Datasets:

rishiraj

/

AWE

like 0

09a7f87

The use of technology being able to read emotional expressions of students is not valuble. It invades student's privacy. It's a likely chance that a student emotions will not change because of what the computer detects, and also some people may not like the idea of being so closely connected with a computer/ technology. There are many times where you have probably witnessed a friend or person's face looking too calm or sad to you, and when you asked them what's wrong they tell you nothing. Eventhough when they tell you this you know something might be wrong. After a while you start to just let it go,respect their privacy and wait til they're ready to really tell you whats's on their mind. This applies the same way from a computer to a student. Some students may not want the computer to be invading their privacy and knowing what's wrong with them, they would rather keep it to themselves. It's also a likely chance that a students emotions will not change just because the computer can detect it. What if the the students feelings are more deeper than how they feel about the work? a computer won't be able to change that. In the article the author informed that the FACS (Facial Coding System). will be able to detect on if a person liked an ad or not. Though that might be a swell idea most people don't always like being stopped by ads when they're trying to watch or read something they really want to.

09af24e

My argument against "Driverless Cars" is that im going for it. The reason why is because we have advanced in our technology so it would only be wise to try and use that. Also because I think personally it could save many lives with its self brake instalation, self parking, and many other features. As I was reaing the artical it mentioned that the driver would have to still be alert because if theirs an accadent or workers ahead then the driver must be the one to avoid that. That dosent mean it a bad idea, it just means that maybe our technology isnt that advanced and cant avid things such as work sites ahead or accidnts. I think the reason they cant detect accidents is because you never know when ones going to happen, same with workers ahead your car may not be able to detect it because it could happen in a sudden flash. My position on driverless cars is that i think it will be a great idea. I like i said save many lives, know im not saying it will save everyones life but out o thousands it could decrease by hundred. Appropriate details from the artical that supporst my position is when it talks about how it has automic brakes and self parking and many other features. Its great to have that type of things because as i ahve been saying it could save many lifes, and that important because no one wants to see their family dead. Self break is good because it could be late nd you have been working all day long and your tired and you fall asleep in the car right when a car is pulling out or your car turns a different direction and your close to hitting somethong and it just automatically stops. Or like most parents, you have a young child in the back and hes/shes crying andyou turn around for just a split secound and your car just comes to a complete stop. Then you realize you were about to hit a car infrount of you but with the self-breaking instalation you were able to save your life plus the ones you love riding in the back ( or front) and your car is safe ass well.

09b1823

The author suggetsts that studying the harsh planet of Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. However, the author does not provide ENOUGH information to be convincing. In paragraph 7, it states that "simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simulation the chaos of Venus's surface and have lasted for three weeks in such conditions" this shows some insightful information, but there should also testing of more complicated and complex electronics and equipment. Another method the author claims is using a mechanical computer to handle the conditions. It's a good method, but it doesn't support HOW it can be used on Venus. The last method is using a blimp/plane-like aircraft to monitor Venus. It's a great method to study more about the atmosphere, but as it states "reasearchers cannot take samples of rock, gas , or anything else, from a distance" hindering the option of a thorough mission. The author has some great claims, but needs to go more in-depth as to what some of the mentioned methods will do and how they will potentially work on Venus.

09b1b24

Do you want to be limited on when you can use your car? No, i didnt think so and neither do i so i don't agree to this. But residents of the upscale community are suburban pioneers, going where few soccer moms or commuting executives have ever gone before, they have given up there cars. It's crazy strret parking , dirveways amd home garages are forbidden on the outskirts of Freiburg, near French and Swiss borders. They say that they are much happier without a car but they really cant be they cant go on family trips or get abunch of groceries at the store without having to carry all of them its dumb why would you want to be doing that it actaully puts more stress on you then anything else so they can get over thereselves and get a freaking car cause you know they aint happy they are just lieing. they want to call it smart planning but its really not even close to ebing smart i think its the stupidest thing ive ever heard not having a car gives you less stress what if you wake up late for work one morning your going to have to walk what if its raining outside your going to get wet what if its cold outisde or ebtter yet snowing thats going to suyck because you dont have a heater you have to walk and then your going to be stressed yeah you dont have to worry about it breaking down or gas money and stuff but still its just not right to tell people its less stress. Everything has been developed to the cars the way around, so why change it now we already took down trees moved everything and are already used to all the cars and everything why change whats not broke? Yah i get that we are polluting everything and anything but we've already ruined everything why stop now. Like come on. They blame it all on deisel fuel when it really isnt the problem the problem is all the manufacturing and crap that they are doing in all of these factories and stuff. Also they state again how its a good way to take away stress and lower air pollution we have already polluted it give me a break im so tired of this boohoo crap. President Obama is an idiot hes trying to fix whats been broken and he cant fix the pollution what he can fix is all these lunch rukles because there is no reason why i can't eat candy at school get gatorades get chips his wife can be healthy all she wants but that doesnt need to include us. REcent study shows that less americans are buying cras and you know why because all amerucans pretty much have a car or are broke or homeless. With all these changes people who stopped car commuting as a result of recession may find less reason to resume habit. Then the3y are wanting to try to change the age again but i dont think that there are any advantages to limiting our car use ability.

09b7afb

Thier are a bunch of reasons for not using a car I can name you 10 off the top of my head. It limits pollution saves money great excerise thier multiple reasons not to drive a car everday. For example if you limit your car use to 3 times a week you would save a ton of money. Also you would help get rid of pollution as it states in the article "Pairs bans driving due to smog" that congestion was down 60 percent in the captial of france after 5 day of intensifiying smog. That happened after five days the smog cleared up enough and they let people start driving again. Also if you limit your car use you could start doing some excersie which is great because the rate of obesity may drop. Also if you limit your self from driving you are less likely to be in a car acciedent. In the passage "car free day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota" that they for one whole day dont use cars. They instead ride bikes every where because they want to reduce smog as Pairs wants to. In the passage it says that since its such a big hit that two more colombian cites, Cail and Valledupar joined the event. They have built over 118 miles of bike paths, the most of any latin American city, according to Mockus, the city's mayor. It also says that "the rain hasn't stopped people from participating," said Bogota Mayor Antanas Mockus. Also that day lets people probaly enjoy life way more because all you can do is ride bike and walk so they probaly go on adventures. The final reason why you limit car use is thier would be less of a chance for you to get hurt or even worse. Thier are many acciedent evey year because of drunk and reckless drivers many have lost thier lives to idiots on the road. Thier was a story on the news that three teenage kids died in a car acciedent because they where under the influnce of drugs. They could have hurt other people the reporter said they crashed into a store and the store owner almost got hurt. Those kids almost took someone else life which is scary but if you limit your car use thier wont be that many acciedents. All in all if you just limit your use of the car you can be helping out a bunch. The pollution can be reduced not as many car acciedents you can save your self some money. Also you can get more excersie in if you dont use your car that often.       

09b7da8

No they should not use the technology in class rooms because thats a invashion of pricicy. And they dont need to know every little thing going on in our lives. Becouse every one need there privicy and if schools use that technology there taking that away completly. And why would you use that in a class room any way to spy on people thats a little creepy you know and also why would the teacher even what that becouse thats looking at them too. So there for in my choice the technology is not valuale and should not be put into classrooms or anywhere for that matter becouse every needs that privcy and no one will be able to get that if that technology is around. Another reason we should have it is becouse why would you want people to know your exact emotions anyways if they can read your emotions they can pretty much tell what your thinking by that. So that is the reaons I think we should not have the facial action coding systems.

09bd6f6

Driverless cars are not a good idea for the future. They will create safety problems, cause more people to become obese, and cause more problems between the manufactuer and the customer. Driverless cars will create a lot of safety problems. Drivers will think it is okay to sit back and relax on a road trip. If they were to fall asleep and there were to be a bad accident, the driver could have a possibility of sooner death. The driver would be more alert without a special car to drive for him. In the article it said that some manufactuers of the driverless car wanted to put entertainment in the cars. The driver will be too distracted. Putting entertainment in front of the driver is basically the same thing as putting a phone in front of them, which is illegal, and killed many people in car accidents. Needless to say, there can be many safety problems. Driverless cars will cause many to become obese. Some people are already too lazy to walk a block down the street so they choose to drive. If driverless cars were to start selling, can you imagine how much more lazy people would get? They wouldn't have to do such a simple task such as turnihng the wheel, or turning there turning signals on. People will start bringing more and more food in the car if there happens to be entertainment. People need to excercise even if it is just a walk down the block. Obesity is not what people want. Imagine getting in an accident in a driverless car. Many people will not take the blame because in all honesty, it wasn't their fault. They weren't the ones driving the car, so how it could it have been their fault? Customers will want their money back from buying the "amazing" driverless car they bought. Manufactuers will only be making more trouble for themselves. This will only result in more conflict. This will create worldwide problems. As a result these futuristic cars are just not a good idea. It will only end in conflict. I think that people should stick to the regular cars they have. There is nothing wrong with cars we have in todays society.

09c0506

Dear Rick Scott, Every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday of November, the Electoral College casts their votes to elect the new President of the United States of America. These voters are chosen by the citizens of their state (Florida, Texas, etc.) to vote in their favor of their preferred party. For example, a Democratic voter in California will vote for Democratic Electoral College canidates to vote for their preferred President. Though many people are apposed to this method of voting, calling it an anachronism & taking away the vote from the citizens of the United States, American citizen's votes still count, the Electoral College can avoid problems popular voting could result in, and the Electoral College listens to those with the initiative and right to make a smart vote. For these reasons I would like to keep the Electoral College. The Founding Fathers established the Electoral College as a compromise between election of the President by a vote of Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens, meaning one vote almost relies on the other. A common misconception made by citizens is that when they vote they vote for a President, when in fact they are voting for people to vote in their favor for the President. So the more Republican Electoral College voters your state has, most likely the end vote will be the electoral votes go to the Republican canidate. Many people say that the electoral college "takes away the votes of the citizens, and that their vote doesn't matter" when in reality, they matter in every way possible. If the citizens do not vote, who will vote for the electoral college members? And without the citizens to decide who the memebers of the Electoral College will be, who will be in the Electoral College all together? Not only do the Citizen's votes count, but the Electoral College can help solve the problems that a popular voting system could have. The Electoral College votes with the majority of the state, meaning that the party with the highest request for its Presidency, the Electoral College will cast its votes towards. Meaning a highly Democratic state can count on their state's vote to most likely be for the Democratic candidate. The Electoral College also avoids run-off elections. This means that the election will always show a clear winner for the state's vote. There is a lot of potential pressure for a run-off election when no candidate wins a majority of the votes cats; that pressure could greatly affect the Presidential election process, which the Electoral College reudces, ultimatley showing a clear winner. And finally, the Electoral College listens to smart and eligible voters. Very rarely does a State's Electoral College vote against the wishes of their citizens. In fact that would be the exact opposite of their job. It's also an inetible fact that not every voter is an ideal voter. Many citizens do not keep themselves up to date on the issues candidates plan to solve, occupation backgrounds, or even their personality. Many voters in fact vote on astetics, which is ultimatley the most dangerous voter there is; an uner educated one. So Mr. Scott, I hope you take into account that an in terms of an electoral college, an American citizen's vote does count, they avoid the problems popular votes could create, and they do listen to their state's smart, eligable voters. If the Founding Fathers created this tool for the balance in our voting system, then balance there shall be.  

09c4d28

I would tell the person that the ,famous face, on Mars, is a natural land form and not created by aliens. In 2001, the Mars Global Surveyor took pictures of Cydonia, where the face was located, and the pictures show that the face was actually a butte ,or a mesa. The face actually became popular in the mid 70's and had many conspiracies behind it. When the first picture released to the public, it quickly gained traction with fans. The picture was taking by Viking 1, when it was snapping photos for it sister ship Viking 2. After releasing the picture to the public, it became extradonarily popular, the face was starring in movies, books,magazines, and even radio talk shows. Then rumors started to spread that NASA was hiding the fact that there was life on Mars. In September 1997,NASA's number one priority was to photographing Cydonia, where the face is located, when the Mars Global Surveyor arrived at Mars. So on April 5, 1998 the Mars Global Surveyor took a picture of Cydonia. When the pictured appeared online at a JPL website, thousands of people were dissapointed that it was a natural landform and not some type of a alien monument. But there was still some belivers out there and said that Cydonia is located at 41 degrees north martian latitude,on April 98', which is a cloudy time of the year for Mars. They also said that perhaps the alien markings were hidden by a haze. Three years has went by and the Mars Global Surveyor finally drew close to Cydonia. It was a cloudless summer day,so therefore it couldn't be an excuse for a haze or clouds to be blocking the alien markings. After NASA had set up the Mars Global Surveyor in a spot to get the face in a pefect position, they caught a photo usuing the camera's absolute resolution. The picture caught Mars equivalent of a butte or a mesa. In conclusion, the face was a natural landform,that resembled that of a human face. Also, the face was a big pop icon and gave people the idea that there was some type of lifeform in ,the Red Planet, Mars.

09c5771

Consider  this,  instead  of  driving  to  work  everyday  why  ride  a  bike  or  walk there?  By  not  driving  in  a  car  you're  reducing  emmitions  that  go  into the  air.  But what  if  the distance  is  too  far  or  you  have  no  sense  of  direction?  That's  okay  because  what  do  you  have  on  you  twenty-four-seven?  You  can  always  use  your Iphone  for  directions.  Without  the  use  of  cars  it can  benifit  the community  and  ourselves  in  multiple  ways. Yes,  cars  and  other  sources  of  transportation  are  great  but is doing  you  and  Earth  better?  Admit  it,  no. Driving  cars  increases  the  smog  in  your  area  espcially  if  you  live  in  Beijing,  China. Limiting  the  use  of  cars  can  reduce  the  smog  (air  pollution)  "Congestion  was  down  60  percent  in  the  capital  of  France...  [The  smog]  rivaled Bijing,  China,  which  is  know  as  one  of  the  most  polluted  cities  in  the  world. (Duffer,  Paris  bans  driving  due  to  smog.)  If  more  people  were  to  participate  who  knows  how  much  smog/congestion  percentage would go down.  "... Colombia...  millions  of  the  citizens  hiked,  biked  skated  or took  buses  to  work  during  a  car-free  day...  leaving  the  streets  of  the  capital  city  eerily  devoid  of  traffic  jams." (Selsky,  Car-free  day  is  spinning  into  a big  hit  in Bogota.) The  decrease  in  vehicles  being  bought  would  result  in  benificial  implications  for  carbon  emissions  and  the  enviroment  according  to  American  sociologists. Though  less  cars  on  the  road  would  hurt  the  car  companies  like Ford and Mercedes, mobility  companies  range  their  products  beyond  the personal vehicle.  "New York's new bike sharing  program  and  its  new  skyrocketing bridge  and  tunnel  tolls  reflect  those  new  priorities"  (Rosenthal,  The end of car culture.) Also  the  use  the  internet  makes  people  feel  better  connected  than  those who drive to  see  each other. It  allows  people  to  communicate  by  not  driving all  those extra miles.  Other than that,  nowadays  people  car pool  or cell  phones  to  get around.  so  to most,  its  no  big  deal these days.      

09c8185

Venus is worth studying because when they study it they called it an "Evening Star" also a "twin" of earth. It's the closest planet to earth, It is the closest in distence as well. Venus also has a 97% carbon diocide blanket, but on the surface its 800 degrees Fahrenheight. Since the conditions of the planet are like that its way to extreme for humans to live there. Venus is also has the hottest suface temperature in our solar system, even thou Mercury is closest to the sun Venus is till hotter. It has eruputing volcanoes, powerful earthquakes and frequesnt lightning strikes that happen on the surface of the planet. Scientist think that long ago Venus was like Earth, but even now it still has some of the features that Earth has. It has the rocky sediment, valleys, mountains, craters. NASA is working to keep studying Venus. They have done fom silicon carbide tests that are simulations of the chaos of Venus's surface. One of the things is that they are still striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus. So if there is a way that they are able to go there and get more samples from Venus, then maybe that might tell the scientist what might have been there before and help them out with the previous clues as what happened. They also didn't think about how fast the computers we have today would be. But they also said that just imagine exposing a cell phone, tablet to acid, or heat compatible of a metling tin, that must be what the heat is like on Venus. And since they can't be on Venus just orbiting or hovering safely they can't get the samples that they want from that distance.

09c97ba

Venus is a planet in our solar system and is one of the closest to Earth. The harsh conditions on Venus's surface make it dificult to explore though. But scientist are eager to do this because Venus might have had life a while back. It might have had oceans too to support life. Venus's conditions are so harsh that no space craft sent to the planet survived the landing for a few hours Venus has a thick atmosphere that is almost 97% carbon dioxide and is one of the hottest planets in our solar system. Its average temperature is about 800 degrees Fahrenheit. That's not all though, Venus also has acid rain and errupting volcanoes. It is truely a harsh planet. However, NASA had an idea for sending humans to study Venus. This may sound like a crazy idea, but NASA will make sure the conditions will be safe enouph for humans be safe and study Venus. They could make a a blimp-like vehicle hovering about 30 miles above the surface of Venus. At that height, the temperature would be about 170 degrees Fahrenheit and the air pressure would be simular to sea level on Earth. These conditions are a little rough, but survivable for humans. There could be many new discoveries found on venus. It may be a hard task, but maybe one day, we could find a new discovery that could change the world. Who knows what we will discover on our next mission to Venus.

