essay_id stringlengths 7 28 | score int64 1 6 | full_text stringlengths 697 20.5k | assignment stringclasses 7
values | prompt_name stringclasses 7
values | economically_disadvantaged stringclasses 2
values | student_disability_status stringclasses 2
values | ell_status stringclasses 2
values | race_ethnicity stringclasses 6
values | gender stringclasses 2
values | source_text_1 stringclasses 7
values | source_text_2 stringclasses 2
values | source_text_3 stringclasses 2
values | source_text_4 stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AAAOPP13416000011976 | 3 | In the article "Driverless Cars are Coming," it informs readers about cars that can be driven without drivers in the future. These self-driving cars in my opinion seems dangerous and unnessasary the thought of a car being driven without a driver in today's society is a horrible idea. The fact that there are terrorist
who already drive in vehicles with self detonated bombs wired to that vehicle into a building or a secured area with people in the facinaty. Imagin what what they would do if they didn't need a driver for a mobil bomb.
And on the other hand what about nofunctions in these new driverless cars people don't know what all the new designs are in the vehicle how will they know what thier doing? Further more what about accidents, if someone was to be injured or worse by a vehicle that was being driven by a computer and not a real person who is responsible? The driver was in the car in the drivers seat but wasn't driving who is at fault as stated in the article. "If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault-the driver or the mamufacturer." So how can we prevent these confusions from accuring, by making laws some might assume but will that even change anything if the car is operated by a computer. The comupter won't change how it was manufactured to drive and doesn't learn
from making mistakes the only way we can be sure of safe driving is to insure the driver is a human. As stated in the article."Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumtion that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times."
In conclusion the Driverless cars should not be legal to be used or sold to anybody due to safty laws and threatened situationd that can be caused by the vehicle in controll of a threatoning person who wants to cause a horrible event. And for the saftey of others who dosent know how the vehicle works or malfunctions. | In the article “Driverless Cars are Coming,” the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. Using details from the article, create an argument for or against the development of these cars. Be sure to include: your position on driverless cars; appropriate details from the article that support your position; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | Driverless cars | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Black/African American | M | Driverless Cars Are Coming
Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore? Google cofounder Sergey Brin can. He envisions a future with a public transportation system where fleets of driverless cars form a public-transport taxi system. The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today’s taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus. He believes such cars would fundamentally change the world.
Television and movies have long been fascinated with cars that could drive themselves. In reality, Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash, but so far, Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents. So what roadblocks lie ahead for the autonomous car?
Sensing the World
Let's begin by looking at which companies are making computer-driven cars. Originally, many futurists believed the key to developing self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as smarter roads. For example, in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. The track was embedded with an electrical cable that sent radio signals to a receiver on the front end of the car. Engineers at Berkeley tried something similar, but they used magnets with alternating polarity. The car read the positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code. These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical.
Without the option of smarter roads, manufacturers turned to smarter cars—but how much smarter did the cars need to be? For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors. Google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. The most important bit of technology in this system is the spinning sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR, it uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the car's surroundings. The combination of all this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel.
Sensors are nothing new, of course. In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheels in the creation of antilock brakes. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone. Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own.
Driving or Assisting?
Antilock brakes and driver assistance still seem a long way from the dream of calling a driverless cab to take us wherever we desire, but Sebastian Thrun, founder of the Google Car project, believes that the technology has finally begun to catch up to the dream. “There was no way, before 2000, to make something interesting. The sensors weren't there, the computers weren't there, and the mapping wasn't there. Radar was a device on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack.” So just how driverless will the cars be in the near future?
In 2013, BMW announced the development of “Traffic Jam Assistant.” The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. This necessitates the car being ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs. GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object. The Google car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over. Other options under consideration are flashing lights on the windshield and other heads-up displays. Manufacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver.
Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn’t drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive? “The psychological aspects of automation are really a challenge,” admits Dr. Werner Huber, a BMW project manager driver. “We have to interpret the driving fun in a new way.” Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays. Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over—something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. In this way, the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern.
Waiting on the Law
Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars. California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have led the country in allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars; manufacturers believe that more states will follow as soon as the cars are proved more reliably safe. Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault—the driver or the manufacturer?
Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved. Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. The road to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us, but we grow closer to the destination every day. | null | null | null |
AAAVUP14319000065510 | 2 | The author strongly believes that our Earth "twin" planet, should have more attention than what it has. As in more research over it and more resources to gain from it. The author also suggests that more attention should be forward to Venus "If our sister planet is so inhospitable, why are scientists even discussing further visits to its surface?". The author later on spoke about NASA having thoughts of sending humans to Venus because of the benefit that they'll gain from it including the advances from the machines that they have been working on.
Not just that the author also belivies that Venus should aso have care for,
it's a planet that is close to similiar as Earth.
It's temperature average is over 800 degrees fahrenheight and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than our experience in Earth. Other than the author knowing research for their argument, the author persuasion tolwards traveling and studying Venus also describes the perspective of it "Human curiosity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors. Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation". The author is trying to prove that besides the risks and dangers the studying of Vneus she be reconsidered. | In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus," the author suggests studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. Using details from the article, write an essay evaluating how well the author supports this idea. Be sure to include: a claim that evaluates how well the author supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers; an explanation of the evidence from the article that supports your claim; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your essay. | Exploring Venus | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Hispanic/Latino | F | The Challenge of Exploring Venus
Venus, sometimes called the “Evening Star,” is one of the brightest points of light in the night sky, making it simple for even and amateur stargazer to spot. However, this nickname is misleading since Venus is actually a planet. While Venus is simple to see from the distant but safe vantage point of Earth, it has proved a very challenging place to examine more closely.
Often referred to as Earth's “twin,” Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size, and occasionally the closest in distance too. Earth, Venus, and Mars, our other planetary neighbor, orbit the sun at different speeds. These differences in speed mean that sometimes we are closer to Mars and other times to Venus. Because Venus is sometimes right around the corner - in space terms - humans have spent numerous spacecraft to land on this cloud-draped world. Each previous mission was unmanned, and for good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours. Maybe this issue explains why not a single spaceship has touched down of Venus in more than three decades. Numberous factors contribute to Venus's reputation as a challenging planet for humans to study, despite its proximity to us.
