safe option for drivers. Driverless cars still need assistance on certain occasions such as "pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues." But those are minor complications that can be solved with a little development. Driverless cars have also been able to drive for quite a long while without a crash. ''Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash.''
Of course, part of being a safe driver is paying attention to the road, but even in a driverless car, mistakes can happen and the driver should be ready to take over. There are even developments in that area as well, with manufacturers " considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver." The camera would ensure that the highest amount of safety is provided and shows that all precautions are being taken to make it completly safe.
In todays society, technology is more advanced than ever, and that means that these cars can be developed and tested more than ever before. "Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mecedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020." With that part of the Article, it shows what is yet to come, and all this development is coming along and is right around the corner.
With all developing products, there is always something holding the product back from devoloping at a faster rate. In this case, it happens to be that driverless cars are illegal in most states. "In most states it is illegal even to test computer driven cars. California, Nevada, Florida, and the Istrict of colombia have led the country in allowing limited use of semi autonomous cars." With this blockade of where this product can be driven, also shows where it cannot be sold in the area as well. Without the legalization to use these vehicles, Compaies will run out of the needed funds needed to develop their products to make them safer and more efficient. If a legalization happens, a revolution starts slowly after. | 4 |
e27d6ff | Dear Senator,
We should be changing to the election by popular vote for the president of the United States. Everyone should just vote for the vice president and the president. People are voting for the Electoral college while they should be voting to see who will be their new president. The electoral college is getting more votes than the president should be getting. Insead of having to have about 270 eletoral votes they should just see which president gets the most votes.
Therfore, the eletoral college mut be stopped and we shall just vote for the presient and vice president. The president should be able to be president for 5 years if they reach a good amount of votes. With eletoral college its sometimes hard to chose the president because they are getting tied with the eletoral votes. I say that the president and the electers should be the ones to pick the vice president. The vice president shall approve of the president also.
Also if someone is running for president and the other person wins they shouldn't be upset because they still will get another chance. One reason some people chose to have the electoral vote is because the president is winning everything. And the electoral college requires a presidental candidate. To them the president isn't their president. The winner/ the president gets all the awards and receive the most infromation. Bigger states are getting more attention the all other states. Some states are not getting any votes at all. Also candidates are getting the same amount of votes, but differnent amount of electoral vote. They want to see who gets the most votes to be the president the most electoral votes. People vote so they can have a perference.
In conclusion, we should change the election by popular vote for the president of the United States. The president should be easier to chose and should be chosen equally and fairly. | 2 |
e27de1f | The new technology which is called Facial Action Coding System should be banned because let's see if your sad or angry, you wouldnt want other people to know how you feel instead of just telling them by your own. It sometimes can be use for just certain things and if that person gives you permission to look at the Site, then yeah it can be used to determine how they are feeling. Some people may think this new technology may be an awesome technology but some other people may also think that is just as same as other technology. For example, "If you smile when a Web ad appears on your screen, a similar ad might follow. But if you frown, the next ad will be different." This means that this technology mostly works only when your smile like it said on the text. Yeah it may be awesome to other people but like i said it should be banned because there is no point on having that techology if that person tells you how they are felling. Clearly, this technology should be banned because it is not used correclty and every person who uses it is, it's using it too much and that's not how it works. | 2 |
e284ce9 | Limiting car usuage is an advantage to all citizens. All around the world people are trying pass new laws to band cars. When people do not use their cars the world becomes less polluted, clear skies would be nice. Also this will promote a safe lifestyle as a pedestrian. Creating people to walk everyday will be a good habit to the society.
Countries all around the world are realizing that reducing the use of cars is a big success. " When i had a car i always was tense. I'm much happier this way"! Even people love the lifestyle without their cars. People are selling their cars and moving to Germany just to live in a place without vehicles. The people that disagree to this decison have no choice but to be fined thirty-five dollars or to be towed away. People created a more enclosed habitat to citizens so it was not a great distance to walk to the store or even the mall. " In this new approach, stores are placed a walk away, on a mainstreet, rather than in malls along some distant highway." People around the United State are becoming less dependent on their cars.
Therefore, the less you use your vehicle the less populated the city will be. The air will become clear as the car usuage lessens. In Paris they enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air. People were fined thirty-one dollars if saw on the road. The smog creates congestion in the air. Also as the seasons change the warmer layer of air traps car emissions. Seeing a clear picture is more important than driving a car when it is not necessary.
In addition, banning the use of cars will improve the safety of our citizens. Creating cities in which "pedestrians, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to improve our safety." Not worrying about traffic and when you can or cannot cross the street would be very meaningful to our lives. Accidents happen everyday, most deaths come from terrible car crashes. There are a lot of dangerous things about driving, why would we need to risk our lives? Stay safe and walk, run and rollerblade instead of wasting your life in a car that can risk it.
In conclusion, there are many advantages of limiting car usage. People are now considering to band vehicles which will improve the safety of citizens and make a less polluted economy. Nobody would deny the advantages of being more eco-friendly by decreasing the usage of cars. Everyone wants a safe enviroment and clear air to breathe! | 3 |
e288d9b | What if we always knew what everyone was feeling? It sounds like it would be great if we could always detect one another's facial expressions. However, every human being has a different individuality which sets them apart from everyone else. That individuality is what makes that person unique, and can effect the way that a technological device percieves them. Everyone thinks differently, learn in different ways, and expierence different things.
While it seems like reading the expressions of one another may be a good thing, you cannot depend on the technology when you do not even know how accurate the technology is. By the way that the technology is described, it seems that the process reads one's emotions based off 6 basic emotions: happiness, surprise, anger, disgust, fear, and sadness. However, humans feel much more than these 6 emotions. We can feel emotions such as confusion, passion, and boredom. If the technology is basing some one's emotions off those 6 universal emotions, the data cannot be completely accurate because those emotioins do not work together to create boredom or even confusion. The feeling of confusion is a comeplelty different emotion, it is not affected or made up of one's happiness or anger. A person cannot detect confusion simply from reading only 6 universal emotions.