09cc092

Dear Florida state senator, The Electoral College may seem like a great thing to have but I think it may not be the best idea. There are plenty of reasons and one of them is that it is kind of unfair that we really don't get to vote. We vote to see who is more popular with the people but if the Electoral College wants someone else, they can vote for the person they want. People think they are voting and no one else is making the decision for them but they are being lied to. It is an unfair way of voting and is is non-democratic way in most people's eyes. Although, most of the time the voters get who they voted for, it happened to not be that way one time. In 2000, Gore had more popular votes than Bush but Bush won because he had more electoral votes and the people were angry. The Electoral College didn't go with what the voters wanted, but what they themselves wanted. People are being lied to that they have a say so in who should be president. Yes, most of the time they go with the voters but at any time they can disregard the popular votes and vote for who they want. If that's the case then no one should vote since they basically only have an opinion on who should be elected. I said it was a non-democratic way before and it really is. It isn't really a free way of voting, we give an opinion and the Electoral College votes for whoever. It fits back when America was just becoming America, but it is too old now. When the Declaration of Independance was made and a little while after that is what time era I think it should have died out. It is other people voting for us. In America, we have a voice, we can state opinions, we can vote too, but the Electoral College votes for us. It is telling our opinion, it is telling who we want, but why can't we have direct voting? It just isn't fair to the voters because they aren't really voting, just expressing an opinion. Speaking of unfair, the number of electoral votes each state gets is outragously unfair! Why is it based on the number of people in the state? Why can't people just vote directly and not have to worry about how many electoral votes they can get? For example, Florida has 29, Texas has 38, and Claifornia has 55. They are all big numbers and they can easily make a huge impact on who becomes president. The less populated states on the other hand, don't really do much justice. Maine has 4, Hawaii has 4, and Alaska has 3. It seems really unfair to those states because they have a small chance of actually making any sort of dent in the numbers. Alaska's numbers compared to California's numbers is just really unfair. If people were able to vote directly, then it would be fair game for the states with fewer electoral votes. In the end, people know the Electoral College is an unfair way of voting. People are lied to about being able to vote because it is not direct because it is the Electoral College decides anyway. The state numbers are really unfair, it is a non-democratic way of voting, and people think it is way out of date. If the Electoral College were to trade spots with the voters who aren't in it, I'm sure they'd say that it is really unfair. People don't really get to vote, if anything, there should be direct voting like most people believe there is. It would be more fair for states like Alaska and all the other states with really small numbers. I'm sure it is easy to keep track of the numbers with electoral votes, but yet like I said, it is really unfair for the smaller populated states. Yours sincerily, Alexandria

09ce958

Dear, State Sentor I think the electoral college should be changed and people old enough to vote should be able to chhose who they want to be president. I think people should be able to choose who they want to be prsident because. And he start destroying the economy and he starts taking away things that some people need to survive or maintain. One reason I think citizens should be able to choose who they want to be prsident because what if someone gets elected as president and for example he or she decides to begin a marshal law in the whole united states. Then he starts putting a chip in evevyones body and we get told when to eat and when not to eat. Then he or she starts to put us in concentration camps and we get paid 2 cents a hour and killed if we dont cooperate. Another reason I think citizens should be able to choose who they want to be president is because. Its not fair to people cause that would be like a citizens vote doesnt even count and the government doesnt really care about what citizens think and they dont care about how we feel. Then if the wrong person gets elected and he or does something no one likes everybody gone be mad cause they didnt for that to happen. Finally I think citizens should be able to vote for who they want to be president is because I honestly dont think the government doent care how anybody feel. And The Electoral college avoids the problem of elections in which no canidate recieves a majority of the votes cast. The electoral college method for selecting presidents may turn off potential voters for a canidate who has no carrying their state. Now you see why I think people should be able to choose who they want to be president. I hope you enjoy reading my letter and i hope you see where im coming from and what im talking about. 

09d065f

How Seagoing Cowboys is a very important program to join.Seagoing Cowboys is a very important program because it helps many people,animals,and other things to be safe when disaster has happened.It helps animals and people to get to a safe place to stay at.Seagoing Cowbos program helps people that were affected by World War II.Seagoing Cowboys helps every person and animals that were affected by World War II.Seagoing Cowboys is a very important program to the people that were affected by the war. Everybody should join the Seagoing Cowboys program.People need helps when they get affected by a war.Animal are in damger because of the war.People should be helpful to the people that got affected by the war and need peopes help.Animals need a shelter and food to survive the affection of the war.Eveyone should be nice to the people that need help with there animals.Its a very helpful way to help others in need.It does take a long tme but iits worth the time.Seagoing COwboys is the best program to help amybosy in need for help.You might not like the jobs that you have to do but its worth it because you get to help animals and people in need. I would join this program because I will be helping other people.This a get way to be a caring and helpful person.This program is one of the best program I have heard because it helps other people and animlas out.I also really like animlas so would be a perfect program for me.I think everyone should join this program because it helps people in need.World War II was a very affective war so this is the best program to go help people in need of help.I would help anybody that need me to help with there animals or anything they ever needed.I think this program will be the for the people that. Were affected by World War II.

09d976b

Venus is the planet of our solar system. Occasionally Venus is the closest planet to Earth in term of size as well as distance. Venus, also known as "Evening Star," is a second planet from our sun that makes it more brighter and warmer. Venus is covered with a large blanket of carbon dioxide. The temperature on the Venus is approximately 800 degrees Fahrenhite, and also has the atmospheric pressure 90 time greater than on Earth, this circumstances make the Human life quite impposible on Venus. Venusian geology has impediments like volcano eruption and earthquickes. Do you ever feel how interesting it would be to visit places that are out of this world? Or, do you ever thought, what if we get the chance to visit different planets like Venus or Mars? Well, we are no longer away from the time when we will visit different planets for our vacation trips. Although our neighboring planets are inhospitable of human life, however ; Astronomers are fascinated about Venus because it may once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Long ago Vinus was covered with oceans and could have supported various froms of life. Even today, Venus have some features that are analogous to those on the Earth. Human's have sent plethora number of spacecrafts to Venus but didn't get success. NASA has a compelling idea for sending humans to the study Venus. NASA's possible solution to hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray, as the temperature would be around 170 degrees Farhrenheit above that land, it will make easier for humans to research on Venus. To get samples of rock or gas, scientists has to conduct a mission to understand Venus would need to get up close and persional despite the risks. NASA has discovered that electronic devices made of silicon carbide can last for three weeks on Venus as they will not melt easily. NASA and many other organizations are working hard to make it possible for human to visit other planets. As we know, how many different condition are becoming hindurance for humans to visit Venus, but we are no longer away from the time when human will visit other planets and will research about that planet. Recently scientists has discovered that their is a life possible on Mars. Many organizations like NASA and Space-X are working hard to send humans to Mars. Similarly we will find the way to land on Venus and know more about it. Our travels beyond the Earth should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination.

09da56a

Over the years the amount of cars that have been manufactured have increased immensly. Cars help us get to place quicker by making less effort to get there. We no longer need to walk to go to the park or the mall which can take a long time. Although cars are very useful and fun to drive, it also has its risk like anything else on Earth. Which is why i think limiting car usage would be a great idea. Most cars use gasoline or diesel as there fuel to get them going. This causes problems because the fuel that is burned pollutes the atmosphere and creates smog. Paris had this problem before. In the article "Paris bans driving due to smog", Robert Duffer says that Paris had "days of near-record pollution" and they attempted to reduce it by applying a 22-euro fine ($31). As a result congestion in Paris was down 60 percent and the smog, as stated in the article, "cleared enough for the French party to rescind the ban of odd-numbered plates" Getting rid of the smog and having less air pollution would help not only the environment but i can also help us breathe oxygen easier. Limiting car usage can help us decrease pollution and increase breathable oxygen. Limiting car usage can benfit us in many ways. It can reduce air pollution which not only helps us breathe better but it also helps the environment. It can also relieve stress. Everyone that drives a car knows how stressful it can be sometimes. Any traffic jam can turn a regular day to a stressful day. Hearing someone honking their horn, yelling "Come on! Move already!" and adding some unnecesary profanity can be very irritating. In the article "Car-free day is spinning into big hit in Bogota" Andrew Selsky says that for the third straight year the city of Bogota have a car-free day called Day Without Cars. "The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog" states the article. A lot of people actually participated in this event even thought it rained that day. The Mayor of Bogota Antanas Mockus said that even though it is raining it "hasn't stopped people from participating". It was a great idea to have a day like this to relax and not be stuck in traffic which is one reason why one businessman was happy. "It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution" said Carlos Arturo Plaza. It's a great event that should spread to the world. It will be very helpful to us and the environment. In conclusion, limiting car usage is very beneficial. It can relieve stress and reduce air pollution. It can also reduce car accidents which can decrease the number of deaths that occur in a car accident. If you're on a budget, limiting the the amount of time you use your car can help you save gas money. It can also help you excercise a little. Since you aren't using a car you have to use a different form of transportation like walking or riding a bike. These are just a few advantages that limiting car usage have. Limit your car usage, it can help you and the environment.

09df111

In The Challenge of Exploring Venus the aurthor suggests studying Vens is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. I believe that the aurthor thinks this because Venus is the closest plant to earth by the means of density and size because of that it is often referred as the twin of Earth. On Venus the planet in its self is a challenging planet to land on. The clouds in Venus are made of highly corrosive sulfiric acid. The temperature on Venus is about eight hundred degrees Fahrenheit. The atmosphereic pressure is ninty time greater than Earth. The tick atmosphereis almost ninety-seven percent carbon dioxide. Compared to Earth these conditions are far more extreme for humans. So extreme that there has not been an attempt to explore VVenus in over three decades. Out of all the planets in the solar system Venus has the hottest surface temperature. Astronomers believe that Venus may have once been like Earth a long time ago. Venus might hav had oceans and could have probably supported many forms of life just as Earth. Venus still has some features that are analogous to Earth though. The surface of the planet is a kind of rocky sediment and has familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters. In conclusion I have discussed why the aurthor thinks Venus is a planet worth studying. I have talked about the conditions of Vens such as the atmosphere and the temperature. Finally I talked about the terrian of Venus and how similar it is to the terrian on Earth.

09e2b3e

I am going to write an essay on why you should join the Seagoing Cowboys program. You should join the Seagoing Cowboys because it gives you a lot of opportunities to see different places. You can go visit some of the most exciting places in the world. Also if you like animals it gives an opportunity to take care of them. If you have never gone over seas then there is your opportunity. You travel all over the world, go over the seas, and oceans. You get to adventure the seas, oceans, and the world. Also if you are a young Seagoing Cowboy and you still need to attend school the you can learn about the countries and seas by exploring them. Like I said earlier if you still need to attend school you can learn different languages because you are exploring the world. So by learning diffenrent languages it can open up many opportunities for you. But it doesn't need to be all about learning. You can play games on the way and see many different sites that's the whole world would want to see. Then when you come back you can tell all your friends about the trips you have had. Then maybe they would like to come along with us. In conclusion that is why you should be a Seagoing Cowboy to have those many adventures.

09e4fce

Dear Senator, The Electoral College is the best proven method for electing the president and produces great results, so it should be kept. It does have its mistakes, and faults, but who or what in the world does not? Many people do not favor this method of election, and argue that:"The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational.",these people may be right, but for the many past presidents that it has successfully elected, either for the good or bad, we the people are the main power for it. The electoral college does not just elect the president by itself, it works on what the people elect. The reason that many people do not favor the electoral college is that they feel insecure knowing that they aren't voting for the president directly, just for electors who are voting for their chosen presidential candidate. It is all a phsycological insecurity for those who haven't gotten used to the fact that they don't have a direct power over what they want for the well-being of the government and the citizens. Also the fact that their are flaws in this method of election gets people nervous about a disaster happening, mainly because a mistake has happened before. "In 2000 U.S. presidential race, Al Gore recieved more individual votes than George W. Bush nationwide, but Bush won the election, recieving 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266." Bradford Plumer is very against the electoral college because of its past misgivings, or mistakes, and does not trust what it might do in the future. The electoral college may possess many past mistakes and close runs, but it works unlike any other system of election that has been thought of. It produces very certain outcomes and results, the college selects all of the votes,sorts them, and releases the correct amount of votes for the president voted for. It is the least stressful, clearest, and fairest procedure for electing the president while at the same time being fair to all of the average people voting for their desired president. Because of all of the benefits that it promises, and the outcome for every voter, this fantastic method of election should be continued at least until a better method for choosing the president of the United States is discovered, and confirmed to be superior to our current system now.

09e6583

The Facial Action Coding System being applied for a student in the classroom can lead to many benefits and improvements in the classroom. This system could be applied in way that help develop the learning and how to teach the student to be more interactive in the classroom. Ways that this Coding System can be used to improve students in a classroom in that the System can determine whether or not a student is interactive in the class, if a student is cheating or lying, or whether things outside of school are affecting/bothering the student. One way that this Facial Action Coding System can benefit the teacher and student is whether or not the student is interactive in the class. If the Facial Action Coding System were to take pictures of the student throughout the class and see what kind of emotions students are experiencing throughout the class, this could actually help the teacher. For example, if the student shows expressions of happiness throughout the class, then the teacher should continue her approach of learning, because happier student tend to be more interactive in the class. If the Facial Action Coding System were to analyze students feeling disgust or sadness throughout the class, this would be beneficial for the teacher in that this implies the teacher needs to change their approach and if the teacher were to question the student, how and what they (the teachers) can do to allow the students to be more interactive. Dr. Huang says, "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." (Huang, paragraph 6). This shows that even online learning could be changed using this Coding System and that using this technology would be beneficial throughout different kinds of learning systems and different kinds of students. Also, as I said before, if the Coding System is able to detect students feeling bored or becoming confused in class, it may lead to the teacher changing his approach on how to teach the lesson. Also, the Facial Action Coding System could also be helpful in that the system could help teacher find cheaters and dishonest students in the class. An example of this is that if the Facial Action Coding System were to detect fear or surprise if a teacher confronts a student on cheating, this will help the teacher on deciding if the teacher actually cheated or whether the student was actually innocent. Also if the student decides to lie and fake an happy expression, the machine would also be able to detect this. This author states the system is able to detect a fake expression when he states, "Meanwhile, muscles called orbicularis oculi pars palpabraeus makes crow feet around your eyes. But in a false smile, the smile is stretched sideways using the zygomatic major and a different muscle, the risorius. To an expert, faces don't lie; thes muscle clues are sometimes used to spot when a "smiling" politician or celebrity isn't being truthful." (D'Alto, paragraph 8). This quote shows that the machine to detect a faked expression and if the student is lying or faking an expression, the teacher will be able to call him out on it using the Facial Action Coding System. The Facial Coding System could also detect whether things outside of school is affecting him and whether or not the student need help. For example, if the student were constantly to have a sad and fear expression throughout the school, the counselor/principal may be able to ask the student what is going on and why the student constantly is feeling this type of way. The counselor/principal may discover things that could be traumatizing to the student and proceed to get the studen help or aid. In conclusion, having a Facial Action Coding System may be beneficial for both the student and the teacher in a classroom. With this system, teachers are able to identify whether they should change the way the way they teach the class, if a student is faking an expression when caught cheating or lying in the classroom, and if something is concerning a student outside of school. All of these reasons prove that schools should start implementing this new system into their technology such as video cameras, computers, and tablets.

09e971b

There will be many different opinions over weather or not we should use this technology in class rooms. The Facial Action Coding System has positive and negative sides. It could be enjoable. There is also a chance that it could just be a complete and utter fail. Though, are the benifits of students worth the negative aspects of this new technology? If this new system were applied to our schools, students would be more likely to enjoy what they are participating in. The students would have been matched to their own personal work while still accomplishing what they need to be able to pass. Maybe students would not dread school as much as they do now. Instead of losing interest in their studies, students could enjoy learning. If students began learning on their own because they enjoyed it so much, maybe they would also take up their own studies. Could you imagine how advanced our future would be if people were actually passionate about learning? On the other hand, some people would see the Facial Action Coding System as an invasion of privacy. They would think that what little personal life they had left was being stripped from them. Or maybe we could even be being watched all the time and not just when we are aware of it. People are already so paranoid about everything. So why not just throw in always being observed like government projects. Some people would say this fancy new system is just to expensive. Maybe even a waste of money that could be used for something more necessary and useful. People would debate an argue over what is best and the arguing would be a waste of time all on it's own. Everyone has their own opinion. Everyone wants to be heard. It may just be easier to save the money. Though you will never know what you are missing out on until you try. So, why not try to apply this program to the schools. It could be a huge success. We could have a completly new and updated experience of life. If mankind has gotten this far without it, could you imagine where we would be with it?

09f2c09

I think that this would be valuable because this Facial Action Coding System really work because in the text it stated that they found out what was Mona Lisa moods. And they figured it out so if they put the computers in a classroom for kids they will find out if they need help or not. Another reason why i think that this computer is valuable is because it can help out the kids and to see if they need help and to also see what they are struggling with so they can fix the problems that the kids are having. Another reason why i think that the computers coding system is valuable to the classroom is because if they feel sad or anything going on at home or somewhere the computer can tell what is they mood and why they have this mood. I also think that this coding system would be good for a classroom because it can help teachers and what i mean is that if the student is struggling and the teacher dont know why the student is struggling but the coding system do the system can tell the teacher what she need to do to help the student understand i really think this would be good for school all over the world the world need this new technology and it need to help us get through school. This concludes my reason on why i think that the technology to read the emotion expressions of students in a classroom are valuable.

09f7d1f

This story is about a new technology that is called a Facial Action coding system that are able able to recognize other people faces. I'm explaining what I think about people using a facial recognition. This whole facial recognition thing is awesome and I think that it is safe for us humans. These people can actually use it for there iphones now. For example a person uses a facial recognition for his phone,that's good because because can't nobody else can get into his device. The thing about it is who was the person to come up with this idea I think its cool but there using up all this technology. I think that there is a reason for everything and I wonder what made that that person come up with that idea. Another reason why I think this is a cool idea is because it knows who you are even when you have on different face expression. That's amazing how a computer can express how we feel .I 'm so surprized that a computer can do that. I some time ask myself how do they do that. I think that computers would need a lot of energy to do that I don't know it's amazing. I sometimes think that it is not impossible for this to happen but it really is. I think about all the gadgets that my mom had back then. I would usually say that they're going to make alot of different things in the future. Their already trying to make self-driving cars. This story is amazing. I think that there are going to be more things that are going to surprise me. This one is the first greatest techonolgy I ever heard about. When I grow up I dont want to use all of this technology because I think that it is to much for me. I would consider only using something simple. This story told me alot. It told me what a computer could do that i never knew about which is surprizing. I just told my story about how i'd feel about all this new technology. That story was interesting and I think that I would probably use that one day. If I would use it I would be careful with it.