A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere. On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet. These conditions are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth; such an environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans and would liquefy many metals. Also notable, Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system, even though Mercury is closer to our sun. Beyond high presure and heat, Venusian geology and weather present additional impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface.
If our sister is so inhospitable, why are scientists even discussing further visits to its surface? Astronomers are fascinated by Venus beccause it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth. Today, Venus still has some features that are analogous to those on Earth. The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters. Furthermore, recall that Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit, a crucial consideration given the long time frames of space travel. The value of returning to Venus seems indisputable, but what are the options for making such a mission both safe and scientifically productive?
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has one particularly compelling idea for sending humans to study Venus. NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray. Imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape. Just as our jet airplanes travel at a higher altitude to fly over many storms, a vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly ground conditions by staying up and out of their way. At thirty-plus miles above the surface, temperatures would still be toasty at around 170 degrees Farenheit, but the air pressure would be close to that of sea level on Earth. Solar power would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth levels. Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans.
However, peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions rendering standard forms of photography and videography ineffective. More importantly, researchers cannot take samples of rock, gas, or anything else, from a distance. Therefore, scientists seeking to conduct a thorough mission to understand Venus would need to get up close and personal despite the risks. Or maybe we should think of them as challenges. Many researchers are working on innovattions that would allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowledge of Venus.
NASA is working on other approaches to studying Venus. For example, some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simuulating the chaos of Venus's surface and have laster for three weeks in such conditions. Another project is looking back to an old technology called mechanical computers. These devices were first envisioned in the 1800s and played an important role int he 1940s during World War II. The thought of computers existing in those days may sound shocking, but these devices make calculations by using gears and levers and do not require electronics at all. Modern commputers are enormously powerful, flexible, and quick, but tend to be more delicate when it comes to extreme physical conditions. Just imagine exposing a cell phone or tablet to acid or heat capable of melting tin. By comparison, systems that use mechanical parts can be made mroe resistant to pressure, heat, and other forces.
Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also because human curiousity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors. Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation. | null | null | null |
AAATRP14318000707581 | 3 | Have you ever taken a Facebook quiz that is supposed to tell you how u feel by looking at your profile and/or after u complete a set of questions? Well people are coming up with better, and better technology everyday. In fact, Dr. Paul Eckman created the "FACS". Which allows Pc's to know how you are feeling just by using a camera. "FACS" will become useful from time to time, and there are many reasons why.
First reason why the "FACS" is useful, is because schools could use the app on computers. For example when students are taking a test, or a quiz on the computer, it could sence if the student is becoming confused, and could change the question into a different one. In addition, this would also be useful when taking test because students could use it to see how a person feels about a certain subject.
Another reason why it is useful, is because is can help prevent attacks in schools, business places, and much more. For instance, if the "FACS" was installed next to the door of the main entrance. The Security would be able to know how the person that is trying to enter is feeling.
In conclusion, the "FACS" could be very useful at times.1 reason being because it could find out what subjects your intrested in and 2 being because it can prevent attacks in important buildings. | In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile," the author describes how a new technology called the Facial Action Coding System enables computers to identify human emotions. Using details from the article, write an essay arguing whether the use of this technology to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is valuable. | Facial action coding system | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Hispanic/Latino | M | Copyright Restricted | null | null | null |
AAAVUP14319000101692 | 2 | The author suggests that studying Venus is worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents a challenging planet for the humans to land on it. In the text it said, "On the planet's surface, temperature average over 800 degrees Farenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet." this explains that the planet Venus is more hot and it's their pressure was 90 times more than the earth. Another in the text it said, "Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have suppport various forms of life, just like Earth." this explains that the planet has a different form of the earth and it's the reason why Venus is worth to study. In conclusion the author suggests that studying Venus is worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents a challenge planet for the humans to land on it. The author suggests that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents us to have the challenge to study the planet Venus. In the text it said, "Beyond high pressure and heat, Venusian geology and weather present additional impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lighting strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface." this explains that the planet has high pressure and the heat also it adds the weather. Another on the text it said, "More importantly, researchers cannot take samples of rock, gas, or anything else, from a distance." this explains that it's dangerous for the scientists to take anythimg from that planet cause it could be radiation or as different chemicals that scientists didn't know about it. In conclusion the author suggests that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents us to have the challenge to study the planet Venus. | In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus," the author suggests studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. Using details from the article, write an essay evaluating how well the author supports this idea. Be sure to include: a claim that evaluates how well the author supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers; an explanation of the evidence from the article that supports your claim; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your essay. | Exploring Venus | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | Yes | Hispanic/Latino | M | The Challenge of Exploring Venus
Venus, sometimes called the “Evening Star,” is one of the brightest points of light in the night sky, making it simple for even and amateur stargazer to spot. However, this nickname is misleading since Venus is actually a planet. While Venus is simple to see from the distant but safe vantage point of Earth, it has proved a very challenging place to examine more closely.
Often referred to as Earth's “twin,” Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size, and occasionally the closest in distance too. Earth, Venus, and Mars, our other planetary neighbor, orbit the sun at different speeds. These differences in speed mean that sometimes we are closer to Mars and other times to Venus. Because Venus is sometimes right around the corner - in space terms - humans have spent numerous spacecraft to land on this cloud-draped world. Each previous mission was unmanned, and for good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours. Maybe this issue explains why not a single spaceship has touched down of Venus in more than three decades. Numberous factors contribute to Venus's reputation as a challenging planet for humans to study, despite its proximity to us.
A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere. On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet. These conditions are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth; such an environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans and would liquefy many metals. Also notable, Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system, even though Mercury is closer to our sun. Beyond high presure and heat, Venusian geology and weather present additional impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface.
If our sister is so inhospitable, why are scientists even discussing further visits to its surface? Astronomers are fascinated by Venus beccause it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth. Today, Venus still has some features that are analogous to those on Earth. The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters. Furthermore, recall that Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit, a crucial consideration given the long time frames of space travel. The value of returning to Venus seems indisputable, but what are the options for making such a mission both safe and scientifically productive?