"'A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored.' Dr. Huang predicts. 'Then it could modify the lesson, like an effective human instructor,'"(D'Alto). While that would be particularly useful in an academic field, it may not work as well as anticipated. Every human being is unique and different, so therefore, they can become confused for different reasons or get bored of different things. What one student may find boring, another may find quite interesting. If that lesson plan changes for the student who is becoming disegaged in the lesson, it will affect the other student who use to find the lesson interesting, it may cause that student to then become confused or disinterested. That is a flaw with technology, it cannot benefit everyone equally because every human being is uniquely different and can be affected in different ways.
Many tend to hide their true feelings simply because they do not want others to know their true emotions. To read students' emotions in that way is an invasion of one's privacy. When people are sad, they hide that feeling because they either do not want to think about what is making them sad, or becuase they do not want to make the people around them sad as well. Reading the facial expressions of people, especially those who conceal their emotions, is similar to reading one's thoughts, which invades their private thoughts and emotions. When some one is hiding their emotions, that is their private feeling and should not be shared nor invaded unless with permission granted by that person.
All-in-all, the technology cannot be proven to be accurate since it can only read 6 emotions and many people expirence a much more vast variety of emotions, than the simple 6 universal emotions. Including the fact that everyone is unique in the way that htye think and project emotions and thoughts differently. The technology also cannot change the plans for students effectively since a change for one student could harm another student academically. And finally, to read one's emotions, including the emotions that they conceal would be invading their privacy. People hide their emotions for a reason, and those emotions should be kept to them, they should not be read because they are considered one's personal thoughts. | 5 |
e288f20 | Their are alot of dicusions on wether we should get rid of an electoral college. But i think we should keep them for five reason. Cernainty of outcome,Everyones president,swing states,big states,and to avoid run-off elections. People think that it wouldnt reliable if we changed the way we elect a new president. Not everyone will agree to this,and the majority will stick to electoral college because if been working for us since the 1800.
Cernaint of outcome basically decides everything because it doesnt allow to be a tie. Like in 2012 when obama and romney were running obama won because he new that people want a winner take all basis. Obama got 61% of electorla votes and Romney got 51%.Because almost all states award electoral votes on a winners take all basis the state creates a landslide electoral vot victory in that state.
The electoral college reguires a presidential candidate to have regional appeal. Not one region has enough electoral votes to elect a president. Romney was from the south so people in their voted for him. But people up north thought that would be greedy and our nation needs a president for all. It was a situation that he would only apply or do anything for the south but nothing for the north. So candidates with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a succesful president.
The winner takes all method focuses their campaign efforts on the toss up states. People in the toss up state are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign to really listen to the competing candidates knowing that they are going to decide who gets elected. They are the more thoughtful voter and they will give more attention than normal. So people who care about who gets elected should get their votes in.
Last,the electoral college avoids the problems of elections in which no candidates recieves a majority of the votes cast. The presidential election process is reduced by the electoral college which proves a clear win. Knowing people who dont care shows the candidates that their votes wont count,and voters in elections are the people who want to express and show political preference rather people think that one vote wont change the fate of the election. So as you can see the Electoral college method is very reliable and will keep our nation safe. | 3 |
e28e21a | Technology today is crazy. It keeps expanding and getting bigger, better, and faster. Recenltly scientist have made a computer that has the power and technology to read emotions in students and in other people. I feel like this shouldnt be used in a classroom.
I feel that a computer shouldnt be able to tell wether or not a human being is sad or mad, it shouldnt be able to tell our emotions. Our emotions is for us to handle. Yes, us humans can tell when people we know are sad or down, but computers should not. People would use the computer for somthing else, like to see others emotions. Peoples emotions should keep to their self. It isnt for a computer or other humans to now, because its your emotion.
Yes, this could be valuable for some things, like movies, and video games. THis is not something we could use everyday in a classroom. We could use the computer to see whats wrong with a student. Once we figure out whats wrong with the student, for instance lets say the child is sad. The child is so sad, he cant work or do anything, and us humans cant notice it because he is hiding it. We could use the computer to see what emotions he is having. Once we figure that out we could help him, by doing somthing that makes him happy.
This computer couldnt be valuable in a classroom. If a teacher assigned their students to make a project over the expressions of a human.
Then the coputer would take forever to load. Each human expresses their emotions in a different way. One could be hiding it better than the other. Therefor the computer could get the students emotions wrong, and the students could fail. | 3 |
e28e48f | The author say that venus is called the "evening star". venus is actually a planet. venus is the second sun planet from the sun. also venus is the twin of earth. venus is one of the closest planets to earth. both has the same density and size.
venus mission is was unmanned and no spacecraft survived the landing no spaceships arrived on venus for "3 decades"many factors said that venus is an challenging planet for humans to study .planet temps are up to 800 degrees fahrenheit. the atmospheric pressure is is 90 times greater .venus has the hottest surface tempture then any planet there is. it presents additional impedimits like natural desaters .for example strong eartquakes and erupting valcanoes .
Mean while NASA is working on ways to study venus."for examples ,some simplified elctronics made of silicons carbide habe been tested in a chamber simulating the chaos of benus surface and have lastd three weeks in such conditions". they've also been looking back at old technologycalled mechanicsl computers. Those items were invented in the 1800's .played a role during the 1940's during world war ll .the materials made caculations by using gear and levers. none used electronics. meeting the challenge presented by venus has value because human curiosity will likely lead into many equal intimidating endeavors. | 1 |
e28f77c | Seagoing Cowboys, a great program. It is quit an adviture. You should go take a look for your self. See all the cool trips we take. See all the fun advitures we go on. How we meet new people. Come along and you will see.