09fc519

The use of the Facial Action Coding System sounds like an excellent idea. It would allow schools to make classes more enjoyable for students. Teachers would know if the students are understanding the lessons. Teachers could know if students are stressing and help them calm down. The software would help provide better data for researchers. The program would benefit both students and teachers. It would also make getting data for research easier. With the use of the new software, schools can provide a better learning environment. The program can tell people how the students respond to lessons and how they are taught. Teachers can take this information and use it to better their classrooms. They can make their lessons more interactive and fun. The software would allow for more labs to be performed in science classes. It might inspire students to go into science fields if they enjoy the F.A.C.S. The technology could help teachers recognize struggling students. Many students will not say that they need help, even if they do. Teachers may be able to help brighten a student's day, so they do not spend the rest being sad. This could help prevent school "accidents" and keep the school's environment "happier." The F.A.C.S could help teachers know when the students need a minute's break to help them refocus. The software could help researchers collect better data faster. Researchers would not need to go to schools to collect information. They could just take it from the program directly. This could help them improve the technology and make it more efficient. The information would help in other studies regarding schools or students. It could also alert people to dangers in the classrooms by detecting whenever students are scared. The F.A.C.S would make the classrooms of schools better. They could make students safer. The schools could receive better feedback on what works and what does not. Researchers would get better information for studies. The systems would benefit more than just one.

0a01969

Technology is constantly changing and adapting with the times. Some people fear change and loss of control with autonomous technology, especially cars; however, technological control can actually improve the safety of driving in the future. Driverless cars will help to improve the quality and safety of driving around the world. Driving safety is a prevalent issue in many parts of the world. People face daily dangers on the road, such as texting drivers, drunk drivers, and drivers that are too exhausted to focus; with autonomous cars, these dangers would be removed. The driverless cars would use multiple sensors to form continuously updated 3-D models of the car's surroundings, which would allow the car to substitute for a human at the wheel. Critics might argue that it is unsafe to rely purely on technology to drive people. However, the cars would not be purely autonomous; the car would alert the human driver if he or she needed to take over. Several large car companies, including Tesla, Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan, are already planning to release cars that are capable of driving themselves by 2020. Rapid technological improvements are allowing cars to become more refined and to take over multiple tasks that were originally done by human drivers. These cars and their sophisticated technology vastly improve the safety of driving on the road. Driverless cars would not only improve safety on the road, but would also improve the safety of the environment. Currently, cars use up millions of gallons of gas each year, causing pollution and severely impacting the quality of air in many city environments. However, autonomous cars could be used as replacements for current taxi systems. Sergey Brin, the cofounder of Google, believes that the use of driverless cars in place of taxis would greatly reduce the amount of air pollution as well as the consumption of gasoline; the cars would use half the amount of fuel that taxis currently consume. Driverless cars would improve the safety of the world. It has been proven multiple times that these cars will improve the safety of driving around the world; unfortunately, the road to driverless cars is still blocked by laws and by people's fears. If people allow it, autonomous technology in cars will have a huge positive impact on the future.

0a0388e

Dear senator Im arguing in favor of keeping the Electoral collage. It has come to my attencion that people want to change it to election by popular vote for the president of U.S. I think that we should keep the Electoral College because it makes more sense and is easier for you guys to count the votes. It is more orginized by level of the voting people lie president, vice president ect. The Electoral vote consists of 538 electors. The most votes that are needed for being elected for president are 270 votes. Each candidate running for president has his own group of electors. The are generally chisen by the candidate political party so is fare. So Im sure that you are going to consider this and read it because some people dont thhink about it. Some dont know how it works and vote for a new one because it sound better but is not. I just want to make sure people are inform with. That they read this and tthink about it. This is only held every 4 years on the tuesday after the first monday of november. So you might not want to make a big mistake making this decision. People might think that this is not that big of a deal but it is. This very important for the president and the government. This only happens Every 4 year so you got to wait a long time. I am very imform about this and making a change will only make thinks worse. People are not going to get use to doing another way or they are gonna get confuse with the old one. It going to be a caus if you change it. I just want to make thing better not worse. So you maybe want to consider this more and think about for days and analyist real good. Thank you for your time and hope you make a good decision.  

0a07f07

A world of less pollution, less costly wages, reduced congestion on the roads, healthier ways to venture around, and less stress and danger. That would be a world with limiting car usage. May not seem like a rational idea but when you see all the good that could come out of the reduction of cars on the streets it could change your way of thinking. A city in Germany by the name of Vauban, 70 percent of their families do not desire to have cars. Over half of the percentage of people had sold their cars just to move here. "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way". Those were the words of a women by the name of Heidrun Walter who is a mother of two and is also a media trainer she finds bicycles and sound of children running about is a much more tolerant tone then the sound of a motor rolling by. The enviromentalists from the Enviromental Protection Agency favors the idea of car reduction. They stand for cars being limited would reduce pollution and be more friendly the mother earth. From the reduction of cars on the roads the congestion percent soared down a plump number of 60 percent. That's truely a magnificent amount. I strongly believe that limitng the car usage would reduce death rates, reduce smog, put people in less tense moods keeping them more happy, and lastly reduce moeny going to greenhouse gas wages. More places worldwide should limit relying so much on cars, to allow us to function in daily life without them.

0a0d3b4

The Face is a natural landform and not an alien monument. On May 24, 2001 NASA's Viking 1 spacecraft was circling the planet, taking pictures of possible landing sites of its sister ship Viking 2. Viking 2 had spotted the shadowy likeness of the human face. Then, an enormous head about two miles from end to end looked as staring back at the cameras from a region of the Red Planet, Cydonia. Back at the Jet Propulsion Lab the face appeared on their monitors. But, we figures it was just another Matian mesa, around Cydonia, only this one had unusual shadows that looked like an Egyptian Pharaoh. Also, NASA showed the image for all to see, and the caption noted a "huge rock formation... which resembles a human head... formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose, and mouth." Authors thought it would be a good way to engage the public and attract attention to Mars. The answer is yes the "Face on Mars" became a pop icon. But, few of us scientists believe the Face is an alien artifact. On April 5,1998, scientist, Michael Malin and his Mars Orbiter Camera team snapped a picture of the Face to prove there was no alien monument. When the Face image was finally posted, anxious web surfers saw that it was revealed as a natural landform and no alien monument at all. Everyone wasn't satisfied. Skeptics were saying that perhaps alien markings were hidden by haze. On April 8, 2001, we drew clse enough for a second look. One scientist said, "If there were objects in this picture like airplanes on the ground or Egyptian-style pyramids or even small shacks, you could see what they were." The picture actually shows the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa. A scientist, Gavin, once said " it reminds me most of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho, that's a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars." The Face is just a natural lanform and not alien monumument at all. I think this because we all have taken pictures and used evidence as to why the Face isn't an alien monument. I hope everyone agrees with me and all the other scientists because the proof that we've given is reasonable.

0a0f7cc

The author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars but the negative aspects are more compelling. Driverless cars require many sensors, they would still require the help of the human driver and there is always the possibility of the technology failing and cause injury. The driverless cars that are being tested require many sensors that are needed in order to allow the car to perform the duties of drivering. As it says in the article " For starters, they needed a whole alot of sensors." It rises questions like, What if they fail? What would be the cost of replacing broken ones? It a sound too expensive to maintain. Is there an alert system to warn humans a sensor is going out? As driverless cars need sensors they still need the help of the human drivers. They claim to be driverless cars and yet they arent completely driverless; they still need the asistance of the human drivers. In the article is says " In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless." and "... but all are designed to nofity the driver when the road ahead requires human skills..." In how many situations would the so called driveless cars need the human skills to operate and prevent accidents? There is still the need for human judgement. With automatives there has always been the risk of injury and death which is present in the driverless cars. But who would be at fault as the article says, "... new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accidents. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault-- the driver or the manufacturer?" Car manufacturers have been in fault for car defects that have resulted in injury or death. With driverless cars the risk could go up with failures in the car. Even though the thought of having driverless cars is appealing to many, there is many negative aspects to the idea of having them. As driverless cars require many sensors, they would still require help of the human driver and is always the possibility of the technology failing and cause injury or death. We are still far from the day where people will see driverless cars as an everyday thing.

0a0f8b3

My position on driverless cars is that they should be used when needed not all the time. They are not as safe as people think they are for the fact that they cannot think for themselves. They will have to have way to many sencersto be able to try to keep every one safe. Safty is a big concern because of all the sencers that are there and one of them go out the othere sencers cant see that spot so if something were in that spot then they would have died. Some people think smart cars are going to be the next big thing but i dont hink so safty and money are way out of the safty range at the moment and i dont think it is a very good idea because where are you going to get all the money to buy a smart car, I know i would not have enough money for that because i dont have money for a regular car at the moment because wll i just got my job. Just take a minute and think would you want your child playing on the street and this driverless car comes through that same street and the sencer on that part of the car is not working and it does't see your child and runs he\she over? So in conclusion, Smart cars are not as smart as they seem. They will not be cheep cars to have and if they get themselfs into an accident think of all the money that you would have to put into it to fix all of the damage that it would have caused itsself. Think about the insurence bill if it accidentaly kills someone because one of the sencers were out. I think that they would bee good to have if you are sick but not any other time i think it would be stupid to even try to have them but that is my opionion on the matter i just wouldn't buy one because i do not wat to be responsible for something tragic happening to anythingor anyone.

0a22908

The author of this work is in favor of taking on the great challenge of landing a "rover" on Venus for research and exploration. Venus has many extreme conditions that the earth does not have to endure. The author presented many "solutions" to these problems. Although plausible, the creations would be impractical and would not produce ensured results. The author's support for the idea of exploring Venus is mediocre at best. Being the second-closest planet to the sun provides for some nearly impossible conditions for human exploration. With Sulfuric Acid in Venus' atmosphere, and surface temperatures being over 425 degrees Celcius (about 700 K or 800 F) , the likelyhood of humans on Venus is nearly nonexistent to begin with. To combat the hot temperatures and the acidic atmosphere, NASA proposed the idea of a "blimp" that floats above the planet's shell. Although the blimp could survive high in the air, the practicality of if is not present. Having a blimp that cannot touch the planet is not going to help scientific research at all. While being above the clouds of Venus, it is impossible to see the surface with human eyes. Seeing the surface would require technology that uses light from the electromagnetic spectrum with a high frequency and short wavelength. It is also impossible to collect rock samples from the planet for soil examination. This idea would not be beneficial enough for the risk of investing a lot of time and money. An additional idea that was brought up by the author was "Silicon electronics." Siliscon electronics would be resistent to the harsh conditions on the planet-- for a while. The systems would run for about a month before total failure. these silicon systems are very expensive to bein with and are still in the development phase here on earth. Creating enough silicon circuits to power a rover or vehicle would take years to manufacture. And by the point of satisfactory innovation for silicon electronics, a new product may have been presented. Lastly, a "cave-man" idea of mechanical computers came into play. These basic forms of work require no fragile electronics at all. Using gears, levers, pulleys, and ramrods, corporations have been able to create many devices. When made out of an acid-resistent substance that can withstand high pressure, a mechanical machine may work. The only problem with a mechanical machine is that once on the planet, sure it can do work, but it would be unable to transmit and data findings back to a receiver on a ship or earth. There would be a point where some sort of electronics would be needed. And as of right now, there is not an effective enough invention that could put humans on Venus to live and research. The author of this article is trying to push a principle that is not fully developed yet. The reasons that were provided may work after many years of design and development, but right now, none are practical. A combination of the three presented ideas may actually work the best. Use a blimp to float above the planet, tie a cable to the blimp that connects is with machanical machinery, and use silicon electronics to transmit the findings. Damage could be repaired by raising the equipment back up to the blimp. Innovation does not come easy for those who are in charge of it, but ideas like this are needed in providing an answer for a difficult question. Overall, the author's arguments do not satisfy the overall risk and reward stakes. After more time passes, maybe he will write another article depicting what will work for sure. The support was not presented in a way that was convincing enough to dive right in to this new frontier of space.

0a238c3

Driverless cars have been in all of our minds since television and moives have put them there. Google has had driverless cars since 2009, but are they safe to be in one. While haveing a driverless car seems epic it does have some downfall to it. Driverlesss cars , or smart cars, are a bad idea because it cost a large amount of money, a driver must be on the wheel and on alert at all times, and it even has problems with the law. Driverless cars in the late 1950s had to run on a special track. The smart-road systems worked well. It was actully a succesful test, but it would have require massive upgrades to the existing roads. The roads would be too expensive to upgrade. So instead of smart-roads they moved on to smart cars. The smart cars would need a lot of sensors to work. The senors would of course become more advance, but so well the cost. Although the smart cars cost a large amount it also still needs a driver at the wheel. The car can handle speeds up to 25mph, but the sensors make sure the dirver hold on to the wheel. Even though it is a smart car none of the cars can go without a driver at the wheel. The car would need a driver for roads it can't navigat thourgh. Such as work zones and around accidents. The car can not navigat thourgh these places which is why it alerts the driver that the need to take control of the wheel. To improve this the manufacturers put cameras in the smart car to watch driver. They make sure that the driver is focused on the road. If there is a road the car needs help with, it would vibrate the seat to alert the driver. Even if the car can alert the driver the law focus on on how focused the driver is. In some states it is illegal to test a computer-driven car. Such states worry the the car would cause an accident to the passengers, and pedestrians. If the traffic laws change it would still need to cover liability of the accident. So if the car fails and caused an accident would the driver or manufacturer be at fault. So in the end driverless cars are a horribly idea. They would cost a large amount of money. As well as they are not actully driverless and needs someone to be there, and they are agist the law at some states. Driverless cars should just stay in television and moives.

0a28113

I think the Facial Action Coding System to identify human emotions is not a good idea because some people might be keeping things from other people that might make them sad, mad, or disgusted about someone and then there will be a problem with those people. But also this could be a good thing because it could help with what people are going though in there life. And this could help cuicide problems for alot of places. This might be a bad thing because it could cause conversy with people and might split people apart from there family, friends, or co-workers. For an example if two people are in a relationship and if one person is disgusted, mad, or sad and the other might ask what they are disgust, mad or sad at the other personor something. And because they did Mona Lisa it doesn't give an good example and it only shows the positive side and if did this on a high school student like they want to it might show more of a negitive responsed. But in other terms this could be a good thing for some people because it could help people with what they are going though in there life. This could also possible lower the number's of cuicide percent for some places and mostly for people. It could lower places cuicide rates by if they mad, disgusted or sad people could ask what they are though and maby get that thing of there cheat could be a good thing for them. "She's 83 percent happy, 9 percent disgusted, 6 percent fearful, and2 percent angry" this shows that it does indeed work and if were going to do it a different person or painting you will get different percent's that will better understand what some people might be going though in life. I truely think this could be made for good reasons if used right and not for only student but people all around the world s we could see what is going on someother places. But if it used to much it could start some bad things with student, familys, and co-workes.

0a30626

Do We Need Driverless Cars? A driverless car is exactly what it sounds like. It has a nice ring to it, right? Some people may think it sounds super dangerous, some people might find it quite amusing. Others feel like we are okay with the cars that we have. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. What's yours? Humans introduce new technology constantly. From phones to computers, from house appliances to buildings, even cars. What's wrong with cars going through a manufacturer for an upgrade? How many people will by the iPhone 7 when it releases? A Lot. How many of those people have an iPhone 6s Plus already? A Lot. Why can't cars be the same way. I mean, maybe it's a waste of hard earned money, but it's yours. My personal opinion doesn't really make a difference. Although, I do think they should release them. I think they should release them because they literally have no reason not to. Plus, if they decide not to release them, how's that fair to the people that can afford them who've been waiting? Lots of people are cautious about driving with those cars out on the road. Some are scared, some are outrageously mad. Everyone has in the technology business has to come up with something new before long. Another reason I believe they should be released is because of the research. Driverless cars have driven more than half of a million miles without a crash. If you ask me, that's safer than cars WITH people driving them. In conclusion, everyone deserves to buy what their money can afford and if they can afford it then, why not?

0a31858

The author do it a very good job, because, its very elaborate Firts, the thougth of computers existing in those days may sound shocking, but these devices make calculations by using gears and levers and do not requiere electronics at all, and then maybe this issue explains why not single spaceship has touched down on Venus's in more thn three decades, numerous factors contribute, to Venus's reputation as a challenging planet for humans to study, despite its proximity to us. However, peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited inshigt on ground conditions becuse most forms of light cannot penetrate the dense atmosphere, renderig standard forms of photography and videography ineffective, more importantly researchers are maybe we should think of them as challenges, many researchers are working on innovations that would allow allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowledge of venus. my conclusion is this essay is very specific, because we need learn, about The Challenge of Exploring Venus.