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has one particularly compelling idea for sending humans to study Venus. NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray. Imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape. Just as our jet airplanes travel at a higher altitude to fly over many storms, a vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly ground conditions by staying up and out of their way. At thirty-plus miles above the surface, temperatures would still be toasty at around 170 degrees Farenheit, but the air pressure would be close to that of sea level on Earth. Solar power would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth levels. Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans.
However, peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions rendering standard forms of photography and videography ineffective. More importantly, researchers cannot take samples of rock, gas, or anything else, from a distance. Therefore, scientists seeking to conduct a thorough mission to understand Venus would need to get up close and personal despite the risks. Or maybe we should think of them as challenges. Many researchers are working on innovattions that would allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowledge of Venus.
NASA is working on other approaches to studying Venus. For example, some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simuulating the chaos of Venus's surface and have laster for three weeks in such conditions. Another project is looking back to an old technology called mechanical computers. These devices were first envisioned in the 1800s and played an important role int he 1940s during World War II. The thought of computers existing in those days may sound shocking, but these devices make calculations by using gears and levers and do not require electronics at all. Modern commputers are enormously powerful, flexible, and quick, but tend to be more delicate when it comes to extreme physical conditions. Just imagine exposing a cell phone or tablet to acid or heat capable of melting tin. By comparison, systems that use mechanical parts can be made mroe resistant to pressure, heat, and other forces.
Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also because human curiousity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors. Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation. | null | null | null |
AAATRP14318000594420 | 3 | Computers can read your mind?! No, not really, but they can tell how you're feeling. A new technolagy created by Dr. Thomas Huang, allows computes to read your facial expresions. In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile," the author describes how this new technology can be valuable. This technology that we can use to read students emotinal expressions would be valuable.
Because of the students facial expression, the computer can tell if the student is confused from a lesson in class. In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile," Dr. Huang predicts "A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored, then it could modify the lesson". If the computer could understand when the student is having a problem and can effectively fix that issue, then this could be the best way to teach. The use of reading students emotional expressions is valuable, because they can be taught better.
eventhough it may not seem praticle to use this technology, students can actualy learn from it. "the process begins when the computer constructs a 3-D comuter model of the face; all 44 major muscles in the model must move like human muscles... Dr. Paul Eckman, creator of FACS(Facial Action Coding Sytsem) has classified six basic emotions -happiness, suprise, anger, disgust, fear, and sadness- and then associated each with characteristic movements of the facial muscles". Eckman's technology has a lot of information studets can learn. The technology is valuable because the students that use it can learn and better understand diffrent facial expresions made by others.
The use of this technology to read students emotional expressions is valuable. it can teach students about other facial expressions, or whatever they are learning in class. With the help of this new technology we can ensure students to have better grades go to better schools, and in the end make the world a much smarter and better place. | In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile," the author describes how a new technology called the Facial Action Coding System enables computers to identify human emotions. Using details from the article, write an essay arguing whether the use of this technology to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is valuable. | Facial action coding system | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | White | M | Copyright Restricted | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000003670 | 3 | If you like to be with animals such as horses than we would sure have a fun time on the SS Charles W. Wooster. We have to help the animals that are being shiped over seas like horses, cattle, and mules.
When we aren't caring for the animals then we are out site seeing or playing games on the boat. In the empty stals the horese, cattle, and mules aren't in we play games like baceball and volleyball they had table tennis tournaments, fencing tournaments, boxing tournaments, they read, and other games that would help pass the time.
This could be a danger if you aren't careful, one time it was raining and I was on nightwatch then I fell and a strip o melat stoped me from falling overboard. I couldn't work for a couple of days due to cracked ribs from me hitting them of the strip of metal.
But it is not all fun and games so if you like hard word you would love the job of being a Seagoing Cowboy, we have to clean out the stalls the horses and cattle and mules were in and that stinks litterily. We have to carry huge bags of oats and other food for the animals, and boy does my back hurt,whew.
But don't get my wrong this job is fun hangging out with friends. If this job sounds apealing then come on over and help we need it a lot. This job is fun, hard, and worth your time, so please come over. | You have just read the article, 'A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves.' Luke's participation in the Seagoing Cowboys program allowed him to experience adventures and visit many unique places. Using information from the article, write an argument from Luke's point of view convincing others to participate in the Seagoing Cowboys program. Be sure to include: reasons to join the program; details from the article to support Luke's claims; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your essay. | "A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves" | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Hispanic/Latino | F | A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves
by Peggy Reif Miller
Luke Bomberger crossed the Atlantic Ocean 16 times and the Pacific Ocean twice to help people affected by World War II.
Luke Bomberger had no idea that his life would change soon after his high school graduation. He was working two part-time jobs in a grocery store and a bank when his friend Don Reist invited him to go to Europe on a cattle boat. Luke couldn’t say no. He knew it was an opportunity of a lifetime.
It was 1945, World War II was over in Europe, and many countries were left in ruins. To help these countries recover their food supplies, animals, and more, 44 nations joined together to form UNRRA (the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration). UNRRA hired “Seagoing Cowboys” to take care of the horses, young cows, and mules that were shipped overseas. Luke and Don signed up.
Heading Overseas
In August 1945, they received their orders to report to New Orleans. “We arrived August 14,” Luke says, “the day the Pacific war ended.” They got their seaman’s papers and boarded the SS Charles W. Wooster, headed for Greece – with a cargo of 335 horses plus enough hay and oats to feed them.
Luke turned 18 before arriving in Greece, which meant he could be drafted for military service. “When my draft board learned that I was on a cattle-boat trip, they told me to just keep doing that for my service.” By the time he was discharged in 1947, Luke had made nine trips – the most of any Seagoing Cowboy.
“The cattle-boat trips were an unbelievable opportunity for a small-town bow,” he says. “Besides helping people, I had the side benefit of seeing Europe and China. But seeing the Acropolis in Greece was special,” he says. “So was taking a gondola ride in Venice, Italy, a city with streets of water.” Luke also toured an excavated castle in Crete and marveled at the Panama Canal on his way to China.