The Seagoing Cowboys is a fun a way to learn about Eroup and about the end of World War II. On the trips you take you see amazing things. When I went I had the chance to see Europe and China. As you go on this trip it does not just teach you about that country it also teaches you about hard work. You can also find a way to have a good time and meet new people. On thins ttrip you will find it is a good way to learn about how people had to live and how it was hard in 1945 for many people to live and have food, as compared to now when everyone is walking around with a iphone 6 and drinking starbucks with lots of food and money. It will show you that you have to work hard for what you want. That back then nothing was handed to you on a silver plater. If you go on the trip Seagoing Cowboys you will find that it may take a lot of hard work but it can also be fun. Mostly when you are returing form trips and there are not animals on deck with you. Evryone playes Baseball and Volleyball games in the mptey stalls where the amimals sleep and stay on the trips.
What I think is that everyone should get this cool opertunity to be able to go and have fun and see what life was like back in 1945. It would be a fun and cool trip to see what you had to do and how you had to work. If you take my advice you sould go on this trip and go live in 1945 for a little ad have some fun, meet new people, and see some new places. | 3 |
e2915cd | Venus is one of the two closest planets to earth. Scientists would very much like to travel to Venus and even poissibly take samples from there, but there are a lot of dangers. Despite all the dangers Venus is still very much like Earth, and even though Venus would be very challenging to travel to it is still very much possible.
Venus was most likely the planet to be very much like Earth a very long time ago, but even today Venus has some features that are the same as Earth's. For example, in paragraph 4, the text states,"Today, Venus still has some features that are analogous to those on Earth. The planet has a surface of rocky sediment an includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters." Venus may not completely be like Earth, but it has vey similar features. Scientist already know about some of these features, but there are probably a lot more similarities between the two planets.
Traveling to Venus would be very challenging and even possibly life risking, but scientists are sure there is a way. NASA's idea is to hover over the fray with a blimp like vehicle, but there are still risks. In paragraph 5, the author says," At thirty-plus miles above the surface, temperatures would still be toasty at around 170 degrees Fahrenheit, but the air pressure would be close to that of sea level on Earth." The temperature in the blimp like vehicle would still be very uncomfortable for the passenegers, but the last sentence in paragraph 5 says, " Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans"
Traveling to Venus would be an amazing thing for the people in NASA. There are many different risks, but so much would come ouf of traveling there. Having risks should not stop scientist from being able to experiment with different planets, especially one so close to home. As it says at the end of paragraph 8,"Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation." | 3 |
e2925cb | There are some advantages of limiting cars, The pollution is horrible and very bad for the enviorment, No traffic jams or car accidents, Not Spending a lot of money. Read on to find out more why limiting car usage isnt that bad at all.
Paris enforced a partial driving bam to clear the air of the global city after a couple days of near record pollution. Cold nights and hot days effected the warm layer of air that trapped pollution. Diesel Vehicles were blamed for the polluition here. 67% of vehicles in France are Diesel. It brought in Congestion and Very bad Smog.
Colombia had a "Car-free Day" in which alot of Colombians walked, hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work. There were raley any traffic jams. Imagine everybody showing up to work on time and not being stuck in a traffic jam. Colombia is trying to make an alternative way of transporting and to reduce smog. So they Fined $25. Then cities around Colombia jumped on Board.
By Limiting car usage we can limit the amount of money we spend on the vehicles. Like buying fuel for the vehicle, Buying the vehicle, money to fix the vehicle if it breaks. If we could limit car uasge we could save our fossil fuels we could save our money. We are slowly running out of diesel fuel. Some say we should be out of diesel fuel by 2030.
Now You Know some of the advantages of limiting car usage. Adding more pollution is for the enviorment, No Traffic Jams or Car acciedents. Not Spending alot of money. Those are just 3 out of hundreds of advantages of limiting car Usage. Some people have even given up cars now. They go to walking, biking, skating. It even helps yo car pool. Avoids traffick. Less Smog and Pollution and more fossil fuels to save. | 3 |
e2926f9 | The develoment of driverless cars should not happen. Most cars that are driverless are not truly diverless, they cannot handle many of the tasks, and they still require a person to be ready to take over when needed.
Most developed driverless cars are not truly driverless. According to the article they still need the driver to be alert. The article says, "they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues." This proves that driverless cars are not driverless at all. They still need the driver to be alert at all times. The article also points out that all the cars that have been made are not completly driverless. The article says," In fact none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless." Most driverless cars can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves but, they still need a driver.
Driverless cars are not really much safer. These cars cannot handle many of the road tasks on there own. They cannot navigate through roadwork or accidents. The google car can drive independently but under specific tasks. There are senors that can make driverless cars much safer but they require the driver to have hands on the wheel at all times. The article also says, " traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times."
Because of this in most states it is illegal to test these type of cars.
Even if driverless cars are being developed the still need a driver behind the wheel. All cars that have been developed still need a driver to be ready and alert to take over the car when the car cannot handle a specific task. The article states that the human driver must remain alert and be ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs.
Further development of driverless cars should not happen. Most of the are not really driverless, they are not that safe, and they will always need a driver to be alert at all times. A truly driverless cars will need more improvements and will take more time to develop. | 3 |
e297193 | In the article Driverless Cars Are Coming, they talk about the positive and negative things that could happen. This essay is going to be against the article because a driverless car doesn't sound safe to some. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault- the driver or the manufacturer? If you are in a car but the car is driving itself, what are you suppose to do if the car has a malfunction and you cant control it? Just because it is on television doesn't mean it needs to be brought to life so accidents can happen.