0a31cd0

The UNNRRA (the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration) hires Seagoing Cowboys to take care of animals that are being shipped overseas. When you are a Seagoing Cowboy you have to take care of all the animals every day. In the text it states that the animals have to be fed and watered about two or three times a day. When you are a Seagoing Cowboy it opens your range of knowledge about the world, so you can learn so much about people's culteres and style, but if you don't like learning about the world there is a lot of time to socialize with your freinds or make new freinds. Luke Bomberger the longest person to be a Seagoing Cowboy at that time states "The cattle-boat trips were an unbeliveable opportuninty for a small-town boy." Though being a Seagoing Cowboy can be fun there still are struggles you have to get pass. Luke Bomberger on night watch went to go down to the captin about the hourly report (if you are the night watchman you have to do a hourly report on the animals) and while he was going he sliped on a slipery ladder an went feet first to an edge of the ship where he could fall off into the dark icy alantic ocean, but luckily a strip of metal along the edge stoped his slide, but he broke his ribs and couldn't work for a few days. So a lot of people would consider trying it out because of these resons. The UNNRRA is a group of 44 nations so you would work with people around the world if anyone joined. If someone joins it might be the most thrilling part of their adventure of life. When Luke was done he said "I'm grateful for the opportunity. It made me more aware of people of other countries and their needs."

0a35ec7

Dear, Mr. Senator I am writing to you about keeping the electoral college. To me the electoral college is key to the United Stats of America. Why would we replace something that has worked for over 200 years? The founding fathers some of the greatest men to ever live came up with this idea of the electoral college, and now some congressmen want to just get rid of it. As you can tell this makes my temper itch just writing about it. This country has run on this system for grnerations but now people clam it is out dated. Now dont get me wrong I see where they are coming from but the only reason I've found that people dont like this system is either because it has some minor hiccups or that the canidate that the person favored lost. Now I understan how this can upset some one but it doesn't mean we have to compleatly abolish the system. The hiccups in the system dont even happen every election which to me makes the problems irrelevent. Well anyway i'm done ranting so you can continue on with you day Sincearly, Jackson

0a41d42

Landform or Alien? Do you really think aliens made this face? I'm sure that is is just a natural landform on the Face on Mars. Now since people, such as you believe it is a alien artifact this is becoming a extrem priority for us NASA. So we are beging to do some research on this. First we sent the Mars Global Sureyor(MGS). They arrived to the Red Planet in September 1997, 18 long years after the vikings mission had ended. But we continued because we felt it was important to our taxpayers. We photographed the Face as soon as we could get a good look at it. That being said, on April 5, 1998, MGS flew over Cydonia for the first time Michal Malin and his Mars Orbiter Camera team got a picture about ten times clearer than the Vikings first pictures. A great amount of wonderous people waiting for the first image to be shown, revealing whay was thought a natural landform. alot of people were upset that the Face was not indicated by aliens.

0a45f39

Venus is our second closest planet to the sun. But we do not know what Venus actually looks like. Like in paragraph 4 Venus could have been once like Earth. I could have been filled with oceans, plants, trees, and even mountains it could be anything just like Earth. But we don't know. Yes it would be nice to explore Venus. But what risks will it have. In paragraph 5 it states " NASA has one particularly compelling idea for sending humans to study Venus". They are wanting to study to see what it has. Yes Venus is one of the hottest planets more than Mercury. And yet we are wanting to risk in searching and seeing what Venus actually looks like. Venus can also melt any kind of metal. Yet we want to risk because of our curiosity. In paragraph 7 it is saying that once ago Venus had better electronics. But to actually know. They were more advanced then our technology now an days. I feel that the need and the curiosity that we humans have could take us to success of it could take us to be faliures.

0a45f5b

I think driverless cars sound like a good idea on paper, but in the real world they just are not far enough advanced yet for me to feel safe being in or around one. They are not even fully driverless yet, a person still needs to be ready to take the wheel at any given time. However in the future when they become more advanced and safe they could potentialy prevent accidents. I think driverless cars are still a thing of the future and not present. As much as I think they need work now, I am not against the development of them as they could bring many potential benefits. In the article it states how movies and television shows have been fascinated with driverless cars for a long time, seeing them as a thing of the future. I think they still are a thing of the future because they still need a driver to be able to take the wheel at any given time. The only way I can see them being the safest they can be, is if all cars are driverless and they could interact with each other. Right now the driverless cars are mostly just assisting like antilock brakes, as stated in pararaph six. When the technology eventually becomes good enough to be able to fully drive without a driver there are still laws to be discussed. Only a few states allow them so far, and what good is a car that is only legal in three states and the District of Columbia if you do not live there. I think eventually the laws will change enough to allow them to function as long as they are safe and can pass certain tests. Then the question comes up about blame in the event of an accident, whose fault is it if a computer is controlling the vehicle? As of now driverless cars seem to be more trouble than help. With time I feel that they could become very safe and reliable vehicles with advancements in technology. There are many manufacturers trying to make driverless cars, at least one of them is bound to make something good eventually. In conclusion, I think driverless cars should keep being developed, however they still need a lot of work.

0a48500

Have you ever heard of the facial action coding system? The facial actions coding system enables computers to identify human emotions. "The process begins when the computer constructs a 3-D computer model of the face; all fourty four major muscles in the model must move like human muscles". Pretty cool,right? But is this technology really valuable for students in a classroom? I'm going to give you three reasons as to why i think this technology is not valueable. Firstly, students have a right to keep their privacy. it might be very embarrasing for a student that wants to keep their emotions private to later find out that teachers know exactly how they feel. Even though by just looking at somebody you can whether someone is happy,sad,mad,and etc. If someone doesn't feel comfortable with their emotions they can seek the help they need. Students might not want to attend school anymore due to the fact that their privacy has been taken away, and at any second they might be questioned about their emotions. secondally, students attend school to learn. By cutting precious timeout of their day to try and read their emotions many students will not get the learning that is needed. Students will start to get bad grades and fail many classes if they are not learning the right way. Many parents might get upset, because they might not want the their kids to go through this process. If the teachers have the parents permission that would be a whole different story. Lastly, Many students already go through stress due to having many school assignments and trying to keep their grades in good shape. If teachers put another stress factor on kids it could be very hard on them, and also could lead to depression. This generation if very private with everything that goes on in their daily life activities. I know students will not like everyone knowing about how they all are feeling everyday. Students deserve to be happy or sad without everyone knowing. This are my three reasons as to why i feel that the facial action coding system is not valueable to students in a classroom. They need privacy, not having many stress in their lifes, and lastly they need their learning time.

0a494e5

The author uses fatcs to support why Venus is a realluy hard planet to study cause landing a humanon the planet will be very difficult and dangerous. In paragraph 3 it says that the planets surface is over 800 degrees fahrenheit and that the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than here on earth. So really from what we can tell off what theauthor has said, humans will not even last a second on the planet because it is really HOT. Why till this day are scientist still trying to discover it more? Well some believe that long ago their was water and that the planet was covered up with oceans just like the earth is today. They speculate that the planet venus had supported life just like the planet we live on, but again they are the second planet away from the sun so they really get burned up and maybe thats why the oceans went away. But today Venus is very similar like Earth because the planet has some very rocky surfaces just like our planet does and stuff andf also mountains. Researchers are looking to see if they can build a suit that would withstand the heat and the acidic clouds the planet has. The author has used many details and has describe venus in many ways. the author has also compared Venus to Earth despite looks. So really in conclusion i think that going to venus will be very hard to do but its not impossible. If somehow their was a suit that would withstand the heat and acidic clouds than maybe.

0a50c61

In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" the author does a good job to prove that Venus is a worhty pursuit despite the dangers that are presented, they do this by giving information based on actual conditions, studies and actual experiences. The author used a combination of all three of these to prove their claim that Venus is worth the danger. The conditions in Venus are a great mix of specific material. The author thoroughly explains each part of the atmosphere in Venus. The text says that " These conditions are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth; such an enviroment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans and would liquify metals." They are proving that the conditions on Venus would exceed anything that our bodies could handle. Despite saying this, they make a point when they begin into the discussion of the education it could bring us. In the text it is shown that "Astronomers are fascinated by Venus because it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet it our solar system." The author supports his argument very well when they say this. They used a status stand point which gives the author more credibility. He then forms a question within the text, by doing this it brought them the opportunity to show the research they had conducted for this writing piece. The author brought in the research on the true experiments that were thought up through NASA. He builds up NASA's ideas by explaining to the deepest points, but never hits an oppostion until the next paragraph. When they do this it creates an amazing idea that could have the possibility to work imaged into the readers heads. They eventually hit the oppostition and shows the down fall with NASA's great plan. They state in the text that " More importatnly, researchers cannot take samples of rock, gas, or anything else, from a distance. Therefore, scientists seeking to conduct a thorough mission to understand Venus would need to get up close and persoanl despite the risks." When the author decides to say this they prove the irony of it all. If you can't be up close and personal with the planet then you can't learn the reasons you truly cannot be. From the opposing standpoint it was supported very well once they did that. They then go back on track to support their claim. They do this by explaining the experiments done in the past. They state a comparison to the readers when they say, " Just imagine exposing a cell phone tablet to acid or heat capable of melting tin," This comment that was made impacts the writing positvely. When they do this it gives the readers something to think about or imagine. It brings the issue to them and gives them a chance to relate somehow. The conclusion that he provides gives a clear closing. He states his claim again and uses his evidence to bring the topic to a point. The closing gives you something to think about, it leaves you wondering about the topic and forming your own opinions. In the conclusion it states, " Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet te very edges of imagination and innovation." The right thing is to not starve us from the education that could be provided just because of a dangerous boundary. All of the evidence that they have stated and proven through the whole essay just ends with them eventually just stating that it is the right thing to do. The author does a good job of proving this through the whole essay.

0a54018

I accept driverless cars entirely and base my position on statistics found both within and outside of the passage: "Driverless Cars Are Coming". The facts I base my opinion and position on driverless cars are: all of the accidents the Alphabet (formerly Google's vehicle) Driverless Passenger Mobile Vehicle were caused by human drivers alone. The second reason is because the vehicles have instant, high speed, and highly accurate radius road mapping systems to navigate safley for both the passengers and other drivers and passengers. I very much disagree with the sentence found in the passage: "Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009" in paragraph 2 because there are very few conditions that the vehicle could ever function under even in the 2009 model's developed. I also disagree with the first line in the passage which states: "Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cards because no one needs them anymore?"; although specifically ground vehicles that match the appearance of cars may be unavailable for direct transportation, most humans will rely on some form of direct vehicular control as the human inovation proccess brings more variety to forms of transportation, there will always be a time gap between the development of self controlling functions in vehicles and the manufacturing of the vehicles themselfs. We will move on, but we will always at some point be in control of some transportation directly as we progress through the newer types of transportation such as recycleable aerospace vehicles and extra-atmospheric transportation manufactured by SpaceX. To conclude, I believe that taking the step to accept driverless vehicles as they are in post-testing phases is a healthy and natural nessesity for humans to take to allow for greater inovation as it is manufactured. Driverless vehicles are proven to be safer and are heavily misunderstood. Most of the government organizations that take time away from proper conduct of ensuring the safety of drivers with improved motor ways on the world to focus on neglecting innovation and progression of mankind lack the basic leading skills they are required to have to allow for better and newer mechanics.

0a62a7a

For many years, the automobile has become and remained a staple in the world as humanity's most popular choice of transportation. The number of cars manufactured by car companies has reached the hundreds of millions. Cars have been a trademark of American ingenuity and the evolution of technology. However, as we go into the great beyond that is the future, we must take into consideration the pains and risks of these vehicles, and if they are worth driving as the world population exceeds seven billion. Few people can recall a time where global warming wasn't the main conflict of scientists today. The Earth gets warmer as pollution levels rise as smog around cities like Paris and Mexico City reaches an all time high. The polar caps are melting at a rapid rate as hurricanes ravage the mainland harder and harder each year. What caused this stuff to happen? Why, look no further than our friends, the factories and automobiles! These two have been quoted time and time again as the catalyst of the global warming crisis. With such an adverse effect on the ozone layer, governments around the world have to do something to stop it from rising any further, with nothing short of success. Places like France have realized the extreme rise in smog levels in the city of Paris, that they had to do something. So, they made a ban on driving for people with even numbered license plates with only a few exceptions, and banned odd numbered licensed cars the next to try to curtail this occurance. After a few days, it worked. The smog cleared just enough for the French government to rescind its ban on license plates for the city. Such a huge difference in smog in only two days means that making a ban similar to this could be nothing short of beneficial for communities around the globe. So why don't more communities take up the hard task of making this ban a regular happening? It's a slow process, but it is happening, in unlikely places. Including over in our Western European ally Germany. Vauban, Germany is a small community town located near the border of France and Switzerland. This town is best known for it's extremely unorthodox method of removing greenhouse gases from the ozone layer. People have decided to give up their cars, just relying on other transportation like walking and taking a local tram. Street parking, driveways and home garages are just not allowed in the district, and this has caused a huge difference between non-car owners and car owners alike. Seventy percent of the population in Vauban does not own a motor vehicle, a large portion of them sold their cars to move out to this small, cozy little town. Busy sidewalks and the chatter of civilians outshines the faint murmurs of the few odd automobiles in the city. What started out as an odd social experiment has turned into a great community full of happy people. Although this type of community is generally unpopular, other countries around the world have come to like the idea Vauban came up with. The capital city of Colobia, Bogota, has a neat program they like to call the Day Without Cars. The title speaks for itself. Civilians would take one day out of the year to generally not use cars, to promote the likening of taking other modes of transportation to wherever you need to go. Countries in South America have noticed this day, and are looking to replicate it themselves, which ultimately signifies the success of the Day Without Cars. Countries around the world have all tried to curtail greenhouse gas emissions, whether by making a community built around the non-use of cars, making a day celebrating the use of other modes of transportation, or just banning the driving of automobiles outright. As just of a cause it may be, Americans are still hesitant to enact such henious laws. However, if more communities are built around this clean idea, more and more people will flock to it. It just takes preserverence, a strong plan, and a whole lot of sidewalks.

0a67e11

Hello Senator of the state, I think we should change the Electoral College to the election by popular vote because whats really the point in having people vote for president if it doesn't contribute hardly any to which person gets elected? The Electoral College in highly unfair to voters simply because of the winner-take-all system. Voters vote for a slate of electors to choose instead of the president him/herself. Although the electors could be anyone not holding public office. Sometimes State Convetions, State Party's Central Committee, and sometimes the Presidential Candidate's themselves choose the electors. Which also is not fair because they could choose a party who favors them and their party to win, or help the president win the election. In Source 2: The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong mentions "The single best argument against the Electoral College is what we might call the 'Disaster Factor.' ... Back in 1960, segregationist in the Lousiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy. (So that a popular vote would have not gone to Kennedy) Perhaps not worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote, in that case the State Delegate would vote on the president and the senate would choose the vice-president. But on the flip side there are "five reasons for retaining the Electoral College regardless of it's lack of domocratic pedigree; all are practical reasons, not liberal or conservative reasons." Certainty Of Outcome - a dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote is possible but it is less likely than a dispute over the popular vote. Everyone is President - a solid regional favorite, such as Romney was in the South, has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states because he wouldn't gain electoral votes in states he already won over, so he went to other regions to try to win them over to gain more electoral votes. Swing States - the winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes induces the candidates. Big States - other things being equal, a large state gets more attention from presidential candidates in a campaign than a small state does. Avoid Run-Off Elections - the Electoral College avoids problems of elections in which no candidiate receives a majority of the votes cast. It can be argued that the Electoral College is the better route to go but it could cause voters to turn away on voting for a candidate who has no hope of carrying their state, and knwoing their vote will have no affect they will have less incentive to pay attention to the campaign than they would have if the president were picked by popular vote.

0a6ac75

Citizens of German, As you may know that you have to own a car to get around in some cases you may think to your-self that you dont have the money to get a car or the job to keep a roof over your head. Well in French and Swiss borders, Friburg runs a few streets on the adge of the community. More or less Friburg has you paying for a $40,000 car-ownership with space along with a home. 70 percent dont own a car, everyone should have a car and park where ever they want to its not right for them to have to have a $40,000 car-onwer-ship with a house just to have space. Vaubran homes are $5,500 within a rectangular square mile, 80 percent of laws have been gone to highways and the 20 percent have went to another transports. Paris has band driving due to smog they know the amound of license plats that were order to leave their cars at home or fined a $32 fine. It shouldn't matter if ther were to leave their cars at home or park it somewhere they are grown people and if something was to happen to them or the car then thats on them. It's not right to have all of these rules because, if someone was to vist a loved one and they didnt know or understand what was going on or they had gottan a fine then their going to get mad. Diesel fule makes up at least 67 percent of vehicles in France, 53.3 percent of diesle engines in Western Europe. in the mid-1990s cars without improvement campaign in Bogota. People all over wants to be safe and have nothing to worry about so why on earth would you put out there tha you have to have a car to buy a house or to have more space?. Children that are now coming out to the world that are driving is going to look at the world a different way. Between 2001-09 found that driving by young poeple decreased about 23 percent. America's love affair with its vehiclse population growth the number that had been driven in the U.S. peaked in 2005 and dropped steadily. April 2013 the number of miles drien is 9 percent below the pea an equal to where the country was in Janurary 1995.         

0a7ef89

Being a Seagoing Cowboy sounds like fun. You should be one because you would be able to go places you've never been to before, see things you've never seen before, and transport horses. They are fun to ride. You could see the Eifel tower. You could go to Europe. You want to be a Seagoing Cowboy because you could ride horses, go places you've never been before, and see things you've never seen before. You should be a Seagoing Cowboy because you could ride the horses to the place they have to go. You would have fun riding them. Horses are fun to ride. You could even watch after the horses. They stay in their pen because they wouldnt try to runn away because you would be in the ocean. You could go places you've never seen before. You could go to Venice, Italy and ride on the strees of water. You could go to Greece and bo whatever you want. You could do what ever you want to while your away on one of the trips. You could even sneak your spouce on there and celebrate your aniversery. You could see things you've never seen before. You could see the Eifle tower and the Great Wall of China. They have a lot of history you could find out about. They are very important to the people who live there. There are more but I can't say them all it would ruine the surprize. So there You have it, all the good things about being a Seagoing Cowboy. They all sound like fun and hope you could be one. If you know somewhere that you like you could go you could either fly there or you could be a Seagoing Cowboy. Trust me being a Seagoing Cowboy if way funner then you think. So thats pretty much it it is really really fun being a Seagoing Cowboy.