Traveling the High Seas
It took about two weeks to cross the Atlantic Ocean from the eastern coast of the United States and a month to get to China. Caring for the animals during the crossings kept Luke busy. They had to be fed and watered two or three times a day. Bales of hay and bags of oats had to be pulled up from the lower holds of the ship. Stalls had to be cleaned.
Helping out on his aunt Katie’s farm as a boy had prepared Luke for hard work, but not for the dangers at sea. On his second trip, Luke served at night watchman. His job was to check on all the animals every hour. One rainy night, after making his hourly report to the captain, he slid down a slippery ladder on his backside. Luke’s heart raced as he shot feet first toward an opening on the side of the ship. A small strip of metal along the edge stopped his slide, keeping him from flying overboard into the dark Atlantic. He was happy to be alive. But he couldn’t work for a couple of days because of cracked ribs.
Luke also found time to have fun on board, especially on return trips after the animals had been unloaded. The cowboys played baseball and volleyball games in the empty holds where animals had been housed. Table-tennis tournaments, fencing, boxing, reading, whittling, and games also helped pass the time.
But being a Seagoing Cowboy was much more than an adventure for Luke Bomberger. It opened up the world to him. “I’m grateful for the opportunity,” he says. “It made me more aware of people of other countries and their needs.” And that awareness stayed with him, leading his family to host a number of international students and exchange visitors for many years.
“A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves” by Peggy Reif Miller from Highlights for Children Magazine’s October 2013 issue, copyright 2013 by Highlights for Children, Inc., Colombus, Ohio. Used by permission. | null | null | null |
5341681 | 3 | Limit car usage! While you may think having a car is a necessity, others completely disagree. According to the passage -''In
German, life goes on without cars'', street parking, driveways, and home garages are forbidden in a new district on the outskirts of
Frieburg. 70% Vauban families dont own cars and 57% sold there cars just to move. Many find it better this way. For example,Heidren Walter stated- '' When I had a car, I was always tense. I'm much happier this way.''
In Paris, France, there is more smog then any other European capital. According to the passage- ''Paris bans driving due to smog'', drivers were fined and motorists with even numbered license plates were forced to leave there cars at home. Diesal fuel is to blame for warmer layers of air traping car emissians. Delivery companies complained. However, exceptions were made for plug-in car, hybrids, and cars that can hold three or more people. When the smog cleared,the ruling French party rescinded the ban for odd numbered plates. According to the passage-''car- free day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota''- this is the third year cars have been banned, this sets a goal to promote alternative transportation and to decrease smog. This program influenced two other
Colombian cities to join and participate in trying to end all smog. The reduce of cars impacted Colombia in a positive way.
Therefore, causing the air to blossom and the air to blossom and new construction to occur. In the U.S.A, President Obama's goal is to curb the U.S green house gas emissions. According to the passage-'' The end of car culture'', the U.S has peaked its driving miles in 2005 and dropped there after. A recent study found that driving by young people decreased 23% between 2001 and 2009. However the Mobile congress in Barcelona, Spain, laid out a business plan inwhich bicycles, private cars, and public transportation traffic would save time, conserve resources and save energy.
Concluding to all my information, many countries and states are still trying to reduce car usage. Therefore, reducing smog and pollution . This will not only improve the air , it also solves our time, resource, and safety issues. This will help to improve society aswell. Therefore, we can live without cars. | Write an explanatory essay to inform fellow citizens about the advantages of limiting car usage. Your essay must be based on ideas and information that can be found in the passage set. Manage your time carefully so that you can read the passages; plan your response; write your response; and revise and edit your response. Be sure to use evidence from multiple sources; and avoid overly relying on one source. Your response should be in the form of a multiparagraph essay. Write your essay in the space provided. | Car-free cities | null | null | No | Hispanic/Latino | F | In German
Suburb, Life Goes On
Without Cars
by Elisabeth Rosenthal
VAUBAN, Germany—Residents of this upscale community are suburban pioneers, going
where few soccer moms or commuting executives have ever gone before: they have given up
their cars.
Street parking, driveways and home garages are generally forbidden in this experimental
new district on the outskirts of Freiburg, near the French and Swiss borders. Vauban’s streets are
completely “car-free”—except the main thoroughfare, where the tram to downtown Freiburg runs,
and a few streets on one edge of the community. Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two
places to park—large garages at the edge of the development, where a car-owner buys a space,
for $40,000, along with a home.
As a result, 70 percent of Vauban’s families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to
move here. “When I had a car I was always tense. I’m much happier this way,” said Heidrun
Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of
bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor.
Vauban, completed in 2006, is an example of a growing trend in Europe, the United States
and elsewhere to separate suburban life from auto use, as a component of a movement called
“smart planning.”
Automobiles are the linchpin of suburbs, where middle-class families from Chicago to
Shanghai tend to make their homes. And that, experts say, is a huge impediment to current
efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes . . . . Passenger cars are
responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe . . . and up to 50 percent in
some car-intensive areas in the United States.
While there have been efforts in the past two decades to make cities denser, and better for
walking, planners are now taking the concept to the suburbs . . . . Vauban, home to 5,500 residents within a rectangular square mile, may be the most advanced experiment in low-car
suburban life. But its basic precepts are being adopted around the world in attempts to make
suburbs more compact and more accessible to public transportation, with less space for parking.
In this new approach, stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along
some distant highway.
“All of our development since World War II has been centered on the car, and that will have
to change,” said David Goldberg, an official of Transportation for America, a fast-growing coalition
of hundreds of groups in the United States . . . who are promoting new communities that are less
dependent on cars. Mr. Goldberg added: “How much you drive is as important as whether you
have a hybrid.”
Levittown and Scarsdale, New York suburbs with spread-out homes and private garages,
were the dream towns of the 1950s and still exert a strong appeal. But some new suburbs may
well look more Vauban-like, not only in developed countries but also in the developing world,
where emissions from an increasing number of private cars owned by the burgeoning middle
class are choking cities.
In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency is promoting “car reduced”
communities, and legislators are starting to act, if cautiously. Many experts expect public
transport serving suburbs to play a much larger role in a new six-year federal transportation bill
to be approved this year, Mr. Goldberg said. In previous bills, 80 percent of appropriations have by
law gone to highways and only 20 percent to other transport.