In the article it says "These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well; but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was to expensive to be practical." People are not going to want to go on the interstate and there be construction twenty-four seven. If there was a new driverless car that came out every five to ten years then maybe there would be enough money saved up to start a new upgrade on the road for the new driverless cars. The places making these cars are having to make them for new starters and for experienced drivers because new drivers need more senors then experienced drivers do.
Aso some people know, before you can maake these cars you have to have if approved and make sure they are safe enough to be on the roads. Traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars. Even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in oreder to cover liability in the case of an accident. Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. People would probably like to know what specific conditions they are refering too.
Some people are smarter than others and they know right from wrong. But also people have a better and even greater chance of not being hurt. Say you are driving down the road and a child runs out infront of you, does the car automatically stop or does it hit the child. If a teen is given a driverless car, they would probably have too much fun with it. The cars would also need a gps so that you could let it know where to take you because its not going to know automatically want to go to grandmas house that night.
People today are probably wondering how much these cars cost, do they have insurance, what happens if i have an accident or are the cars even safe. If a car is not proven safe then no one needs that car and it will not be approvedd by the lawmakers. People go out and spend money on renewing their liscenses, and taking the test all of their life to find out a driverless car will probably sometime in the future take over.
A driverless car is not needed in this world. It is already dangerous out there with the cars we have, it would be best ti stick with the cars that we can drive, not driverless. Driverless cars could make the world even more dangerous if there was a malfunction with it. | 4 |
e29be05 | Driverless cars are more than likely a big thing of the future. There are pros and cons. However, when it comes to the safety of human beings, I'd say to focus on more of the cons. Bad things happen all the time, an dmost of the time they are accidents. I'm not sure I'd risk my life on something I'm not in control of.
Let's start off with the pros, because there definitely are some. Elderly people, or even extremely young people. May find it difficult to get places that they need to go. With the help of a driverless vehicle, grandpa would never miss another doctors appointment. That is, until his driverless vehicle that you so carlessly persuaded him to purchase puts him in a coma. People that are afraid to drive or physically cannot, they could really use a driverless vehicle to help them get place to place. Now, let's get down to the cold hard facts.
Technology, it screws up all the time. Millions of people have troubles with their cell phones, game systems, and cars (yes, even regular vehicles malfunction) every single day. If some manufacturers can not even get a regular everyday car to work correctly without shutting down, blowing up, or getting unalined, how are we to trust that a driverless vehicle will suddenly keep us safe. Sure, drunk drivers would be less of a problem, but how can you trust a drunk man to properly operate a driverless car? You can't. Anywhere that there seems to be a pro for these cars, there's a con not far behind.
Raging drunk idiot get in his driverless car. He decides he wants it to go full speed ahead at the man crossing the street. It's too easy to use these cars as weapons and call it a malfunction. There would be more cases of vehicular manslaughter than ever before. I don't know about you, but I like my life without driverless cars. They're too hazardous.
I don't want to live in a world where cars aren't things you drive. I like my life. I like knowing that most of the people on the roads know what they're doing. Technology has failed us again and again. I don't trust that it wouldn't do it this time around. | 3 |
e29e6af | Automobiles are one of the most dramatic and resourceful products of the Industrial Revolution. They help people commute from one place to another, allow for travel time to decrease, and help citizens carry heavy objects from point A to point B. Only, did we think about the negative effect it could have on our enviornment? Forests are cut down to build highways, accidents are caused when the driver fails to pay proper attention to what he or she is doing, and greehouse gases have over-ridden our atmosphere with choking smog. Many Americans rely on their cars, but have we thought about the positive of limiting our car usage? We as fellow citizens have a subsantial amount of advantages if we simply limit our car usage to help create a better enviornment, for us, for the community, and for those to come.
One advantage of limited car usage is a better quality of life for a person. When a person has the responsibility of a car, they must make sure all of the parts are working properly, know how to operate the car safely, know exactly which routes to take that are safest for the car and for themself, know exactly how to fix the car in case something malfunctions, the list continues. This causes the person to become overwhelmed and stressed due to the needs of their car. Elisabeth Rosenthal states in
"The End of Car Culture"
that, "people who stopped car commuting as a result of recession find little reason to resume the habit" (Rosenthal, paragraph 8). Basically, people who limited their use of cars were more relaxed and found no good reason to return to their habit of using a car. Furthurmore, with more people limiting their car usage, the more they use local stores and shops that are walking or biking distance. Rosenthal also states
"In German Suburb, Life Goes on Without Cars"
, "stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls..." (Rosenthal, paragraph 6). In other words, buisnesses florish due to their locations and promote citizens to limit their car usage due to their distance to travel. This also allows for more people to acknowledge their cities and allow them to become cleaner and beautiful.
Similar to the first, another advantage is for the better-ment of the city. According to
"Paris bans driving due to smog"
by Robert Duffer, "... Beijing, China which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world" (Duffer, paragraph 5). This is due to Beijing's huge population [tourist and regular] and their increased use of cars on a daily basis. In other words, smog due to passenger cars in one of the leading causes of pollution in our society. The cars are, literally, choking us and future generation to the point where we won't be able to breathe. Limited car usage allows for the reduction of greenhouse emmisions and smog, allowing for oxygen to circulate and breathe life into us and our children. As a result of reduced greenhouse emmisions, cities become cleaner and more beautiful. As stated by Andrew Selsky in
"Car-free day is Spinning into a Big Hit in Bogota"
, "Parks and sports senters also have bloomed throughout the city; uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks; and new resturants and upscale shopping districts have croopped up" (Selsky, paragraph 15). Basically, the limited use of cars has allowed the city to florish and reconstruct itself into something beautiful and strong for the community to enjoy.