0a7fbd0

There has been a fuss about the Elector College. Many people get confused about how it works and if they're satifyied with the whole process. Show we "abolish" the Elector College? Should we keep it? Honestly we should keep it. We the peope have more then enough control on who is chosen for the president of the United States Of America. We don't really vote for the president but our vote impacts the decision. Many citizens of the United States Of America think their vote doesnt matter, it does. Why? Well, first the government is runned by the people. Its very rare to not get the president that has the most popular votes, the last time when the president wasn't chosen was in 1888. It's less likely for the president with the most votes to lose the election. For example, Obama received 61.7 percent of the elector votes compared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and Romney. Plus, almost all states award elector votes on a winner-take-it-all basis. Perhaps, there was no system. Would it be simpler? Yes it would but we have to also be fair, there is 538 electors and a majority of 270 elector votes is required to elect the president. When you are voting for the president ypu want to win,you are actually voting for your canidate's elector. How does the system work? First it's the process that has the selection of the electors , the meeting of the electors where they vote for the president and vice president , and last but not least the counting of electoral votes by congress. Obviously it is kind of confusing because it would be much simpler if the winner would be the one with the most popular votes. Did you know that the Elector College avoids the problem of elections? They do due to how much pressure the candidte can go through. It can easily complicate the presidential process. For instance, Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had only a 43 percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the Elector College (301 and 370 elector votes exactly). When avoiding the elections and campaigns , there a better chance of clear winner. So there you have it,three main reason's why we should keep the Elector College. We have why the process is important and why we have it. How the process work's because it was confusing to many people , so it's defined and hopefully you'll like to stay and support the Elector College. Your vote does matter.                                          

0a834e9

The new software update, the Facial Action Coding System can calcutale how people feel or what emotion they are feeling. This software is the lastest invention from Prof. The six basic emotions humans have can be read or showed by this Facial Action Coding System. This new technology is being tested to see if it is valuable in the classroom to read the emotional expressions of students. I belive this tecnology wouldn't be valuable in the classroom or learning enviroment. This technology doesnt benifit the students learning or relate to their school subjects. Facial Action coding System can calculate human emotional expressions. It calculates how you feel or waht you are feeling. I don't think this software would be valuable in the classroom because it is invading the kids personal space. Having the teachers or the computers always knowing how you feel is creepy. In the artical "Making Mona Lisa Simle" it states that humans perform this task or calculation of reading people's emotions everyday. The artical also states that humans most likly can tell how otheres or how their friends are feeling by looking at their faical expressings. Having Facial Acton Coding System in the classroom would just be unessasary and invading others personal space. This software or technology only reads humans emotional expressions, it does'nt teach anything or help people learn anything benifiting to school. If this technology was to be put into classrooms it wouldnt be benifiting to the kids or teaching them anything related to their school work. The artical states that the computer would be able to tell when a student is confused or bored while doing a leason. Most schools don't even teach leasons on the computer a teacher teaches them the leason they are learning. Also some kids or even their parents wouldn't want a computer to be reading their childrens emotions 24/7, also the students may not want to be monitored all the time aswell. This technology just isn't benificial to the learning enviroment in that sort of way. The software update, the Facial Action Coding System is cool on how it reads humans emotions and tells you how they are feeling, but it just isn't valuable to classrooms or the learning enviroment. This software invades otheres person sapce by always monitoring their emotional expressions and calculating how u feel. Some people might find it creepy on the fact they are always being read by this new technology. This new technology isn't valuable to classrooms also because it it is not benifical to kids learning. The Facial Action Coding System doesnt teach kids realting to their school subjects. Teachers teach the leasons and not computers this software would'nt be nessarsy in classrooms.

0a8590a

sould we keep the elecoral collage or should we change it to election by how many popual votes for being the president of the unioted states. what is the callage electoral ? the electoral collage is a compromise between electing a president by voteing in congress and election of the president by how many popalar vote for qualified as to be a president. teh electoral has many process such as meeting of the electors where they vote for president and vice president, and the counting of the electoral votes by congress. oto be elected for president u need to have a majority of 270 electorals votes cause the electoral callage consists of 538 electors under the 23rd amendment of the constitution, the district of columbai is allocated 3 electors and trated like a statte for purposes of the electoral collage. pretty much each candidate running for president in any state has his or her own group of electors. any president thats running for election is held every fore years on the tuseday after the first monday in novermber. most states have a winner-take-all system that awards all electors to the winninfg presidential candidate. elctoral collage they're not alone according to a gullup poll in 2000, taken shortly after al gore thanks to the quirks of the electoral collage won the popular. the problem with electrola collage is that under the electoral collage system, voters vote not for the president , but for a slate of electors who in turn elect the president. thje singel best argument against the electoral collage is whtat we might call the disaster factor. we consider that state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electtors. perhaps most worrying thing is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. and the election would br thrown to the house of representatives, where state delegations vote on the president. at the most basic level, the electoral collage is unfair to voters. because of the winner-take-all system in eavh state, bcandiadates dont spend time in state they know they have no chance of winninf-g, focusinfg only on the races in the swing states. collage method of selcting the president may turn off potential voters for a candidate who has no hope of carrying their state. voters in presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people who think that a sinle vote may decide a n election. in my conculesion we should change the election by who has most popular votes for the president of the untied states, because it make more scence the election always go by votes and who ever have the most votes is elected for the president of the untied state. the eletoral collage system wasnt that good to many things going on i mean like it was kinad of good but not better then election on popaler votes.

0a919e5

Cars are a main aspect in our daily lives, but how would it be if we limited car usage throughout the world? Places would be more environmentally friendly and the streets would be less congested. So why not give it a shot, what could possibly go wrong? If we limited car usage, it would be easier to get to our destination. Places would be more compact with less space for parking so that stores would be built close enough for us to walk there rather than driving to the nearest mall. Less malls would mean less parking lots, meaning sotres would be built along main streets rather than a highway. Not only does less cars make it easier to get to the places we need to be, but makes people happier. In the article "In German Suburb, Life Goes on Without Cars" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, Vauban, a city in Germany, limited car usage making their streets "car-free". Making streets car-free made people way happier, since they are usually tensed when having a car. Limiting car usage would help the environment. Did you know that passenger cars are responsible for 12% of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe, and up to 50% in some car-intensive areas in the United States? Imagine how polluted it must be in New York where the main streets are congested with cars! In the article "Paris bans driving due to smog" by Robert Duffer, Paris bans driving to clear the air. Congestion was down 60% in France. France has a tax policy that favors diesel over gasoline. Diesel makes up 67% of vehicles in France which pollutes the air big time. Would you rather live in a world full of polluted air and congested streets rather than walking or biking to places way closer and saving the earth at the same time? You decide.  

0a919e7

I think we should keep the electoral college because it at least gives people a say on weather or not the person they vote for gets elected or not, people always say that you can't complain if you don't vote, so I'm sure people wouldn't want to not be able to vote. I'll explain in more detail my reasonings in the next couple of paragraphs. The first reason for keeping electoral colleges is because people want a say on who's president. America was made to give people freedom, so people being able to pick the pesident is a big part of our freedom, and taking that away leaves us with not as much say in big desions such as a presidental election. The people that would probably complain the most is older people because they are use to being able to vote, and taking that away would get them angry I'm sure, and the people complain louder than they do praise. Another reason why they shouldn't take away electoral colleges is because of the amount of complant they would get from everyone if they do decide to take electoral college away. It might even make some people turn against their country, but that only goes for the people who are really into politics and voting and things of that nature. People say you can't complain if you don't vote, but if they take that perivlage away, I'm sure you'll be hearing even more complaining than if people have the right to vote, but even so, this up and coming generation isn't really into voting anyways, but it should be avalable regardless. Those are basically the two big reasons why voting should be avalable to everyone, and not just left up to sentators and stuff. People want a say on who's running their country and because there will be tons of complaining if voting is taken away from them. So, think before you make a drastic desison like that.

0a93900

Studying Venus is a worthy persuit despite the dangers because in the article it says that numerous spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours, maybe thiss issue explains why nit a single spaceship has touched down on Venus more than three decades, Numerous factors contribute to Venus's reputation as a challenging planet for humans to studydespite its proximity to us. Also, the temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our planet. Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system, even though Mercury is closer to our sun. Venusian geology and weather present additional impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking land on surface. However, peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions because most forms of light cannot penetrate the dense atmosphere,rendering standard forms of photography the dense videography ineffective. Venus is so hot that it can melt metal.

0a9488d

Americans around the world gather around their televisions, frantically waiting to see who the next leader of the USA is. The first Tuesday of November is always an exciting time for American citizens. Citizens watch the number of votes go up, thinking their vote counted, when in reality, it did not. Many people are aware of the electoral college. The electoral college are the ones truly voting for the United States leader. While we may have had this process for years, it's time for us to take a vote to change the way we vote. Citizens of the United States of America should be able to vote by popular vote because the electoral college is outdated and ruins the American freedom. The world we live in now compared to the 1800s is very different. We've upgraded, not only in our inventions, but our states as well. The electoral college was made when America was first established because it was fit for the needs of that time. The Office of Federal Register states, "The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens." Back then, it was needed to balance things out among the 13 colonies. In those times, we didn't have the advance techonology we have now to see our candidates on screens or in person. Since then, we've turned 13 colonies into 50 states, turned horses into cars, and small radios into televisions. Rules and laws change to fit the current needs all the time. The electoral college should do the same. Due to the fact this system has been around since the founding fathers, major mistakes occur. This process is too old to keep up with the third largest population in the world. Bradford Plumer of source 2 tells us that in 2000 "Al Gore--thanks to the quirks of the electoral college--won the popular vote but lost the presidency."  If this is truly a land of democracy and of the people, how could we let such a mistake happen? How could we let majority of citizens vote but not get the person they choose? Another factor to this problem is the American freedom. The electoral college imposes on the American freedom and right to choose their president. The United States of America is a representative democracy. The citizens choose who they want to lead but those votes aren't truly their own votes. According to Richard A. Posner of source 3, "...the Electoral College method is not democratic in a modern sense...it is the electors who elect the president, not the people. When you vote for a presidental candidate, you're actually voting for a slate of electors." American citizen votes do not matter as much as we think they should. The founding fathers built this country for the people. The people should have an actual voice in who they want to lead this great nation. In addition, Americans should have a direct say. Votes should go straight to the president and not the party's electors. This is not only fair to citizens but also a more relible plan. Bradford Plumer of source 2 explains to us that ""faithless" electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please..." We can't depend on these electors to determine one of the most important things of this country. We can't depend on these "faithless" electors to vote who we want when they might do the opposite. Voting by popular vote prevents these mishaps and restores our democracy. While others may claim that the electoral college is beneficial to candidates because of big states, small states, and swing states, it's a one-sided deal. It may be beneficial to candidates but what about the voters? Source 2 reads "during the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad." If these candidates expect to lead the third largest country (population wise), they should have to put out the extra effort to visit and campaign to every state. The candidates need to show they care for this country and they are here for everyone. If they cannot put in the extra effort to see the lives they are going to change, do they deserve to be president? All in all, the electoral college is no longer needed to today. The electoral college is made for the modern world and also disrupts our representative democracy. Times are always changing, we, as a society, are always changing, and the electoral college needs to change as well.

0a94ac7

"Mom im going to go outside to get some fresh air" FREEZE! Wait one minute , the air that you breath isnt all that fresh nor clean. Its polluted. But check this out people want car usage to end completely , i know you might think limiting car usage is the worst idea you ever heard . Just to stop pollution ? Yes .But if you think about it no cars equal no bad air. China is one of the MOST polluted cities in the world , cold nights and warm days caused the warmer layer of air to trap air comission. But oh man, oh man France blame diesel fuel to be the problem . 67 precent of diesel fuel is used in france cars. So maybe that statement is correct. Another reason why less car usages could be a good thing , it prevent being stuck in traffic & reduce alot of car accidents. Businessman Carlos Arturo Plaaza stated that "Its a good opportunuity to take away stress & lower air pollution" which i highly agree with. Cars are very stressful, they're always breaking down or something ends up going wrong & you spend tons and tons of money just fixing the problem. "When i had a car i was always tense . Im much happier this way" said Heidrun Walter a media trainer & a mother of two . She walks verdant streets & love listening to her surrounding. But oh my god in Paris if you get caught driving you will suffer a 22 to 31 dollar fine, Leave the car at home please. Since this no car usage thing started colombians hiked , biked , skated or took buses to work & school. There goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog. The sidewalks have been replaced in Bogota by broad so it could be smooth and easier to ride on. President Obama goals are to get greenhouse gas. It would lower emission and improve safty! So i think it would sorta be a good idea if we would go through with no car usage . It would be a much healthier and cleaner environment.

0a98eef

The new technology to read students emotional expressions is a very helpful idea.Now we will be able to know when someone is losing intrust, or becoming bored.The process begins when the computer contrusts a 3-D computer model of the face. The Facial Axtion Coding System enables coputers to identify human emotions. WOW! We can actually "calulate" emotions-like biology homework. The process begins when the computer constucts a 3-D computer model of the face; all 44 major muscles in the model must move like human muscles.It would be able to idenitfy six basic emtions- happiness, suorise, anger, disgust, fear, and sadness. In the class room your not always happy,but maybe if sombody or somthing knew that you wasn't happy it could change that. The new technology should be put in class room to help the unhappy student be happy or at least try to make them happy. I say this because when you not happy then you don't really feel like doing any school work.So maybe the new technology can help change you or your attitude. To a Human facies don't lie, for instance you can probaly tell how a friend is feeling simply by the look on there face.Alot of us would have diffrent feelings but are face show diffrent. The reason why the the Facial Action Coding System would be bad idea for school is the cost. Where will the school get the money from for them to get this high technology from. Who will be the paying for them. If somthing was to brake on the Facial Action Coding System it would cost a arm and a leg to get it fixed just because the high technolgoy used to make it. We need these in the class room! if we had the new technology in the class room we love it ,because when you get bored the technology would recoernized that and will swicth to something else.If you are still un happy the technology will know and will keep switch to it see a change in emoition.If you are still un happy the technology could even put up a smiling face to make you smile, because sometimes all you need is a good smile. I think the new technolgy is a good resource for the classroom and can really help and improve the education in the class room.

0a99d52

My Position on driverless cars is i am not for driverless cars at all. Driverless cars are another thing that will make this country become more lazy and more careless. Sergey Brin the cofounder of google believes it will changes the world fundamentally, no this will not again this will make the whole lazy and careless and say they get in a an accident who do you blame the car the driver the padestrian? Driverless cars will make The world not a better place but a place where everyone is too obese or lazy to do anything. Driverless cars are also verry dangerous as well as stupid. Driverlesss cars are dangerous becuase you wont know what to expect from the car. You wont know if the car will make a wrong turn break down out of no where,shut off completely or maybe even blow up at some point. Driverless cars are also very dangerous becuase they will not no what to do with all the oil they may not need any more, where are you gonna get rid of it , dump it in a river, ocean; no absolutely not. This is also not gonna be benefitical to gas companies or the goverment because where does all the money that we will usually spend on gas go that will go the goverenment, it will go to our familes and friends and be able to buy nice stuff for ourselves and not have to pay the government who already doesnt benefit the United States of America. Driverless Cars are pointless and will not give us any benefits for our lives. Again, My opinion is Driverless cars are very pointless and the will not benefit the US. It will only be destructive and a waste of time. It will also be another reason Americans will soon become obese and lazy, more than it is now. Finally, Whats your opinin about this?

0a9df6a

Have you ever been in a car accident or close to one ? Do you remember if it was your fault or not? What if it wasn't ? There have been talk about driverless cars , and with these cars there would still be need of driver assistance. These cars could cause numerous accidents. Would they still be your fault? If you got in one of these "driverless cars" you would be accountable for any damage done because you were supposed to be alert while riding in this driverless car.The development of driverless cars should cease because the car still needs human assistance,the car is not safe and the car weakens drivers alertness. Driverless cars are not what they seem,false advertisement, you still have to drive them at some point. An article says that these cars are unable to direct through traffic or pull out of drive ways, the complicated things. If the car unables the driver to get out of doing the complicated work ,why have one ? The article also states the car is supposed to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel. Drivers do not need another human to take the wheel they can do it themselves, drivers need advanced technology to take the wheel , because all humans make mistakes, technology does not. Driverless cars are not good on highways because what if there is an accident on the highway and the driver is not alert, the car does not know how to detour its way around.Driverless cars are supposedly good on "smarter roads" , not every road is a smart road. What are people who live in congested city and construction areas supposed to do? The driverless car is not a good product , it is obviously useless to most people because of the rules and regulations with this car. Think about your life ,who would you blame for an ingury if you had a driverless car mishap? Certainly not yourself one would hope, driverless cars are extremely dangerous if you think about it , the inventers, google, thought of this car. The car is supposedly to be driverless but it is not, the car requires human assitance from time to time.In a case of a driver falling asleep and not hearing the alert of the car could result in a major incedent .The warnings google came up with to alert the drivers were vibrating seats, and flashing windshields that can not be seen if a driver is asleep. If a driver gets in one of these cars and then gets in a non-driverless car they will be left feeling that that can just fall asleep at the will and this will cause more problems. Driverless cars will weaken a drivers alertness and decrease the probablity that they will stay focused enough to get behind a wheel when it is needed.Drivers need to be alert regardless if they are driving or not , because another driver in another car could not be alert and that could result in an accident.