Excerpt from “In German Suburb, Life Goes On
Without Cars” by Elisabeth Rosenthal, from the
New York Times. Copyright © 2009 by the New
York Times Company. Reprinted by permission of
the New York Times Company via Copyright
Clearance Center. | Paris bans
driving due to smog
by Robert Duffer
After days of near-record pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the
global city.
On Monday motorists with even-numbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22-euro fine ($31). The same would apply to odd-numbered plates the following
day.
Almost 4,000 drivers were fined, according to Reuters . . . [Twenty-seven] people had their
cars impounded for their reaction to the fine.
That’s easier to imagine than a car-free Champs-Elysees.
Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after five-days of intensifying
smog . . . [The smog] rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in
the world.
Cold nights and warm days caused the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions.
Diesel fuel was blamed, since France has . . . [a] tax policy that favors diesel over gasoline.
Diesels make up 67 percent of vehicles in France, compared to a 53.3 percent average of diesel
engines in the rest of Western Europe, according to Reuters.
Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals . . . [Last] week Paris had 147
micrograms of particulate matter (PM) per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7
in London, Reuters found.
Delivery companies complained of lost revenue, while exceptions were made for plug-in
cars, hybrids, and cars carrying three or more passengers. Public transit was free of charge from
Friday to Monday, according to the BBC.
The smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday.
Reuters: an international news agency
headquartered in London
Champs-Elysees: a famous street in Paris
congestion: car traffic
Excerpt from “Paris bans driving due to smog” by
Robert Duffer, from the Chicago Tribune.
Copyright © 2014 by the Chicago Tribune.
Reprinted by permission of the Chicago Tribune via
Copyright Clearance Center. | Car-free day is
spinning into a big hit in
Bogota
by Andrew Selsky
BOGOTA, Colombia—In a program that’s set to spread to other countries, millions of
Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a car-free day yesterday, leaving
the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams.
It was the third straight year cars have been banned with only buses and taxis permitted for
the Day Without Cars in this capital city of 7 million. The goal is to promote alternative
transportation and reduce smog. Violators faced $25 fines.
The turnout was large, despite gray clouds that dumped occasional rain showers on Bogota.
“The rain hasn’t stopped people from participating,” said Bogota Mayor Antanas Mockus . . .
.
“It’s a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,” said businessman
Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a two-seat bicycle with his wife.
For the first time, two other Colombian cities, Cali and Valledupar, joined the event.
Municipal authorities from other countries came to Bogota to see the event and were
enthusiastic. “These people are generating a revolutionary change, and this is crossing borders,”
said Enrique Riera, the mayor of Asunción, Paraguay. . . .
The day without cars is part of an improvement campaign that began in Bogota in the mid1990s. It has seen the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths, the most of any Latin American
city, according to Mockus, the city’s mayor.
Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city; uneven, pitted sidewalks
have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks; rush-hour restrictions have dramatically cut
traffic; and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up.
Excerpt from “Car-free day is spinning into a big
hit in Bogota” by Andrew Selsky, from the Seattle
Times. Copyright © 2002 by the Seattle Times
Company. Reprinted by permission of the Seattle
Times Company via Copyright Clearance Center. | The End of Car
Culture
by Elisabeth Rosenthal
President Obama’s ambitious goals to curb the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions,
unveiled last week, will get a fortuitous assist from an incipient shift in American behavior:
recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer
licenses as each year goes by.
That has left researchers pondering a fundamental question: Has America passed peak
driving?
The United States, with its broad expanses and suburban ideals, had long been one of the
world’s prime car cultures. It is the birthplace of the Model T; the home of Detroit; the place
where Wilson Pickett immortalized “Mustang Sally” . . . .
But America’s love affair with its vehicles seems to be cooling. When adjusted for population
growth, the number of miles driven in the United States peaked in 2005 and dropped steadily
thereafter, according to an analysis by Doug Short of Advisor Perspectives, an investment
research company. As of April 2013, the number of miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent
below the peak and equal to where the country was in January 1995. Part of the explanation
certainly lies in the recession, because cash-strapped Americans could not afford new cars, and
the unemployed weren’t going to work anyway. But by many measures the decrease in driving
preceded the downturn and appears to be persisting now that recovery is under way. The next
few years will be telling.
“What most intrigues me is that rates of car ownership per household and per person
started to come down two to three years before the downturn,” said Michael Sivak, who studies
the trend and who is a research professor at the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research
Institute. “I think that means something more fundamental is going on.”
If the pattern persists—and many sociologists believe it will—it will have beneficial
implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest
source of America’s emissions, just behind power plants. But it could have negative implications
for the car industry. Indeed, companies like Ford and Mercedes are already rebranding themselves
“mobility” companies with a broader product range beyond the personal vehicle.
“Different things are converging which suggest that we are witnessing a long-term cultural
shift,” said Mimi Sheller, a sociology professor at Drexel University and director of its Mobilities
Research and Policy Center. She cites various factors: the Internet makes telecommuting possible
and allows people to feel more connected without driving to meet friends. The renewal of center
cities has made the suburbs less appealing and has drawn empty nesters back in. Likewise the
rise in cellphones and car-pooling apps has facilitated more flexible commuting arrangements,
including the evolution of shared van services for getting to work.
With all these changes, people who stopped car commuting as a result of the recession may
find less reason to resume the habit. . . .
New York’s new bike-sharing program and its skyrocketing bridge and tunnel tolls reflect
those new priorities, as do a proliferation of car-sharing programs across the nation.
Demographic shifts in the driving population suggest that the trend may accelerate. There
has been a large drop in the percentage of 16- to 39-year-olds getting a license, while older
people are likely to retain their licenses as they age, Mr. Sivak’s research has found.
He and I have similar observations about our children. Mine (19 and 21) have not bothered
to get a driver’s license, even though they both live in places where one could come in handy.
They are interested, but it’s not a priority. They organize their summer jobs and social life around
where they can walk or take public transportation or car-pool with friends.
Mr. Sivak’s son lives in San Francisco and has a car but takes Bay Area Rapid Transit, when
he can, even though that often takes longer than driving. “When I was in my 20s and 30s,” Mr.