The limited use of cars has allowed for the betterment of the community and of cities across the globe and many people are taking advantage of this new era coming into play. The health of people has improved and the pollution that makes up our atmosphere has decreased in a slow, but steady stream. Imagine how much better the enviornment would be once the use of cars is limited to less than one perent of the population. The future is bright and we only need to strive for it, without headlights. | 5 |
e29f5d5 | Thick clouds of black smoke, and the smell of gasoline fills the air. Everytime you breathe it's like your breathing poison. It's in your lungs and you cant get it out. This is our society today. Some people think that this issue is not a big deal, but in fact it is. But where is all this polution coming from? The answer is simple, cars! Cars are the second leading poluter, in America. What these cars are doing are releasing a poisonous smog into the atmosphere, and we breathe it. Its not only killing us though, oh no. It is killing our one, our only, Earth. We are killing the only thing the human race has to live on, and for what? So we can save a couple minutes to get to work? This needs to stop. Why continue to use cars when thier are so many more advantages not to use them? Without cars, or limiting the number of car usage we would save billions of dollars a year, be much more further into technology, and not only be saving lives, but saving our Earth.
How much money would you say you spend on gas a week? Doesn't seem like all that much right? Now add the same thing again, and again, and again. By now you are probably in the hundreds. Now picture yourself with all of that in your hand. Thats all the money you have spent on something that is gone in almost an instant. Think about all the things you could buy with that money. Sounds nice right? Well why don't you just make it a reality than? You could save hundreds in hundreds of dollars in as little as one month! You could save even more by not even buying a car! than you'd be saving a ton of money. Plus youd be doing yourself a favor. You dont need to pay for gas, insurance, repairs or even the car. This is what people in not only America are doing but also in Columbia, Bogota, and one of the worlds most beautiful cities in the world, Paris. These people are bettering themselves, and thier country.
"All of our world development since world war II has been sentered on the car"
said David Goldberg in the article
In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars . Just think about how much more advanced of a society we could have without cars. So many things could be created that could save lives! A cure for cancer, a solution to end world hunger, new electronics, maybe even ways to reach past the ridges of our galaxy, yet somehow we still put our focus on something that is killing us, and the Earth. Sure theres some cool tech in these new Automobils but, the only reason people by cars are for new features, or better mpg, or as said by Mr. Sivak in
The End of Car Culture ,
"A car is just a means of getting from A to B", but thats all people really buy new cars, or use them for. If we wernt so focused on cars we would have new, and improved technology, and a lot more life changing discoveries.
The Earth is dying. We are killing it, and ourselves. How much gasoline can your tank hold? the real question is how much gasoline can we put into the air we breathe? This smog and polution is destroying some of the most beautiful scenes on earth. Paris, New York, and Bejing. However the usage of these automobils are not only killing us with polution, but with auto accidents. So many of Americans have lost thier lives due to wrecks, crashes, common stupidity, and deffects in the car itself. Whats even more sad is a lot of the time the person who has lost thier life is not even at fault. A lot of times when driving people tend to get stressed out. road rage is a dangerous thing. In fact Heidrun Walter exclaimed his opinion on the subject by saying "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way." in the article
In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars . A very, very effective solution to this problem is to ultimitly rid them from society. A simple distraction, a buzz, beep, ring, or crash, cound end up fatal, to anyone, and everyone who gets behind the wheel. Global warming, cancer, deathes, stress, and injuries, these are all things caused by vehicles. A common thing we all learn at a young age is to eliminate the problem at the source, and change starts with you, the reader, the average civilian can make a higher than life impact on society. Don't under estimate the power each individual holds when making a difference for good.
Simple things like car pooling, walking, riding a bike, or public transportation, can all make a difference, for the better. so lets do it! lets make our environment cleaner. Our futures brighter, and our lives safer. Together we can acomplish this! we would have the advantages of saving billions of dollars a year to use for bigger and better things, be much more further into technology, and not only be saving lives, but saving our Earth, on our side. | 4 |
e2a98c7 | I do not believe driverless cars are a good idea.
In my opinion they are more dangerous than human drivers.
Although I also know that people will creat driverless cars no matter the danger becuase people are selfish and they want to be rich and everyone respect them.
What better way to do that better than inventing something as high tech as a driverless car.
I believe these cars are dangerous becuase they can't drive under certain circumstances.
In paragraph seven, it states that in work zones or around accidents a human would need to take over.
If it is suppose to be "driverless" then it should be able to drive through work zones and such with needing help.
If it needs a human driver's help then it isn't driverless.
Also in paragraph seven, it states that drivers must be alert if they need to take over.
Everyone knows this, Americans are lazy.
That's why we have cars and we don't bycicle everywhere.
Americans don't want a car so they have to stay alert more about the road.
They want a robot to drive so they don't have to focus on the road.
So they can sleep, eat, or get ready for work in the car.
I also believe that the last thing the world needs is more pollution.
These cars may or may not take up less gas but they still use gas, which means they still polute just like any other car.
If a company comes out with a driverless car and it's a hit then that company is going to polute the are with smoke and chemicals trying to build all these cars to meet the supply of the demand.
The world already has enough factories poluting the world, why add more?
But what do I know?
I'm just some kid taking a stupid Istep test at school.
Wrong.
I'm a kid of the next new generation.
My generation will be the one's to clean up what the adults left behind that is destroying earth.
Or we'll ignore it like the generations before us then our great grand babies will die from polution or the effects of global warning.
I don't like the idea of driverless cars.
Technology always messes up one way or the other.
But that's just my opinion against many others. | 3 |
e2a9ae6 | In order to dramatically reduce greenhouse gases, a new fad is being introduced all over the world. The fad is ways to make the world more "car-free" or "car-reduced". This may sound shocking and to complicated to implement, but believe it or not, there are communites and cities that are already showing improventment with decresasing greenhouse gases that cars let off.