0aa6277

The challenge to explor Venus is becuse Venus is the second planet from the sun so it is to hot to go to do to how close the sun is to the planet. If you go on the planet you will git to hot to fast and the space sute will malte off of you and if the space sut melt off you will die becuse thare is no oxigen in space the space sute is the onley thing that is keeping you alive. And so that is way we can. Got to Venus quiet yet it will haping in the fucher. In the fucher we mite find some stroger miterole to build better sute and bettre space ships becuse the space shipe we have now cant withsand the heat of Venus the ship wuid melt do to the heat of being so cloes to the sun. The plant venus is not sutibole to land on do to how hot it is the planit venus has 97 percent carbon dioxide covering Venus. Carbon dioxide is not good to brething in it will kill you if you breat to much in. Do to how deadley it is scpaeman have the space sute to keep the alive if thay did not have it thay wood die do to lacke of oxigun but the spacesut has oxigun in it to keep the ware alive. After the spaeman are dont in space thay go back to the spaestasin ware that have oxugine to brethin and that do what they need to do.

0aa8caf

I think that driverless cars are good and bad. A car that navigates its own self, doesn't need a driver to take control of it, uses less fuel, and is controlled by a computer is most likely to be our future. We all want to do greater things, invent grather things, but we should also realize that some things can be thought of but not created. A driverless car has its ups and downs because if no human being is in control it could represent a bad aspect or a bad one. One good thing that comes to the top of my head is elderly people. This would be really useful to the elderly, especially because of muscle or bone aches. It reduces the number of crashes but could also influence them. The computer or whatever is controlling the car could misfunction or something could go wrong, therefore the car could end up crashing or causing an accident. Humans have the most control on a car. They decide the speed, direction, their surrondings. A computer could do thst too but not as acurate as a human would. Yes it is a very interesting thing thst could happen in the future but are we sure that we would want a machine to take over rather than a human. There are lots of arguements that can be done about this. Some people may agree, some people may not and thats fine because we all have different opinions. Driverless cars still have a long way before they can just change what has been achieved for more that maybe 80 years or so, and thats humans having full control.

0aa9cee

I think that the Face is just a natural landform. Just like landforms form on Earth, landforms can form on Mars. Why I say it's just a landform is because, it's just a huge rock formation,it isn't an alien monument, and Garvin says that you could show a picture 3 times bigger with every object shown in the picture. First,the Face is just a huge rock formation. Mars is a rocky planet. Rocks can form any shape they aren't created by humans. There isn't any sign of life on mars so no one could go there and make a face on Mars' surface. Second, it isn't an alien monument. An alien wouldn't make a human face just for fun. In plus, they wouldn't even know what humans looked like. They wouldn't even know how to get to earth to see what we even look like. So trust me aliens are not real! Third, Garvin says that you could show a picture 3 times bigger with every object showing in the picture. This could prove that there isn't anyone or anything on mars that could've made the face. This could prove almost anything in any picture of the Face. In conclusion, I believe that the Face is just a natural landform. It's just a huge rock formation, it isn't a alien monument, and Garvin says that you could show a picture 3 times bigger with every object in the picture showing.

0aaae26

Dear senator, the system we have today used to elect the president, the Electoral College, must be changed.  Instead, we should elect the president by means of a popular vote.  The Electoral College is unecessary and complicated, and not to mention, outdated.  Source 1 says that the Electoral College was established in the Constitution by the founding fathers.  This begs the question, how can a system so old still be practical and in use today?  This system, therefore, needs to be replaced by a national popular vote. There are so many things that could go wrong with the Electoral College, such as a tie, in which the decision would go to the House of Representatives.  According to Source 2, if this were to happen, than, "the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters."  This, of course, would not reflect the nation's vote, and would anger millions of people.  If we elected the president by a popular vote, than the chances of this happening would be significantly more slim. Another flaw of the Electoral College is that even if a presidential nominee won the popular vote, they could still lose the election.  Even though some may argue that this occasion is highly unlikely, this has actually happened twice before, in 1888 and 2000, according to Source 3.  "It is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote... It happened in 2000, when Gore had more popular votes than Bush yet fewer electoral votes."  This is a major flaw of the Electoral College system, which is very frustrating to millions of people.  Imagine how you would feel if your candidate won the majority of the nation's vote, but still lost the election because of this horrible voting system.  This unfair incidence could be avoided, if only we got rid of the Electoral College, and replaced it with the simple, fair, and straightforward method of the popular vote. The popular vote is the preferred voting system in the United States.  According to Source 2, "over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."  If this is the preferred voting system, and the Electoral College has so many flaws, why not change to using the popular vote?  It only makes sense.  Not to mention, if the Electoral College were to be thrown out, then maybe more people would come out to vote, which is important. We would then have a more accurate representation of who the nation wants as their leader. Some may argue that the Electoral College is a good system of electing the president, that the founding fathers knew what they were doing when they established it, and that it "produces a clear winner," (Source 3.)  But, the information given above disproves these unvalid arguements.  If the Electoral College is such a great system, than why can a nominee who won the majority of the nation's votes still win the election?  Will it always produce a clear winner?  What about the event of a tie?  Or, what about when the "winner" did not win the majority of the votes? In conclusion, the replacement of this flawed system known as the Electoral College by a national popular vote is absolutely necessary.  The people are pushing for a change, and I strongly urge you, senator, to acknowledge this issue.

0aae146

The Electoral College is a system which was established to elect the president of the United States of America. In this system, each state receives a group of electors. The number of electors each state is awarded is based on the representation a state has in Congress. The total number of electors per state equals the number of people a state has in the House of Representative plus the two senators a state has. In a state, the electors pledge to vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote. This system is simply unneeded in modern times and is unneccesarily complicated. The Electoral College must be abolished. To commence, the Electoral College should be eradicated because it is simply unreliable. The result of a direct election would be more transparent and would make the citizens of this country certain the election was democratic and just. The issue lies in the fact that voters are technically only voting for electors to cast a vote for a candidate, and not for a candidate themselves. These electors pledge to vote in favor of the candidate who rightly wins the popular vote in a state, but some attempt to be defiant. For instance, according to Bradford Plumer's article, "Back in 1960, segregationists in the Lousiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy" (11). If the Lousiana legislature was successful in their attempt to be defiant, electoral votes would not go to Kennedy despite him winning the popular vote in that state. Another way in which the Electoral College is unreliable is that it allows for a tied vote. There are 538 electoral votes in the system currently in use, meaning it is possible for two candidates to receive 269 votes each. This may seem unlikely, but it is more likely to occur than some might think. For instance, as according to Plumer's aforementioned article, an electoral tie would have occured in 1968 if only 41,971 more votes were for the losing candidate. Additionally, in the 1976 election, if 5,559 voters in the swing state of Ohio, and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had simply voted in favor of the candidate with the minority of the votes, a tie would have occured. In order to resolve a tie, the House of Representatives casts votes to decide the winner of the election. At this point, the impact of each representative is skewed so representatives of states with lower population can more easily decide the state's vote. This happens because each state only votes once, so the few representatives of a small state such as Nebraska can decide who to vote for rather easily, while in California, 55 representatives with different views must colloborate to cast a single vote. With so much unreliability, why is the outdated system of the Electoral College still in use? Furthermore, the Electoral College must be abolished because it does not properly refelct the views of the nation. Citizens' wishes will not always be equivalent to what the electors vote for. This occurs partly because of the winner-take-all system. In this system, the winner of the popular vote in an individual state wins all of the electoral votes a state has. According to the Office of the Federal Register, all but two states use this system. These two states are Nebraska and Maine. As a result of the winner-take-all system, it is possible that a presidential candidate loses the overall popular vote, but wins more electoral votes and thus wins the election. This occurance happened in the infamous 2000 election, when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost to George W. Bush by a mere five electoral votes. If the public indicated they wanted Al Gore as president, why should Bush have won due to this unfair system? It simply doesn't make sense. The winner-take-all system also results in political campaigns to focus their efforts in only certain regions. Some states very predictably vote either for the Republican candidate or for the Democratic candidate. Take Texas, for instance, which has traditionally always voted red. A Democratic candidate knows he should not focus his campaign in Texas, because he realizes his best efforts won't allow him to win the popular vote there and thus win the electoral votes. Because of the tendencies of certain states, many electoral votes are practically predetermined. The states which do not typically only vote in favor of one side are labelled "swing states". With the way the Electoral College works, the few states which are a toss-up carry the most weight. Presidential candidates will usually spend most of their time in these swing states, and very little time in others. For example, in the 2000 election, seventeen states were not visited by either candidate. Supporters of the Electoral College view the disproportional focus of campaigns as a positive. According to Richard A. Posner's article in favor of this corrupt system, "The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states lose by virtue of the mal-apportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constituion..." (21). While it might seem reasonable for larger states to have a larger impact than smaller states, it simply isn't a fair way to go about having an election. Voters should each have the same impact, and they would have exactly that in a direct election. Presently, voters in Florida, for instance, have more impact on the election than a voter in Wyoming. Supporters also claim the focus on swing states is beneficial because residents of swing states should be more politically informed due to their state's importance in the election. This notion is simply a fabrication in order to make the Electoral College seem as if it causes America to be more informed, because there would be no need for residents of specific states to pay closer attention to candidates than residents of others if a direct election were to take place. The Electoral College does not properly reflect the desire of the nation's population, and thus should be replaced. In retrospect, the Electoral College must be abolished. It is an inherently unfair system and it does not reflect the views of American voters.        

0aaf5f1

In this story the author is talking about how humas have not made it on the planet of Venis. At least that we know about. The article said that scientits think there may be life or have been life on the planet. With scientists thinking if there is something up there on the planet there is a good chance that they will be able to find out soon with all the technology we have today. With all the things we have today I think we will find something on venus. If we do then there is a fact that there is aliens that are alive, unless they are just like us but from another planet. And that planet is closer to the sun than earth. I think with all the things in the article we will find somthing or that there was something there on venus at some point. It could of been a trillion years ago or there is still life on it today we will just have to find out. Time is the only thing that we have on are side.

0ab5467

Based on what I've read some believe that there's a face on Mars, and it could be linked to extra-terrestrial life. But I don't find this to be truthful here's why. If you look at the picture from 1976 it can resemble a face, but if you look at the 2001 picture it just looks like a landform. Here's another thing, the one from 1998 looks like volcanic activity is emerging, which could be the case. These pictures contain important information, and data that can be analyzed, which will help NASA find out more about this. Let's go back to the Viking 1 spacecraft. This machine was built in 1976, which could possibly mean the machines camera was broken, or malfunctioning. One major factor in this is NASA. NASA is a company who study's life outside our atmosphere. When they launch probes into space it costs millions of dollars to do so. When they find real life outside our atmosphere they get paid for all the research they've done. Then there's the rumors that certain people spread around. Usually it's untrue, but there's a possibility that it's true. These are theorists, they do this to gain popularity for themselves, or sometimes even money. The "Face on Mars" did gain lots of popularity for itself among time. It got movies, magazines, even haunted grocery checkout lines. But among that it caused other things.

0aba46b

The landform that looks like a face on Mars is a natural landform. We have taken close up pictures of it and it is proven that it is a mesa. There are mesas on Earth and other planets like Mars,too. Landforms can look like they have eyes, nose, and mouth. But they are wrong. The eyes, nose, and mouth are probably crevices on top of the mesa There are pictures that are snapped ten thousand times sharper than the original Viking photos. We could see if there were alien markings on the mesa because we could use a digial image three times bigger than the pixel size. Mesas are common around the Amerian West inthe desert, just like on Mars. A lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa around the same size as the Face on Mars. In conclusion, the Face on Mars is a butte or mesa according to our cameras. The only way we can prove them wrong is that we go on the suface of Mars and look at the face or make better cameas,

0abf87b

Self driving cars are becoming more and more popular as techology advances making it feel like one day in the future we're gonna just ditch the cars all together and we're all going to be hovering around on hover boreds and there wont be a reason for people to learn to drive. Realizing this makes people wonder if there will one day not be a purpose for a drivers license because techniacally they won't be driving. But with everyone just wanting to be in with the new things in the world no one ever thinks about some of the dangers self driving cars could cause. One danger people should be extremly aware of is the independance on the vehicle. When people hear the phrase Self Driving Cars they think about something completely different and more advanced than what driverless cars actually are. They instantly assume that they have a free ride to where they want to go and can be oblvious of there surroundings when thats not the case at all. What if there is a malfuction and they have to be ready to take the wheel to keep from drving into a ditch and they arn't. As stated in the article it says "..the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation comes." this means that even though people are not driving doesn't mean they can sit on their phone text and expect there not to be any problems because they can't be so dependant on a machine. Another problem there is with getting the driverless car on the road is the laws that need to be passed to allow them. only three state have allowed them to begin driving on the roads which are "California,Nevada and Florida" but even those states keep them on minimum useage for acident prevention. As stated in the article "..even if traffic law change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident." which means that there would be conflicts between owners and manufacturers to see who would be responsible if there were accidents caused by malfuctions. Now there is a diiference between self driving and autopilot. with autopilot people still understand this as you have to be cautious if though they arn't driving they still have to steer. As stated "Tesla has projected a 2016 reaease for a capable of drivihng atuopilot 90 percent of the time" this says that even though it's not self drving you can still drive with little to no driving at all. Even though it would be cool to have a self drivng car people still need to put safety of themselves and others before buying a driverless car.

0ac26e9

This technolgy of you can calculate the emotions of people just by pretty much just scanning your face is pretty cool. I believe that this is cool to have in classrooms and how teachers can teach us how to use this. The reason why I do want this technology is classrooms is because teachers now can understand what is going through our heads when they are teaching a lesson. They can understand if we aren't getting the information that they are teaching into our heads. They can use this in the furture to better understand how to teach and how to make lessons better. This technology can change the world. This could also help in a school way by artwork like the Mona Lisa. With this technology we can now see her emotion, and with other paintings or artwork just like this. We can now connect to the artist who made it. People all over the world can now understand the artwork. Another reason why I think we should use emotional expressions is because in the past we really can't know what a person is feeling. You can try and hide it or you can put on a fake smile and everyone believes it. We can use the emotional expressions to prevent sucide. 8th grade to 12th grade, everything is changing your friends, your family, your school, and your teachers. When growing up into a adult life can be very rough. This could help because now we ca see how needs to and how we can help them. In this acticle it says " classifed six basic emotions. Happiness, surpise, anger, digust, fear and even sadness." We can get emotions out of that are to scare to come through but are wanting help but dont understand how to. Doctors, and scientists are study even beyond how this works. In this essay I talked about how an technology such as the emotional expressions can read off emotions. Teachings, changing the way how this could save people's life, and last six basic emotions. The world would change.

0ac3c47

Hi my name is Luck Bomberger and as you may know i have crossed the Altantic Ocean 16 time. Why? You might ask because i wanted to help people recover from War World ll. And i could also trave the world. While helping so many people i was able to see Europe and China. While in Italy I took a ride in a Venice, Italy a city with streets of watere. It was amazing not only did i see amazing places but I was able to work with a lot of amazing animals. It took to weeks to cross the Atlantic Ocean for the east coast of the United States and a mouth to get to China. But carry for the aniamls took a lot of work. I had to feed them and clean up there mess. But working in my Aunt Katie's farm when i was younger helped me a lot. We also had a lot of fun off the boat to. When we let the aniamls of the ship we woiuld us the empty holds to play games like Vollyball and Baseball. but i have also got hurt in the ship where i have broke my rips. So in conclusion, there where good times and bad times while on board and being able to help people but there homes and towen back together was a opportunity of a liftime and im clad I was able to do it with my Friend Don.

0ac8051

Dear Senator, Pensive and melancholic, the debate on whether or not the Electoral College should be kept has had the people thinkinf for many years now. As you already know the process of the Electoral College consists of electors meeting and voting for the president and vice president. Therefore, the people voting only help choose the state's electors when voting for their president. In reality, we all know that when we vote we are actually choosing our candidate's electors. Because of this the people feel like their voice isn't being heard. They believe that they aren't actually voting for their president. For starters, the majority of people, over 60 percent of the voters, would prefer a direct election instead of having an Electoral College. Under the system we have now voters can't always control who their electors vote for. Sometimes there is a problem where we choose the wrong elector and in turn vote for the incorrect candidate. The majority of people voting feel that their vote does not really count because electors can go against what they promised, and they can vote for whoever they wanted to vote for. In addition to this, there is a problem if there is a tie in the electoral votes. In the event of this the election would be passed to the House of Represenatatives. This means that it is up to state delegations to vote on the president.

0acad9f

The face on Mars as believed by many is not a face but a mesa explained "Unmasking the Face on Mars". There are many reason to support this. Such as in 1998, Nasa reveled that it was just a landform. Yet there are many who are not satisfied. In April 5, 1998, Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia for the first time. The MOC or Mars Orbiter Camera team snapped a picture of the Viking photos that was ten time larger. The first picture of it revealed that it was a natural landform and there were no alien monument. Although it was winter and cloudy the picture was not mistaken since it was ten times larger than the Original. Then, in April 8, 2001, it was a cloudless summer day in Cydonia. MGS or Mars Global Surveyor was close enought for another look. The team captured an amazing photo using the Camera's maximum Resoultion. The photo also revealed that the picture shows a butte or mesa which is a lava dome. The article clearly states that the Face on Mars is a mesa.