Sivak said, “I was curious about what kind of car people drove, but young people don’t really
care. A car is just a means of getting from A to B when BART doesn’t work.”
A study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001
and 2009. . . .
Whether members of the millennial generation will start buying more cars once they have
kids to take to soccer practice and school plays remains an open question. But such projections
have important business implications, even if car buyers are merely older or buying fewer cars in
a lifetime rather than rejecting car culture outright.
At the Mobile World Congress last year in Barcelona, Spain, Bill Ford, executive chairman of
the Ford Motor Company, laid out a business plan for a world in which personal vehicle ownership
is impractical or undesirable. He proposed partnering with the telecommunications industry to
create cities in which “pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation
traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and
improve safety.”
incipient: at an initial stage; beginning to happen
or develop
Excerpt from “The End of Car Culture” by
Elisabeth Rosenthal, from the New York Times.
Copyright © 2013 by the New York Times
Company. Reprinted by permission of the New
York Times Company via Copyright Clearance
Center. |
AAATRP14318000791088 | 3 | Are you against of this technology to read people's mind? I am against it because there are people out there that suffer and want to get over their life. If that technology read their mind and the world knows it they will suffer more and never get over it. Also, there are many good reasons to agree it and there are many reasons that I disagree. The technology might ruin every person's life.
In addition, I disagree with this technology because in the text, third paragraph says in order to read the expressions your face bone has to be different, but there are a lot of emotions that people don't show, you might be happy or sad and your face still the same. I don't think that tecnology can comprehend people's emotion and people's mind. Basically, the third paragraph says that emotion are base on your bones but I notice when I am sad, happy, disgust or mind blank my face is the same: a face that's blank minded. Most people can't read my mind and I don't think the technology can either.
Another reason that I don't agree with technology reads mind is because there are people who don't want people to know what's in them. For example, if there's a girl is unhappy and in order to make her friends to be happy she do everything and maybe no one will notice and her friends will be glad for her. If the technology reads her minds and let her knows about it, their friendship might be in chaos and ends.
Also, why I am disagree with it because I remeber one time my teacher told me that science is not always 100%. I don't think this technology is accurate because I notice when one of my friend is sad I can tell by the way she talks but not her expressions. In the text says that not only your facial muscles knows your emotion but also produce them, but what if your bone is twisted and have an unhappy seems face but you are actually happy. The article says that facial muscles produce emotion, I disagree with it because when I feel sad or blank most of the time my facial bones still the same.
In conclusion, this technology shouldn't invented because it might not be accurate and says false about people expresson. This technology can only read expression only by bone but not voice or heart so I don't think it's accurate. That's why we shouldn't use this technology because science is not always 100% correct. We should get to know the person's mind better instead of use technology to know theirs. If you don't know what's in them then, that means relationship is not close and it's better to learn their minds and know each other better. | In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile," the author describes how a new technology called the Facial Action Coding System enables computers to identify human emotions. Using details from the article, write an essay arguing whether the use of this technology to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is valuable. | Facial action coding system | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | Yes | Asian/Pacific Islander | F | Copyright Restricted | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000070708 | 2 | The face on Mars is just a natural landform that gives off the apperance of a human face. Some people agree and some people want to go further in so we did.
The reason that the "face" on Mars is just a natural landform, is because we don't think there is a way that aliens could have made it so there was only one way to find out. We sent in spacecrafts to take pictures and many web surfers were anxious to find out. After all the pictures showed us it was just a natural landform.
Not everyone was satisfied though so we decided to look one more time. When we did, we sent out more spacecrafts and took more pictures and zoom in to the maxium. So, once again it was only a natural landform.
So, after all the research, effort, and photos we took it only turned out to be just a bundle of little landforms clutstered together. "So we were right all along." | You have read the article 'Unmasking the Face on Mars.' Imagine you are a scientist at NASA discussing the Face with someone who thinks it was created by aliens. Using information in the article, write an argumentative essay to convince someone that the Face is just a natural landform.Be sure to include: claims to support your argument that the Face is a natural landform; evidence from the article to support your claims; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | The Face on Mars | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Black/African American | F | Unmasking the Face on Mars
Side by side: a Viking 1 photo from 1975, a Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) image from 1998, and the latest MGS image from 2001.
New high-resolution images and 3D altimetry from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft reveal the Face on Mars for what it really is: a mesa.
On May 24, 2001—Twenty five years ago, something funny happened around Mars. NASA’s Viking 1 spacecraft was circling the planet, snapping photos of possible landing sites for its sister ship Viking 2, when it spotted the shadowy likeness of a human face. An enormous head nearly two miles from end to end seemed to be staring back at the cameras from a region of the Red Planet called Cydonia.
There must have been a degree of surprise among mission controllers back at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory when the face appeared on their monitors. But the sensation was short-lived. Scientists figured it was just another Martian mesa, common enough around Cydonia, only this one had unusual shadows that made it look like an Egyptian Pharaoh.
A few days later NASA unveiled the image for all to see. The caption noted a “huge rock formation . . . which resembles a human head . . . formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose, and mouth.” The authors reasoned it would be a good way to engage the public and attract attention to Mars.
It certainly did!
The “Face on Mars” has since become a pop icon. It has starred in a Hollywood film, appeared in books, magazines, radio talk shows – even haunted grocery store checkout lines for 25 years! Some people think the Face is bona fide evidence of life on Mars – evidence that NASA would rather hide, say conspiracy theorists. Meanwhile, defenders of the NASA budget wish there was an ancient civilization on Mars.
A 1976 Viking 1 photograph of the Face on Mars
Although few scientists believed the Face was an alien artifact, photographing Cydonia became a priority for NASA when Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) arrived at the Red Planet in Sept. 1997, eighteen long years after the Viking missions ended. “We felt this was important to taxpayers,” explained Jim Garvin, chief scientist for NASA’s mars Exploration Program. “We photographed the Face as soon as we could get a good shot at it.”
And so on April 5, 1998, when Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia for the first time, Michael Malin and his Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) team snapped a picture ten times sharper than the original Viking photos. Thousands of anxious web surfers were waiting when the image first appeared on a JPL web site, revealing . . . a natural landform. There was no alien monument after all.