Vauban, Germany, is an upscale, fully functional expirimental German suburb on the outskirts of Freiburg, without cars. Street parking, driveways and home garages are not found in Vauban, the main form of transportation is a public tram that runs to downtown Freiburg. Heidrun Walter is a media trainer who lives in Vauban with her two kids, Mrs. Walter states, " I am much happier this way". Completed in 2006, Vauban is a an example of a growing European and United States trend that separates auto useage from suburban life. Everything that the 5,500 residents of Vauban could need is walking distance away, the community is built in a rectangular square mile with all of the stores on a main street.
Greenhouse gases from Europe contribute to 12 percent of all emmissions, the United States is responsible for as much as 50 percent of these emmissions. To most people, these numbers would be meaning-less, but to the people of Paris, these number clearly showed with their smog covered streets. Paris hit a near-record pollution rate which caused the partial driving ban to take place. The partical driving ban in Paris was as follows; on Monday, motorists with even-numbered license plates were ordered to not use their cars, or be forced to pay a fine, on Tuesday, the same instructions were put in place for odd-numbered plates, this ban continued throughout the week. While this did outrage some drivers, public transit was free of charge from Monday through Friday which did help drivers who were restricted.
A national "Day without cars" was Bogota, Columbia's way to incorperate car limitations. Millions of Columbian participants found alternative ways to get to and from work. Bogota has a total of 7 million citizens who were promoted to use alternative transportation and reduce smog. Despite gray clouds and random spurts of rain, Mayor or Bogota, Antanas Mockus said, " The rain hasn't stopped people from participating." For a first time, during the previous national, "Day without cars" two other Columbian cities, Cali and Valledupar joined the event. "These people are generating a revolutionary change, and this is crossing borders," said Enrique Rera, the mayor of Asunción, Paraguay. Along with the "Day without cars," Columbia has also put out rush-hour restrictions, smoothed sidewalks, and cropped new resturants and upscale shopping districts.
All three cities have showed creative and functional ways to cut back on using cars, weather it be offering new ways to have a less complicated life in Vauban, Germany, limiting the number of cars that can drive on certain day in Paris, France, or creating a national holiday which encourages people to find alternative ways of transportation like in Bogoata, Columbia. It is clear that people in places everywhere are ready to make a change to cut down on greenhouse gases. The United States, as a whole has shown cutbacks on the number of vehicles and licenses being issued, in fact the amount of young people driving decreased by 23 percent from 2001 and 2009. Ultimately, the goal for the entire world is to conserve resources, lower emission rates of harmful greenhouse gases and improve safety, with the rate that cities and communities are going now, this goal without a doubt reachable. | 4 |
e2aa3a0 | Driverless cars should be used soon,because some people need to feel safe when driving. This passage states that "Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe," this states if the driverless cars were safe then people could start driving them. The drivers might feel more safe when the car drives by its self. In conclusion driverless cars should be used soon,because some people need to feel safe when driving.
Driverless cars could be very handy for people who have alot to do when they are driving. In this passage it states "Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over-something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone."This means that if you have lots of things to do when you are driving you can do a few .These cars are made to be safe. In conclution driverless cars could be very handy for people who have alot to do when they are driving. | 2 |
e2aaf65 | The Electoral College is an outdated system of voting. There are few weak reasons why it should be carried out as the nations voting process. The United States of America should change to election by popular vote for the presidency.
Admmitedely, the winner take all system is a fair way of deviding the votes. In the first article "What Is the Electoral College?" by the Office of the Federal Register, the author asserts, "Most states have a 'winner-take-all' system that awards all the electors to the winning presidential candidate." If a presidential candidate spends alot of time, effort, and money in a campaign for a "swing" state; he should be awarded all the votes for winning that state. It is a high risk but high reward to spend all that time and money to only earn sixty percent of the votes. That is why a "winner-take-all" is crucial. To add on, the author of the first article mentions, "Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. The electors are generally chosen by the candidate's political party, but state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are..." This is saying that a candidate chooses his or her electors, and you vote for the electors to then choose the candidate you voted for. However; the people should have the right to directly choose the candidate of his or her choice. Therefore, the elecoral college is outdated and must be eliminated.
To start off, Bradford Plumer the author of "The indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong" states, "Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president." Every vote counts. But why make a vote more powerful than another. Citizens shouldn't be given a special vote just because they were chosen by the candidates party. Additionally, Plumer explains, "If you lived in texas, for instance, and wanted to vote for [John] Kerry, you'd vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors pledged to Kerry." Why should kerry earn 34 electoral votes. He should earn the amount of voters in that state he persuaded to vote for him. He should not earn the electoral votes of all the people that did not think he was the best presidential candidate. Every vote should count, and that is why the electoral college should be eliminated.
Secondly, Plumer claims "Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. In that case, the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president. (The senate would choose the vice-president.) Because each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represnt 35million voters." This method is rediculous. A state with one representative should not have the equal amount of power as a state with 55. If popular vote is made the way of electing then the odds of a tie would be nearly impossible. Also Plumer adds, "Al Gore-thanks to the quirks of the electoral college-won the popular vote but lost the presidency." This means more people thought he was better suited to be the President of the United States, but Bush won because of the "quirks" of the electoral college. All in all, the electoral college is unfair, and creates more problems then popular vote.
The United States of america should change from the electoral college to popular vote. The outcome would be better for the country, and fairer to the candidates. That is why the electoral college should be eliminated. | 5 |
e2b1708 | We all need to have a break right? Well,now Google wants to create a driverless car in the future. In this argumentative essay I will talk about how we should have driverless cars in the future and how beneficial it can be.
I think that driverless cars are better and they should be allowed because some people drive from twelve hours to there destination and even thirty-two hours from their destination. I would say it is a good idea because some familys take road trips and the driver is usually very tired after hours of driving in the same position. According to paragraph one,Google cofounder Sergey Brin believes that such cars would fundementally change the world,and personally,it could change my dads world. Also,we need driverless cars becuase some people drive at night and their sight and brain can be unconscious and have a wreck. Driving at night can be and will be very exhausting,but if you are too tired to even pay attention to the road,the best thing to do is to lay down in your car and let the car do its own thing.