0acae1e

The election of a president is a very seriouse thing that could ruin us or improve us we should start to pay attention to Mister State Sentor it could make a future for some people or cause war between people. We should change the system were people can vote for there president not there state electors. Plus, some people don't know this is going on they belive that they are voting for the person to change the state not an candaite of the president.  We should not have people who don't know what there doing in congress and that we don't have segergation in the state. To start off with, we should not have people we don't know there doing in the congress. In source 2 it states that,'' ... that they can be anyone note holding a public office .... some times state convention ,sometimes the state party's centeral commitee, sometimes the presidental canidates themself'', that is very bad that they can just choose anyone off the streets and don't care, this could be bad for the economy the people thee took off the streets they might not even know how to do there job because they were not trained to do such things, and then they have patry's centeral commitee,or the state convention we should have a direct vote not other people who might not be even on our side and want only power. Next, we dont want segregation in the state, it casually states that,'' segregationists in te louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in the replacing the democratic electors with new electors that oppose of a Jhon kenndy'', If that have happened then we would be in chaos everyone would be aginst each other and there will be alot of pain and suffering for the people because of there race,and religous belife we would no longer be a great nation. To conclude my essay, that we should not have strangers we don't know or don't even hold a office in our conress to be a state ellector that don't know what ther doing that is how we end up with alot of wars or no money and that we don't have segergation in the state that can lead into more problems . I just want to end with a qoute that agree with even if you don't ,''the electoral college is unfair , outdated, and irrational. The best arguments in favor of it are mostly asserations without much basis to start in reality...''.

0acfeeb

The Electoral College is broken, and with another election on the way, here is why the voting should be changed to popular vote for the president of the United States. Voters cannot control whom their electors are, in the chance that those electors are replaced with new electors so the votes may be rigged, as well as "faithless" electors may refuse to vote for their party's candidate and could cast a deciding vote for whomever they please. Voters don't actually vote for the president, instead, they vote for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president. In the case that you vote John Kerry in Texas, you'd vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors pledged to Kerry. In the case those electors won the statewide election, they would go to Congress and Kerry would get 34 electoral vote. Who are the electors? They could be anyone, even if their not holding office. Who even picks these electors in the first place? Sometimes it state conventions, other times it's the state's central committee, sometimes the presidential candidates themselves. Can we, citziens of the United States, control whom their electors vote for? Not always, and that shouldn't be. In the 1960 election, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature almost succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy and make it seem that a popular vote would have not gone to Kennedy. What would happen if their was a tie in the electoral vote? The case would be thrown in the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president. Becasue each state counts for only one vote, a single representative from Wyoming would represent 500,000 voters, 55 representatives from California who getto represent 55 representatives would have as much say as the one from Wyoming. This cannot represent the will of the people. Now when have you changed your mind about something? Electors can do the same. Electors can refuse to vote for their party's candidate and vote for whomever they please. That can't be right, yet it has happened plently of times before. It's even unfair to the people, who sometimes don't even get to see their electors. Because of the winner-take-all system in each state, they don't focus of states they know they cannot win, aiming towards "swing states." In the 2000 campaign, 17 states didn't see their candidates at all, as well as 25 of the largest media markets who didn't get to see not one campaign ad. The Electoral College dosen't hear the voice of the people, hardly plays by the rules, is something that should be erased. Even people like Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dale, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFL-CIO agree, give the voice back to the people and abolish the Electoral College!

0ad0588

Facial expressions can tell a lot about you, but do you really know what your facial expression is actually showing? Well being all about the new technology will tell you a lot about your self. Being about the technology will tell you about facial expressions, how the muscles in your face can tell how you really feel, and how the technology works for people. This technology will tell how a person really feels. Facial expressions can tell a lot about a person and how they might feel. When someone is frowning others may think that your mad or sad. But when someone is smiling others may think that they are happy or excitied. Facial expressions can tell a lot about people but noone really knows what the true facial expresson is. When a person is happy they might simle, when a person is scared they might make a frightened facial expression. Each facial expression means something different."The facial expressions for each emotion are universal", "even though individuals often show varying degrees of expression.". Muscles on your face tell what expression a person is using. Someone who is smiling muscles are shaped different from when they are sad or mad. Depending on how you feel is the way your muscles are shaped. "your frontalis pars lateralis muscle (above our eyes) raises your eyebrows when your surprised; your orbicularis oris (around your mouth) tightens your lips to show anger.", said Dr. Paul Eckman. You may be wondering how this technology works and what it really does. Well "this process begins when the vcomputer constructs a 3-D computer model of the face; all 44 major muscles in the model must move like human muscles.". "Movement of one or more muscles is called an "action unit..". " There are six basic emotions- happiness, suprise, anger, disgust, fera, and sadness- and then associated each with characteristics movements of the facial muscles." By weighting different units, the software can even indentify mixed emotions, meaning that the weight of it can tell. Each one of the expressions that are used are compared to neutral faces. Imagine if a computer can tell weather your confused or mad or even sad. What if when it could tell what facial expression you was meaning it woud change to your intrest. This technology could help a lot of people. For an example it could help school kids become more intrested in school work if it could tell you was bored and made it more intresting. By showing the students facial expression this technoloy can better the student just by changing it into something that makes it better for them.

0ad08bd

I'm not for driverles cars because they can still cause an accident and if any person could, Also there not really driving the car itself but is helping out the driver by stop when they are not looking or if there is a green light then, the car will alert the driver to press the gas if they are distacted. But, it will not drive a person home if they are drunk. There are better ideas then making a driving car. But, instead of buidling drivierless cars we can save the enviroment. They can make the world a better places but make fuel efficeny cars instead of driverless cars. Make trucks not run on diesel we can be doing so much more than making a driverless car. What if the car computer programming chip is damage then that means that the car can't be able to work correctly and that the car is in a higher risk of getting more people in danger because of the driverlesss car. Building a driverles car is going to be very expensive. And we are not in a lot of debt so we should use are money wisely.

0ad1f49

The face on Mars was spotted by a Viking 1 spacecraft. When the spacecraft was circling the planet and snap shotting photos of landing sites for Viking 2, it spotted the shadowy likeness of a human face. The face was first dicovere in 1976. The last snapshot was taken in 2001. Some people believe the face was made by aliens in Mars and aslo that it could possible be made by the atient Egypt. This face became a pop icon. The face has starred in Hollywood films and it has appeared in books and magazines. Some people think the face is bona fide evidence of life on Mars. After all, the face is just a landform that the shadow had made it more like a face. There are no evidence where the face had other connections to be discovered. It was naturally formed by the land and the rock formation and also the shadows that made it look more like it.

0ad4908

The planet Venus, is called Earth's "twin" when in reality they are only the same size. Venus is a dangerous planet, our spacecrafts haven't been able to land in three decades. The author of this article gives us evidence that scientists are still trying to find a way to land on its surface. Why? They know it's a dangerous misson, they know somebody could get hurt. Venus's thick atmosphere is made up of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide, which blankets the whole planet. The average temperature is about 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater that what we experience. Scientists should know that if they try and send a spacecraft full of men to Venus and land they are risking lives. Scientists want to study the planet on how it used to be, they belive it used to be just like Earth and it could've supported living things. The surface of the planet has similar feautures that resemble our valleys, moutains and craters. NASA has one exciting idea for sending a spacecraft back but it would take time and money from the government. Don't get me wrong I don't like the idea of sending humans to Venus but it is survivable. It is possible, using solar power and creating a floating blimp-like vehicle. It shounds rediculous but we now how the technology and technology is still being built. The suthor belives it is possible and that if we try it could happen. NASA would just have to be really prepared. They would have to study the planet and test the vehicle enough times to be sure. They would have to create an enviroment that is like Venus. The writer is right, it is worthy to study into and pursue. It would be a huge victory for use if something like this happened.

0ad4de2

I do not think driverless cars should be a "thing of the future". Many things could go wrong if you let technology take over your driving. Drivers and passengers could get injured, the technology could malfunction, and the cars are not completely driverless. The car would not be completely safe for the drivers or anyone else in the car. First, people in the car could be seriously injured. If there is no way of knowing who's responsibilty it is that someone is injured there could be many problems. Someone could be injured in the car because they don't have as much control over the car as a regular car would. A person who is hurt in this car could end up with a lot of problems. People in the driverless car could be injured. Second, the car could malfunction. Malfunctions of the car could lead to many problms.The driver could be driving down the road and something happens with the technolgoy and the driver loses control of the car. If the car is about to hit something and it doesnt let the driver know it needs to take over, the car could crash. The driverless car could malfunction and cause wrecks or injuries. Third, the car is not completely driverless. The driver still has to control the car if needed. The driver may not be paying attention when they need to take over. This could cause the driver to not be fully ready to stop the car. They may not stop fast enough and crash into another car or object. Not being a completely driverless could be a big issue for not only the owner, but the manufacturers as well. Driverless cars should not be used in the future. They could cause injuries, the car could malfunction, and the car is not completely driverless. It may not be completely safe for the driver or the passengers in the car. Many problems can occur from using the driverless car.

0ada1e2

Dear, Florida Senators I believe that the Electoral College is a good way of voting for a President and Vice President because the founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by  a single vote in Congress. The Electoral College consists of the selection of the electors is the meeting where the electors vote for there President and Vice President. Plus the majority of the 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President of the United States. The United States entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation. One each of the memebers in the House of Representives plus two of your Senators. In our state, each citizens have there own group of voters that vote for a President and Vice President of there chose. Some even vote for candidates that are going for a person running for President or Vice President. Our state's Certificates of Ascertainments are sent to the Congress and the National Archives as part of the official records of the presidential election. ' Under the electoral college system,voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president. If I lived in Texas, for example, and wanted to vote for [Adam] Pis , I'd vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors pledged to Pis. On the note, that those electors won the statewide election, they would goto congress and Pis would get 34 electoral votes. There are a lot of questions that people ask, who picks the electors in the first place? It depends on the state that some citizens are living in because some states can have picked electors and some dont even pick electors so, it must depends what state the citizen lives in. Perhaps 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. Because each state casts only one vote, the single representive from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representives from California, who represents 35 million voters. Its hard to think about this but some are right, abolish the electoral college! By PROPER_NAME MONTH_DAY_YEAR    

0adafa7

"Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore"? As said in the being of "Driverless Cars Are Coming" the question is simple. I can say without a doubt that I can invision diverless cares in the future. Although I can hope for sooner rather than later that is one aspect I can not yet answer. As I have already stated in the previous paragraph that I can invision this future, but I also support this future. The era of perfectly calculating autonomous cars would be an era of complete safety on roads. The driverless cars not being subjected to human errors would not make the foolish mistakes that a human might make in situations like slick roads, alcoholic influence, and peer preasure. The only flaw with autonomous car that I can visualize is the possible glitches in it's programing that could be prevented with annual mantainance. As said in the article "The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today’s taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus" Although I do not see a public transport system being the only use of these cars I can agree with the amount of options and the decrease of polution put into our daily life styles. In the end I fully agree with the use of driverless cars no matter what the primary use is for. With only minimum tolerance for errors in todays technology I do not see the likelyhood of an accident due to the fualt of the car. Although, as the article states, "If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault". I refute this statement just as the article did it's self by saying "Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved".

0add2dc

In this passage it talks about how Venus is a challenging planet to study despite its proximity to us humans. it also talks about the danger about it. "Venus surface has the hottest temperature of any other planet." here is one reason why its dangerous. but there is also good reasons. "some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber the chaos of Venus's surface and have lasted for three weeks in such conditions." this is good because then scientists can be able to make those electronics and send them to Venus without making any of those electronics stop working. The author gives good reasos in the passage. for example in the passage it says "scientists seeking to conduct a through mission to udnerstand venus would need to get up close and personal despite the risks." This shows how researchers will work on thier machines to make them last loner to contribute to their knowledge of Venus. Another thing that the passage says is "NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray." This explains how they will come up with something to avoid some dangers of Venus. I think its a good idea too because at the end of the passge it says "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 makes me think back to the beginning too because it says "Numeros factors contribute to Venus's reputation as a challeging planet for humans to study, despite its proximity to us." this makes me think that its not challenging because there could be people who knows some things about Venus and they could try and help with the whole Venus situation. the scientist can maybe later then send rocketships to Venus because it shouldnt limit by dangers and doubts.

0ae1dee

Many people are not in favor of keeping the Electoral College. Many prefer changing the election by popular vote for the president of the United States since the Electoral College is unfair. It is. The electoral college is unfair in many ways and we should change it to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. One reason why the United States should change the election to popular vote instead of the Electoral College is because the states aren't all equal and electoral college isn't fair. In the Electoral College, California has more of a say than Georgia. California has 55 electoral college, while Georgia has 16. How is that fair? "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" (Plumer 13). This line tells us that candidates stay out of states that they know they won't win. Say there was a candidate campaigning, they will most likely focus on the states that have the most electoral college, like California or Texas. They won't go to states that only have three votes. That's not fair to the states that have a small population. "It happened in 2000, when Gore had more popular votes than Bush yet fewer electoral votes" (Posner 6). If electoral votes wasn't a thing, Gore would be president. He's the candidate that won most popular votes, meaning that he got the most votes in the nation. "Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always" (Plumer 10). Not always? What's the point of voting if the vote won't even count? Another reason why the United States should change the election to popular vote is because the popular vote will be more precise and it's much easier. There could be less ties, and the candidate that everyone really wants as president will become the president. "Gore had more popular votes than Bush yet fewer electoral votes" (Posner 16). Gore was the candidate that everyone wanted as president. It just doesn't seem fair that the candidate that won popular vote, isn't or wasn't the president. Overall, the people should change the election to popular vote for the president of the United States instead of using a system that is unfair to the states and the people.

0ae3894

Argument of Driverless Cars. The article talks about the future of driverless cars which in my opinon is a good idea for people who don't like to drive or are awful at driving and should not be behind the wheel of a car, but for the people who love to drive and get a thrill out of driving this idea is a nightmare to them. In my opinion if they do make driverless cars they should still make regular cars as well. Driverless cars are a nightmare to me. I can't picture a world without driving a car because my whole life all I've wanted to do is drive! What would happen to people who race cars professionaly? Would they just sit in the car while the car did all the work? That doesn't sound fun at all, and I'm sure anyone who has ever raced a car or anyone who still does would agree with me. In the text it states google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009 and have drivenmore than half a million miles without a crash, but what happens when the car possibly malfunctions and kills somebody on the road? Who are you going to blame then? At least with a regular "man driven" car you have someone to blame it on considering your supposed to have control of your car at all times by law. The idea of driverless cars completely disobeys the law because you are never in control of your car. I do believe there can be positives for a driverless car though. If a blind person is tired of relying on everyone else to take them places they can just hop in the car and tell it where to go. If a person is handicapped they can get out of the house and view nature at its finest by getting in the car and telling it to go sight seeing. Or if someone is just a hazzard to everyone and should not be driving a regular car, a driverless car could be better for them and everyone around them. My conclusion is that driverless cars could be good and bad. I do believe that they can help with further testing, but I also believe that car companys should still make cars that people can drive if the people love the thrill of driving like I do.

0aec0b5

The author gives good reasonings on why the idea of studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers. The first reasoning that the author has is that way back when, Venus might have had open oceans and could have supported various forms of life. Just like Earth does, the planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar feartures such as moutains, valleys, and craters. NASA has an exquisset idea for sending humans to study Venus. Just picture an enormous blimp-like contraption that hovers 30 or so miles above all of the landscapes, all of the storms, we would be care free. Nothing to worry about except for the drastic temperatures of 170 degrees Fahrenheit that we all would still have to endure while we're there, but no worries we could always just fan eachother with a paper fan. It 'll work the same I'm sure. We would have solar powered appliences so we wouldn't have to sorry about the everyday hassal of having to plug in, detangle, of trip over any more cords. This would be a major change for all of us drastic in fact, but still survivable. NASA has had some simpified electronics made of silicon carbide that have been tested in a chamber simulated the Venus's surface and has lasted for three weeks in such harsh and mild conditions. NASA would be making our living situations a lot easier to handle of Venus by creating all of this new technology today in this age/era. In clonclusion, NASA has outstanding creations that would be outstandingly suitable for the human race to live on Venus. Worry free, hardly any bills to pay, and all liveable cercumstances. Also that the author's idea of studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite of all of the dangers that come with The planet.

0aefcef

Yes, I can see where you are coming from this is because there has been some talk about aliens in the past. Though I can assure you that this is a nautural landform that takes the shape of a face. Sir, I am asking to you please take what I am about to say into consideration. Just listen to me and let me explain to you the scientific proof of how this landoform takes on the label or identity of a face. Yes, I get it with the eyes, nose, mouth, and everything. It is very persuasive to looking like a face. Though it is not an actually face it is a nautural landform that takes the details and characteristics of a face. I want to draw to your attention that when the face is spotted the shadows of the lanform project onto itself making if look like it has eyes a nose and a mouth. It is just crazy how science works sometimes. But if you just sit and think about it logically it makes sense. But yes, there was a great degree of surprise among our mission controllers back at the Jet Propulsion Lab when the face appeared on their monitors. It all came off quite strange. Though when we put it into scientific calulations, the result came back as a nautural landform. And that the eyes, nose, and mouth were just an illusion from the shadows. Now after hearing all of the scientific calculations, proof, and resonings I hope that you understand where I am coming from. And the fact that it is just a natural landform. Also that it wasn't created by aliens or any other prehistoric creature that claims to live on mars for that matter. Thank you sir for taking the time to listen to my explanations. I highly apprectiate it. Have a wonderful day, and while you are at it I don't mind you sharing my theory with a few other people either. Thank you.