But not everyone was satisfied. The Face on Mars is located at 41 degrees north martial latitude where it was winter in April ‘98 – a cloudy time of year on the Red Planet. The camera on board MGS had to peer through wispy clouds to see the Face. Perhaps, said skeptics, alien markings were hidden by haze.
Mission controllers prepared to look again. “It’s not easy to target Cydonia,” says Garvin. “In fact, it’s hard work.” Mars Global Surveyor is a mapping spacecraft that normally looks straight down and scans the planet like a fax machine in narrow 2.5 km-wide strips. “We don’t pass over the Face very often,” he noted.
Nevertheless, on April 8, 2001 – a cloudless summer day in Cydonia – Mars Global Surveyor drew close enough for a second look. “We had to roll the spacecraft 25 degrees to center the Face in the field of view,” said Garvin. “Malin’s team captured an extraordinary photo using the camera’s absolute maximum resolution.” Each pixel in the 2001 image spans 1.56 meters, compared to the 43 meters per pixel in the best 1976 Viking photo.
“As a rule of thumb, you can discern things in a digital image 3 times bigger than the pixel size,” he added. “So, if there were objects in this picture like airplanes on the ground or Egyptian-style pyramids or even small shacks, you could see what they were!”
What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa – landforms common around the American West. “It reminds me of most of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho,” says Garvin. “That’s a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars.”
Text and photographs courtsey of NASA, “Unmasking the Face on Mars,” May 24, 2001 (retrieved from science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast24may_1/) | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000036471 | 5 | Development of cars will improve our society and make everyday life much easier. People will be much happier and more free with cars that drive them everywhere without worrying about traffic. The advantage of having a car that will talk to you if anything goes wrong is beyond amazing. This break through will lower many accidents and safety always has to be first. The development of cars should be continued further because it will help people with disabilities to go through life easier, the frustrations of always being alert while driving could be made easier, and the technology developing more could lead to other break throughs.
A supporting idea is how people with disabilities alwasy have it harder than others when driving cars. It doesn't matter if your old or even deaf, anybody with a disability will tell you it is harder to drive under circumstances like these. In the deaf world, the deaf people believe that they can do anything a hearing person can do and that is true but in driving accidents happen all the time. Not being able to hear just makes it worse. If someone did not hear a car behind them honking because there is something coming towards the car or the traffic light is green and he hasn't noticed, many things can go wrong at that moment. Having a car that will alert you with flashing lights will be a much safer choice than leaving it to how alert a person is. Everyone is human and everyone makes mistakes but in the development of cars mistakes will be avoided. The mistakes that will be avoided can even save lives. Senior citizens will probably say that having a technology based car that would make it easier for them to get in and out of their car is what they have alwasy wanted. When a person is old and fragile they want to be treated with grace, cars that are more developed will hopefully give their hips a rest from the other cars that are hard to drive and sit in.
Another aspect that will go away with furthur developed cars is the frustrations of a driver always having to be alert. People will make mistakes in driving and with a car that will be watching a driver and ready to correct that mistake, it will make it much more safer for the driver and others that could be potentially hurt from someone's mistake. Accidents can happen in a second and if these futuristic cars can prevent all the deaths each year, then why not furthur develop cars. The developments will have drivers that are at ease. Not always having to be alert and jumpy at the wheel makes everyone happy. The way google uses their cars to have alerts will be perfect for any driver. The story talked about how flashing lights will be put into the cars and sounds to alert the driver of any mishaps. If the technology reaches to even more developments it will be great, for example the drivers will not even have to drive.
The third supporting idea will be how the development of cars could lead to more break throughs in anyway. The cure for cancer could just need a tweak and the develpoment of cars could push that nodge. Yes, cars are totally different than diseases but if one truley thinks about it human beings could begin to furthur develop their brains more in any aspect of technology. Leading forward will have scientists and manufacturers working together in furthur developing cures and even inventions that will help any person with a disability. The help that will be pushed from all this technology just makes the idea of developing these cars more. The technology that will be developed will inspire many things. The break throughs will come from more ideas once developed.
Many people will apose the idea of developing the technology of cars. People believe that people will become lazy but the truth is people are already lazy. Many people die from car accidents and most of the time it is because someone was lazy to focus on the road instead of the radio or forgot that they were drinking. Break throughs with cars will allow people to save lives and put safety fisrt. The development of car should not be stopped but continused because furthur developed cars will help people with disabilities, it will allow alerts to be made for the driver to always be on the watch, it will also lead to other break throughs down the line. Supporting the idea of developing cars should be voted for and people need to realize that change is good. | In the article “Driverless Cars are Coming,” the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. Using details from the article, create an argument for or against the development of these cars. Be sure to include: your position on driverless cars; appropriate details from the article that support your position; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | Driverless cars | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | White | F | Driverless Cars Are Coming
Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore? Google cofounder Sergey Brin can. He envisions a future with a public transportation system where fleets of driverless cars form a public-transport taxi system. The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today’s taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus. He believes such cars would fundamentally change the world.
Television and movies have long been fascinated with cars that could drive themselves. In reality, Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash, but so far, Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents. So what roadblocks lie ahead for the autonomous car?
Sensing the World
Let's begin by looking at which companies are making computer-driven cars. Originally, many futurists believed the key to developing self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as smarter roads. For example, in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. The track was embedded with an electrical cable that sent radio signals to a receiver on the front end of the car. Engineers at Berkeley tried something similar, but they used magnets with alternating polarity. The car read the positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code. These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical.
Without the option of smarter roads, manufacturers turned to smarter cars—but how much smarter did the cars need to be? For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors. Google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. The most important bit of technology in this system is the spinning sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR, it uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the car's surroundings. The combination of all this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel.
Sensors are nothing new, of course. In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheels in the creation of antilock brakes. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone. Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own.
Driving or Assisting?
Antilock brakes and driver assistance still seem a long way from the dream of calling a driverless cab to take us wherever we desire, but Sebastian Thrun, founder of the Google Car project, believes that the technology has finally begun to catch up to the dream. “There was no way, before 2000, to make something interesting. The sensors weren't there, the computers weren't there, and the mapping wasn't there. Radar was a device on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack.” So just how driverless will the cars be in the near future?