Another reason I think it should be allowed is because of all the reckless driving there is in this world. Of course,according to paragraph seven,Google didnt extend the possibilites of having a successful driverless car. They just made the driverless car not really driverless. I mean,in paragraph seven it states clearly that the car will have a sensor in order for the passenger in the drivers seat to take action whenever there is an accident or upcoming traffic. In someway it sounds helpful but in another way it just sounds as if the driver is still driving no matter what. They should create driverless cars becuase some people have accidents and can result in death. So,to avoid that we need those driverless cars,we need something that can be useful for people who are seniors and when they are drunk or are just learning to drive. Also,we do need it for the people who take road trips or the people who have business trips and just have to drive for hours.
My third reason on which we should have driverless cars is that we might want to see and enjoy the view of the outside. The passangers are not a problem when coming to viewing the outside world through their window,but the passanger will get exhausted just looking straight infront of him. We need to think that the driver also wants a little taste of what is out there to see. Like my mom,she likes to see out in the window but she cant because she has to keep her focus infront of her. Our brain can also go to a point where it can get exhausted and they eyesight fails some of the time it fails and the accidents happen.
In conclusion,we should have driverless cars because they will be useful for all of us,especially the ones who have to drive for hours just to get to their destination. It will also be helpful for the people who drive at night. Some people cant even see at night and they just crash. So,I think that we should have driverless cars because it will be beneficial for all of us. | 5 |
e2b1ad6 | Let me explain to my fellow citizens about the advantages of limiting car usage. The reason I say this because In German Suburb, Life goes on without cars. Paris bans due to smog. And Car-free day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota.
In German they dont really care for cars " Street parking, dirveways and home garages are generally forbidden in this experimental new districton the outskirt of Freiburg, near the french and Swiss borders." there roads and sidewalks are mainly free they dont to many cars in German. The only people that was really allowed to have cars were car owners, but but there were ony 2 places to park "Large garages at the edge of the development that casted $40,000 along with a home." Some people felt like they were always tense when they had a car, they like not having a car so they wouldn't have to pay for the high gas they need for their gas tank. They felt like walking was way better, it was an exercise and it was more calming then being stuck in traffic.
Paris bans driving because to many people are getting smoggeled."After days of near-record pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city." If they were caught driving they would be getting a fine a really big fine. "Almost 4,000 drivers were fined, according to Reuters, 27 people had their cars impounded for their reaction to the fines." People wasnt taking their car previliges being taking to well they felt like they needed their cars to get to point A to point Z. But they understood why they could drive their cars they knew it was for their own safty "Well atleast some knew it was."
Inconclusion now My fellow citizens Know how people felt about the advantages of limiting car usage. | 2 |
e2b3740 | Hey im writing an explanatory to inform citizens about the advantages of limiting car use. It's an wonderful idea to depend on buses,walking, cab or taxes for one day. So that you can save engery because it's a huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes. Since world war 2 our development has been depending on centered car and it need to change ,because people depends on having cars,and i've to say what about your health? When you relie on things like that you'll think you dont need to walk to where your going or you to fancy or high class to ride a bus or even ride in a cab. Then maybe the roads won't be so busy after all. Also which would help with our air pollution. So what do you say get up and lets get moving and have a car free day! what do you say? Cause I'll think it's an wonderful idea so you can get out and enjoy the air! Long been of the world's prime car cultures because America's love affair with its vehicles which makes transportation the second largest source of America's emissions just behind the power plants. This is why i wanted to inform everyone in the U.S to try at least have one full day when you dont use your car you catch a bus,cab or n train to make our life ,town and comminutie a better place. | 2 |
e2b3961 | It would be a good idea to buy a driverless car. It's a great way to reduse accidents.
When drivers get tired they can just let the car drive itself.
There would be less pollution.
We wouldn't use as much fuel which mean we'll waste less on fuel.
If Google has made driverless cars since 2009, I see no reason to stop or not aloud to use driverless cars.
If, we can use the technology to make better, smarter, and safer cars why not make them?
General Motors created a concept car in the late 1950s, that could do special trest tracks.
It all started with a concept car.
We've become smarter as well and they'll find ways to creat a perfect driverless car before 2020.
" Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver?", "Wouldn't drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive?", Pargraph eight.
People will still want a car that they can still control at anygiven moment.
Drivers might get bored but at least they know they are save.
The driver doesn't have to stare at the rode avery second.
They can do other things while the driverless car is driving itself.
If the driverless car needs the person to drive it will notifly the driver.
As for the laws that focus on keeping drivers, and anyone in the car safe.
I get those laws are made to keep people safe.
Once it shown that driverless car are safe you should make it legal to drive them.
Or should I say let them drive us.?
" If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault--the driver or the manufacturer?" Pargraph nine.
It would be the both of their fault fault. The driver of buying and or maybe not paying attention.
The manufacture for not make the car right.
It all depends on what happened in the Accident.
You can also make the person who buys the driverless car to sign an agreement.
That says if a accident were to happen that it wouldn't be the manufacturers fault.
He or She will take all responsiblity for what happens in the accident.
All in all this is a very difficult argument.
You can go eithre way. | 4 |
e2b3e6e | The emotional exprssions of students in a classroom should be vauluable . Why do i think that ?
Teachers could know how there students feel about the topic there learning or how much the get it or not.
Another one is when your a manager at a store you can see how people feel about your store if theres alot of stress going on in their head.
The text states that " Facial Feedback Theory of Emotion , moving your facial muscles not only expresses emotions, but also may even help produce them ".
Which means it helps them com alive in the real world.