0af2d2d

Driverless cars would increase the safety of driving on roads. Driverless cars take away issues like human error. Driverless cars would also reduce crashes, and deathes, involving drunk driving and texting while driving. These would still be issues, for with all rules some are broken, however with driverless cars the effects of these incidents wouldn't be nearly as costly. Driverless cars allow for total control of the car at all times, something quite difficult for a human driver to achieve. Using devices such as the LIDAR and GPS, the car would have complete awareness of its surroundings, while a human driver can only strongly focus on a single direction at a time. With driverless cars including precautions such as the car alerting the human inside if they need to take manual control of the car, driverless cars are never truly driverless, almost like with an airplane. There is never only one pilot, the main pilot always has a copilot to take control if there is an issue that the main pilot can't handle alone. The main causes of car crashes are human error related, such as driving under the influence or texting while driving. Neither of these problems will have as huge of a cost to them if there are driverless cars involved. The driverless car will be able to respond to a stopping car faster than a person if they had been texting. Driverless cars will improve the quality of driving, as well as the safety of driving. In driverless cars, humans can be productive in other areas, such as doing homework or finishing a file report for a job. With only limited focus being needed of the human while the car is driving, the human's time can be managed more effectively. Having a computer drive the car would reduce the number of crashes that occur from drivers falling asleep at the wheel as well as other crash starters. All in all using driverless cars would greatly increase the quality and safety of being on the road.

0af56e8

This technology to read the emotions and expressions of students in the classroom would be very helpful. Most of the time humans can't tell what a person is feeling and how they will act. With this new technology it could figure out how your emotions are and it could help out the teachers in a classroom to teach a lesson differently based on how some students are expressing their emotions. a person cant read muscles inside a persons face, only a computer can do that and that is what is so amazing about this new technology is that it can do stuff that a person can not do. This technology could help teachers in the classroom or coaches working on film or a business, to see how all of their workers or their students are reacting to all that is being thrown at them. this benefits the teachers mostly because society has changed so much and alot of stuff is done on computers and they teach alot of lessons off of computers and in the text it says " A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored." This means that whenever a student is sitting there learning the lesson and something comes up and they are very confused they may make a face of confusion and the computer will read that face and the teacher could know how the students felt about the lesson based on the results that the computer came up with when the students were learning the lesson. From there she could help certain students figure something out or teach them an alternative way because now she knows that some kids dont get the material. With this new technology she is able to figure out who is getting the material and who is not and before, she could not figure out if a student was having trouble with the material or not because most of the time students dont speak up and say anything when they are confused because they feel like they are the only ones who are having trouble but with this technology they dont even have to say a word they can just express their emotions and the computer will pick it up. With this new technology it knows what a fake expression is and what is not a fake expression do to the muscles inside your face. In the bottom of paragraph seen it says "They even indicate the difference between a genuine smile and a forced one." This means that there is no faking out of the lesson, you either understand it or you dont and there is no slipping past it with this new technology. In the end it makes it easier for alot of people when considering that this technology can do things that people cannot do. It will make it easier on teachers and on the students because the computer is telling the teacher how the students react to the material that is being thrown at them. the students will feel the way they feel and there is no hiding that anymore with this new technology.

0afe6a6

In everyday life, students go through a rollar coster of emotions with only few known of. They become happy on a sunny day or become upset after not doing so great on a test. Many emotions can be seen on the face but, students have learned to keep those emotions well hidden with the intention of not wanting anyone to know or find out. Technology being able to determine students' emotion would be extremely benefitial in helping the student fell better and being able to share their emotions. Using devices to read our emotions would help frowning students smile more when they need it. The computer would be able to read their face by seeing the facial movements and determine whether a student is becoming bored in class. According to Prof. Thomas Huang, of the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science at the University of Illinois, having a computer that can read emotions in class " could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored... then it could modify the lesson, like an effective human instructor"(D'Alto 6). This could improve the student's learning skills and can help the teacher be notified when and where a student needs help. This technology would not only be benefitial in the student's school life, but also in his or her personal life too. Computors would be able to see if a student was truely unhappy or upset and would be able to help in a way a human could not. The student may not want anyone to know of their sadness, but a computor knowing is harmless. Depending on the mood, " 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" (D'Alto 6). With this technology, when someones is upset, something happy and encouraging could pop up and make them smile. This could brighten a student's mood and encourage them to keep working with a better attitude going out than going in. The ability to know how someone is feeling without them having to say it could make it easier for people to jump in and help each other out. If one student sees another who was putting on a fake smile, they may be able to encourage them or say something nice to put a real smile on their face. Theory of Emotion, "moving your facial muscles not only expresses the emotions, but may even produce them" (D'Alto 9). Putting a smile on someone's face, even for a second, can truely make a difference. This technology would be extremly valuable a student's academic life, to help them to do their best and succeed, and in their personal life, to be more of a light to others.

0b059bd

What are the advantages of limiting car use? The germans don ussally use cars. Paris bans cars due to somg in their state. Car free days are sping to a big hit in Colombia,Bogota. The end of car culture is near in the United States Of America. The Germas have given up their use of cars. Some residents of the upscale community in Germany are suburban pioneers and a few scoocer moms are the ones who give up their cars. Street parking and driveways are fobidden in some districts. Germans can buy a large garage that cost $40,000 along with the home. 70% of Vauban's famileis don't own cars and 57% sold their cars to move into that distric. Paris had to ban cars due to somg in their state. On monday motorists with even numbers had to leave their vichle at home if they refused they had to pay 22-euro fine ($31).Almost 4,000 drivers were fined by the international agency headquartered in London. In fact Paris has more somg than European capitals. The somg cleared enough to rescined the ban for odd-numbers on tuesday. Car free day in Colombia Bogota is a big hit. Three srtight years cars have been baned with only buses and taxis permited."Rian didn't stop people from participating, said Bogota Mayor Antanas."For the first time two other cites,Cali and Valledupar, joined the event. The day with out cars is parr of a improvement campian. Some of the contries are take a step foward to stop gasses from going up into the atmosphere. For instance Paris baned even number licence plates on Monday and ood number on Tuesday. Germany stop using their cxars and some of them say they're happier that way. In colombia Bogota have a day where they can not use their cars unless for buses and taxis.

0b0644a

I beileve driverless cars could be a good thing, but need to be throughly tested, even over tested. This isn't some new smart phone, or game system, this is something that can kill someone, even a whole family if the proper precautions are not put in place. As the article says bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays is an excellent way to keep fellow drivers safe of the road, and the sensors on the top of the vehicle looks to be a great tool for safety as well. With any technology campany, its always about who has the smarter devices, and who can get them out the fastest. I get it, its all apart of marketing, I know. But this is something that shouldn't be sprinted into, this is an advanced, futuristic idea that should not be rushed to the public, but added on, enhanced, and decorated that on theories, but real systems keeping real people safe. I also can't help to wonder, can these cars go on more narrow, country, or even alley roads? Living in a small town the only normal roads are those that lead of of town and threw it, but all its branches of smaller, and country roads severely out-number the others. Will it mostly go to city people, who have the proper roads, or will it go the small-town people who would have to keep their hands on the steering wheel most of the time? Another questioned I'd want to ask is with such a relaxing driving experience, what procedures does the car follow when a driver fall asleep? Does it shock him/her, or play loud music, simply say, "wake up", or nothing at all? The article mentioned that the smart car GM has come up with, vibrates the seat when about to be backed into an object, could something like that be put into play? I think the idea and prototypes that are being made about smart cars are a good thing, a smart thing if you will. But I still have my doubts, questions, and worries. But if smart cars can advance to the point without those worries, we could be looking at an entirely new era.

0b095ea

He supports his idea with a lot of facts. he also uses a lot of deytails whitch is good because we get a lil bit more of an idea. i get what the athour is saying because if you look at it venus is the second closest to the sun that is why it makes it so hard to land spaceships there. i think that the ships over heat when they are entering venus because it is so hot. It would be cool if we knew what is in venus because we could find some new minerals or some other stuff. but i think that there no creatures because in paragraph 3 the first sentence talks about how the atmosphere is 97 percent carbon dioxide so that means nothing could be liven there. there is one example for why it is so hard to land ships on venus,m in paragraph 3 it says that the tempature can reach up to 800 degrees fahrenheit that is way to hot for the ship. and i dont think any human can land on venus do to the heat. Even though we would risk a lot of chances it would be so cool for us to see what type of things are on venus. on paragraph 7 it says that nasas is working on other ways to study venus i think that it is going to be possible due to all the new technology we have. even though we have ships that hover over venus it is still hard for us to clearly see what is on venus .

0b0f882

In this article the author is telling us that facts about Venus how it's called the "Evening star" because it's the "brightest points of the light in the sky night" and it is a good place to examine, because of how close it is to the sun and earth, of its tempature, its heat, pressure, and how no spacecraft have landed there. But it's really dangerous in Venus. It's dangerous in because, a thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent cardon dioxide blankets venus, their is also clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus atmosphere, on the plants surface temperatures avaerage over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater then whats in our earth. And If they were to explore venus NASA would need scientist to survive the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus. They would need to make blimp-car like vehicles they need to hover for miles and miles becuase it's is 170 degrees fahrenheit which means they would burn real bad. and the lights need to be real good because they need to penetrate the dense of the atmosphere. I think they shouldn't explore Venus because it's a suicide mission it's too hot a lot of co2 and temperatures reach over 800 degrees Fahrenheit.

0b153d1

For driverless cars they can have a plus side and a downside. I see that driverless cars can be a good thing for a few reasons. The posistive affects of the driverless car could range between keeping accidences from distractions down and for long trip safety. They can also have a downside. These downsides very from people who like driver to malfunctions in the car. There are some positives to the driverless car. One of these reasons would be for the drivers that get distracted easily. The drivers wont have to worry about not being able to stay as focused since they will not have to drive. The driverless car can also keep drunk drivers from driving, preventing a big amount of crashes. There are also many more reasons driverless car can be a good thing. Even with all the positives the driverless car will have some negative effects and problems. There will always be drivers who would prefer to drive and feel safer that way, in some cases they could be right. For instance, what if the computer in the car has a malfunction? What would happen then? Or what if the car will not switch to manual drive? These are some of the more important questions that would need to be tested and thought about. Driver want to feel safe, but can the put their faith in a computer? Driverless cars can have their plus sides to safety. Though, with the positives there will always be the negatives and the questions. Will the driverless car function right, or will there be mistakes? I believe that no matter how much they try, there will always be a problem with it, but the driverless car can be a safe way of transportation.

0b15a66

My argument for the driverless cars would be against them. I feel like it would be alot that comes with having one of those cars. There are alot of things you would have to do and know in order to stay more cautious then a car you would normally drive yourself.The driverless could also be dangerous in the most simplest ways. There are also alot of things you have to watch out for. All easy ways to get out of somethings are not always the safest. I feel as if alot would come with the cars because you have to really make sure you know what your doing and keep your eyes on the rode at all times although you should already do that. I also feel like parts for the car would be way more expensive considering it drives on its on. It will eventually become a headache to some who thought it would be easier to just hop in a car that goes on its on , not knowing everything that comes along with the car. Sometimes you have to think about what you really getting before you just hop in it and go. Thats why i said i feel like its alot to come with those cars. When buying a car like that there are alot of things you need to understand. You will have to have patience and structure. I say that because even though it drives on its own it still needs a human hands on the wheel at certain points and times of the day. Even though the driverless car drives on its own most the time , a human still has to take over when coming upon a construction zone or coming upon a pedestrian maybe even alot of traffic. Its only so much a car can do automatically. The car could be dangerous because by it not being able to go through certain things it can lead into yourself or somebody else getting hurt. It also can lead into somethings even getting damaged. When driving a automated car you have to be more catious then what you would be driving a regular car. Not all easy ways are the safest ways out of situations especially when dealing with a car. Cars can be a dangerous thing to choose , thats why when you do get a car you should choose wisely and make sure its good for future refferences. So once again i am against driverless cars. I feel they are not say for people to just drive as an everyday car. I feel as if somebody get one it should only be used for fun in like an empty parking lot or brung out at night when there is really nothing going on. I only say that because not only do i want the person that has one to be safe i want everyone around them to be safe as well. So no driveless cars should not come.

0b1ab1d

Driverless cars may sound cool and less stressful but sound like they can put your life in alot of danger. Facebook twitter and social medias have troubles everyday so why dont you think your car would mess up and put you in danger from a little problem that its having. Driving on your own may be more safe than trusting technolgy to get you somewhere .Driving one of the driverless cars sounds like you can rest or just sit back and watch where you are going but what if you get in a crash and you didnt do anything the car did that might take alot of money out of your pockets for something you didnt even do. Cars that warn you when things are coming may be a good idea but what if one day they have a problem and dont tell you when something is coming and you run into someone money out of your own pockets once again to get car fixed and to fix the persons car you ran into. Cars that people control on their own may be the safest way to stay over the years until they get technology 100% right.

0b23a57

I think that sometimes it would be good to use FACS, but at the same time, it would also be smart to not use it all the time. FACS is a Facial Action Coding System that detects the way someone is feeling. It can tell if you are feeling sad, happy, energetic or tired, just by your actions. I think we should only use it if we HAVE to, otherwise, just use our human instincts and look at each other to tell how one another is feeling. I believe we should use FACS if it is a necessity. If someone is showing signs or actions that are just merely impossible to interpret, then yes, we should use FACS. "The facial expressions for each emotion are universal," says Dr. Huang. If someone is just smiling kind of broadly, like the article tells us, and not really showing us if they are smiling or not, I believe that is a time that we should use FACS (Facial Action Coding System). Some people though, think that we should not use it, and I agree with them just a little bit. When should we not use it? I think times that we should not use it are when it is easy to tell the way someone is feeling, or if someone has a medical problem that would be affected by this. We also should not use this if you are at home. I know that in today's age, most homes probably don't have a PC that hooks into the wall anymore. Nowadays, most homes just have a laptop that everyone will share, and they will call it a home computer. Either that, or most people probably just have their own personal laptops. What I am trying to say though, is that we should not use it at home because as the article say, a home PC could not handle the complex algorithms that FACS requires. Now, if you are one of those people who are somewhere in the middle, you don't know if we should use it or not, I would say just look at how it works. All FACS does, we as human can pretty much do ourselves. It just takes movements that you do, and then says what it thinks your emotion is that you are feeling. But, if you think about it, we can do that do as humans. So, there might be one reason that you start leaning more towards not using it. You might start to think again though if you think about what i said earlier. If someone is smiling broadly, we can't really tell how they are feeling. So, that might be a time that you would say use it. Now, even after looking at all of this information, I will probably always be one of those people who just don't know if it would be good or not to use it. If you don't, then you would just use your human instincts and try to tell what someone is feeling. You might just be one of those people who likes to do everything old school. If you do, then that must mean you just don't want to try to tell what someone is feeling. This could be laziness, but who knows. Maybe that is a time that you should use FACS.

0b271eb

I think the use of technology to read emotions in a classroom is valuable to classrooms. Students can learn alot more when using the Facial Coding System. It can help them be aware of their own emotions, and can help them have more fun learning. To start, it can help you have more fun by learning because it can detect your emotions and change up the lessons. In paragraph six, it says, "...Then it could modify the lesson, like an effective human instructor." Its saying it can be aware of how you are feeling about the lesson. Weither your bored, cunfused, etc. It can make it less confusing for you, and make it a little bit more enjoyable and easier for you to learn. Also, in the same paragraph it says, "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" By either smiling or frowning it can go on the the next thing or ad that you would most likely enjoy. It can make waiting for what you are waiting for more enjoyable so you don't sit in boredom. For example, while waiting for an ad on youtube or any video you are watching that wont let you skip,or any game. It can detect your emotion and go on to a diferent ad the next time. That can make watching or seeing ads more fun then the last ad that had. Next, It can help you be aware of how you are feeling either happy or sad. In paragraph four it says, "Even though individuals often show varying degrees of expression, using video imagery, the new emotion recognition software tracks these facial movements" By them tracking your movements, it can help not only them notice you are sad, happy, bored, or any of emotion you are feeling. It can also attract your attention too and helping you realize it. Your mouth is stretched sideways and uses the "Zygomatic major" while you fake a smile. If you pay attention, you can tell if you or others around you are smiling like that. It can help you be aware if they are faking their smile and happiness. It can also teach you a little bit of science, and you wouldn't know. Dr. Huang talks about about how the process begins, and how many muscles you have. The System can teach you how about all the emotions we have also. I think the Facial Action System is a good idea for the classrooms. It can teach you a little bit about science. Also, about how to reconize yours and others emotions, and make learning and wiaitng more enjoyable for you.

0b28ade

Do you really believe the face on mars was made by an alien? Well my name is Sydney, and im a scientist here at NASA.Im here to tell you the truth about the ¨Face on Mars.¨ Lets begin by telling you the how the face on mars was discovered. In 1976 ¨Vikings 1 spacecraft was snapping photos for possiable landing sites for Vikings spacecraft 2,when a human face appeared¨At first scientist like myself thought it was another Martian mesa,but something was different about this one. There was an odd ¨shadow that made it look like an Egyptian Pharaoh.¨ NASA took the image and unveiled it for the whole world to see. Once the world saw this image people went crazy over it. The ¨Face on Mars¨ was in ¨movies,magazines,radio talk shows, and even haunted grocery stroe checkout lines.¨ But then people started taking it to far and coming up with there own ideas. People started to say it came from aliens,I know how crazy. Some scientist at NASA even started to believe what the people were saying. Then NASA decided to go up to mars to get another picture of it 18 years later. They said it was important to taxpayers. ¨On April 5,1998, When Mars Global surveyor got over there his team snapped 10 pictures of the face.¨ When the pictured was taken it was ten times sharper than the Vikings picture. So when the picture appeared on the JPL website,it revealed a natural land form. So After all it was not an alien monument. But wait were not done yet. People were not satisfied because they said the picture was taken at the wrong angle and on a winter day which was cloudy. Then on April 8,2001 on a summer day and no clouds,Mars Global Surveyor was close enough for a second look. With the teams camera they captured an extraortdinary photo. With this picture you can blow it up three times bigger to see what it really is. The team blew it up and showed it was a butte or mesa landform,most commonly found around the American West. During all of this I have learned that what looks to be a face was actually a landform. The Face on Mars turned out to be neat because it got used in movies,and ect. It also led people imagineation to think that well maybe there was life on mars before us. So next time what you see can look like something, but turn into something way different.