If your sad and was to put on a happy face it would probably help you get happy or to get a better attuide for the day. In this story it says a " Drama couch, Constantin Stanislavsky, had his actors carefully reproduce smiling and frowning as a way of creating these emothions on stage" to better them when they had to come on stage infront of people to peform. The actors had to make it come real for people to enjoy it. He would also put them in other peoples life to see what there emotional state was and how they were feeling.
The muscles are called " orbicularis oculi par palpabraeus" these muscles are acting when you get mad,sad,happy,frustrated and other emotions. So yes, i think you should have this in the world to see what people are feeling around you . It can do what computers can do . Like if you were to smile at a ad they could bring it up to make you even more happy or to get you to buy something. If you were to frown you would get a ad to help you smile or to laught.
It can also perdict when a student is bored of a topic. these are my reasons why I feel this way about this. | 2 |
e2b69b6 | You should join the Seagoing Cowboys program! Here's a reason why, You could go sight seeing to places you've never been to like Venice or China! Keep reading to find some more reasons.
You could help all kinds of people get better from sickness or other kinds of problems they might have. You might get a chance to do a job you've never done before. On board after all the hard labor is done you could play games and meet new people while your at it. It could give you a special look at the world around you. You could go to all kinds of places like China, Greece, or Italy.
You get to take care of all kinds of animals. It depends where you go on your trip but you could go to Greece and see the Acropolis or take a gondala ride in Venice, Italy. You might be able to break the record of the most trips as a Sea Cowboy. It would probably make you feel good knowing that your helping people. While on board you could get really good at games you've probably never tried or were really bad at.
You could go sightseeing. "But seeing the Acropolis in Greece was special, So was taking a gondala ride in Venice, Italy, a city with streets of water." You would always be busy. "Caring for the animals kept Luke busy. They had to be fed and watered two or three times a day." An expeirence like that can open up yours eyes to the world. "It opened up the world to him "I'm grateful for the opprotunity."
And that is why I think you should join the Seagoing Cowboy Program. | 3 |
e2ba02d | Computer Cars
Would want a computer driving your car with your five month baby in the car? I strongly dissagree, I wouldn't let a computer drive my car! I personal think that the Driverless Cars are too risky. Therefore I dissagree with the Driverless Cars because its dangerous, laziness and expensive.
The Driveless Cars ways are way too dangerous . What happens if the sensors doesn't go back to driver? The car will crash
at some put of the place you going. The driveless Cars gets its battery ran down way too fast and that can be very dangerous, because the car can shut down.
The car won't be able to you it's
contact any emergancy savers becuase it wouldn't have any battery.
Secondly , getting a Driverless car is being lazy.
It's already unhealthly that we drive cars, and now it's going to be an computer driving the car. Some scientisits
belive that the Driverless Car can cause the world to have everything done by any
computer . That mean the world wouldn't be healthly because, everything would be done for us.
Thirdly
I think
the Driveless Car is too expensive. The driverless car cost millions of dollars and that is bad. If the car breaks down it would be even more expensive. I think you shouldn't waste you live savings on that junk !
Inconclusion Driverless Cars are stupid! The car is dangerous
and expensive . Driving the car will be | 2 |
e2bbbed | Is better keep the Electoral College or change to election by popular vote for the president of the Unite States ?Is better keep the electoral college because if you keep it they can vote for their president and also when they vote for their president at the same time they are voting for their candidate's electors.
One reason why you have to keep the electoral college is beacuse they can vote for their president, the presidental election is realized every four years after the first monday of November. When the presidental election is done the governor of each state has to prepare a Certificate of Arcertainment how the Federal Register says. Not only keep the electoral college allow to vote just for their president , they also when they are voting for their president they are voting for their electoral.
Moreover why you have to keep the electoral college is because when they vote for their president they are trusting on their electoral because if they vote for their president they are actually giving a vote to their electors. The governor has to prepare the Certificate of Ascertainment.
What the Certificate of Ascertainment do is that it declares the winning presindential of the state and it doesn't just declares who is the winning presidential it additionaly shows you will electors are going to represent your state atr the meeting of the electors in December of the election Year. Finally your state's Certificates of Ascertainment they are sent to the Congress of your country and the National archives it as part of the official records of the presidential election. Not everybody thinks that keep the electoral college is better.
It is true that if you change it by popular vote for the president many people is going to like it beacuse they just trust in the suposely best president , but if you keep the electoral college alot of people prefer vote for their president and at the same time they know they are voting for their electorals so they think is better beacuse maybe their electorals are pretty good like their presindent.
To conclude is better if you keep the electoral college because you are going to give us the opportunity to vote for our president and at the same time we belive in their electorals. | 2 |
e2bcd8c | In the late 1800's in was a huge deal to have a car, only rich people had them. Today it is a necessity to have a car, if you dont have one it is a big deal. But not everyone enjoys diriving some people want to not have to drive to live in an everyday environment. There are so many pros to having a walkable society, one being pollution.
In new York city there is millions of people, and millions of cars. When you have that manny people needing to get places most people drive. But that causes a problem it makes polution a big thing in these big cities, cars cause polution and people think i need a car to be able to get around. Thats not true, engineers these days are trying to make more of thyese "walkable comunities." A walkable comunity is one that can be travfersed by foot and does not require a car.
If you were to walk everywhere that you normally drive You would be burning a massive amount of calories. This in turn would keep people in shape and in better health and thats always a plus. If every one in a comunity is healthy then everyone would live long and every one wants to live longer. More people living longer means more people in the comunity more people in a comunity. more people in a comunity means more people working and leads to a higher production rate.
In the end cars limit the growth of humans by causing polution and people that are not in shape. Polution is a big problem in the world today and this is a way to stop it. People in america are becoming over weight and lazy if peoplewere to just bike or walk where there going it would help out the world greatly. So please next time you need to drive down the road, just grab a bike or even walk to you destination. | 2 |
Subsets and Splits