In 2013, BMW announced the development of “Traffic Jam Assistant.” The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. This necessitates the car being ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs. GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object. The Google car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over. Other options under consideration are flashing lights on the windshield and other heads-up displays. Manufacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver.
Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn’t drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive? “The psychological aspects of automation are really a challenge,” admits Dr. Werner Huber, a BMW project manager driver. “We have to interpret the driving fun in a new way.” Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays. Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over—something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. In this way, the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern.
Waiting on the Law
Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars. California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have led the country in allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars; manufacturers believe that more states will follow as soon as the cars are proved more reliably safe. Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault—the driver or the manufacturer?
Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved. Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. The road to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us, but we grow closer to the destination every day. | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000179246 | 3 | Driverless cars is an idea that makes society feel like it is moving forward in the future. Like the iPhone, driverless cars can be a breakthrough for the world, but are they necessary? Do we really need a car that can drive itself and almost have control of our lives in the car? No, I believe that the idea driverless cars is an idea that seems like something we need, but we do not.
Driverless cars have been talked about for a very long time, but we must focus on other breakthroughs in technology. "If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault—the driver or the manufacturer?" This final sentence in paragraph 9 asks us the question that could be brought up countless times when people are injured or killed in a car crash involving a driverless car. People should be able to have full control of their vehicle. In today's world, technology can be reliable, but it is not always perfect. Hackers are a problem too. As society moves forward in technology, everyone does, including people who want to use technology for more bad than good. We also should not be able to take the fun away from learning how to drive, because as we move forward in the idea of driverless cars, soon enough, these car manufacturers will make a car that is completely driverless and that is not safe.
In conclusion, driverless cars are not something we should move forward on too fast. The idea might be a new step in technology, but is the world ready for these types of vehicles? If something fails in a driverless car, who's to blame? Our world should not progress to those questions. Instead we should work on moving forward in different ideas. Though this idea of driverless cars might be inevitable, we must not have them take control of what we do on the road. It is a danger to drivers and pedestrians. | In the article “Driverless Cars are Coming,” the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. Using details from the article, create an argument for or against the development of these cars. Be sure to include: your position on driverless cars; appropriate details from the article that support your position; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | Driverless cars | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | null | Black/African American | M | Driverless Cars Are Coming
Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore? Google cofounder Sergey Brin can. He envisions a future with a public transportation system where fleets of driverless cars form a public-transport taxi system. The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today’s taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus. He believes such cars would fundamentally change the world.
Television and movies have long been fascinated with cars that could drive themselves. In reality, Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash, but so far, Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents. So what roadblocks lie ahead for the autonomous car?
Sensing the World
Let's begin by looking at which companies are making computer-driven cars. Originally, many futurists believed the key to developing self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as smarter roads. For example, in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. The track was embedded with an electrical cable that sent radio signals to a receiver on the front end of the car. Engineers at Berkeley tried something similar, but they used magnets with alternating polarity. The car read the positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code. These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical.
Without the option of smarter roads, manufacturers turned to smarter cars—but how much smarter did the cars need to be? For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors. Google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. The most important bit of technology in this system is the spinning sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR, it uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the car's surroundings. The combination of all this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel.
Sensors are nothing new, of course. In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheels in the creation of antilock brakes. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone. Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own.
Driving or Assisting?
Antilock brakes and driver assistance still seem a long way from the dream of calling a driverless cab to take us wherever we desire, but Sebastian Thrun, founder of the Google Car project, believes that the technology has finally begun to catch up to the dream. “There was no way, before 2000, to make something interesting. The sensors weren't there, the computers weren't there, and the mapping wasn't there. Radar was a device on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack.” So just how driverless will the cars be in the near future?
In 2013, BMW announced the development of “Traffic Jam Assistant.” The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. This necessitates the car being ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs. GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object. The Google car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over. Other options under consideration are flashing lights on the windshield and other heads-up displays. Manufacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver.
Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn’t drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive? “The psychological aspects of automation are really a challenge,” admits Dr. Werner Huber, a BMW project manager driver. “We have to interpret the driving fun in a new way.” Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays. Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over—something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. In this way, the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern.
Waiting on the Law
Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars. California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have led the country in allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars; manufacturers believe that more states will follow as soon as the cars are proved more reliably safe. Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault—the driver or the manufacturer?
Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved. Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. The road to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us, but we grow closer to the destination every day. | null | null | null |
AAAVUP14319000123404 | 3 | Do u ever want to go exploring Venus? Venus is a planet in our solar system. Venus is very challenging place to go. Earth and Venus are close bye. Venus is called the evening star one if the brightest point of light in the night sky. Venus is fun place to go exploring. Venus is the second planet from our sun.
Exploring planet is very danger. People can be die by exploring or can get injury. Its is so imporant. If some thing wrong people have to give their life away. In pargrpah 3" a thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmoosphere." When you are going to exploring venus or othe planet you have to be careful. When some thing happend you will give you life away. Its so imporant
Theres some people name NASA they have explored Venus or other planet. They said that some simplified electronics mad of silicon carbide have been tested in chamber simulating the chaos of venus suface. They have a devices were first envisioned in the 1800s and played an important role in the 1440s during World War 2. Venus systems that used mechanical parts can be made mor resistant to pressure,heat,and other forces.
When you get to Venus you are flying you can't walk. The Venus a ship orbiting or hovering safely far abouve the planet can provide only limited insight on ground. In pargrpah 6" More mportantly, researchers cannot take samples of rock,gas,or anything else from a distance. Many researchers are working on innovations that would allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowledge of Venus.
I'll love to go explored Venus it look fun. Explored another planet is good you can learn new thing. You don't have to walk you will be fly so it will be fun. It will be danger but u cant get new thing or learn new thing. I'll love to explored . | In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus," the author suggests studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. Using details from the article, write an essay evaluating how well the author supports this idea. Be sure to include: a claim that evaluates how well the author supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers; an explanation of the evidence from the article that supports your claim; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your essay. | Exploring Venus | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | Yes | Asian/Pacific Islander | M | The Challenge of Exploring Venus
Venus, sometimes called the “Evening Star,” is one of the brightest points of light in the night sky, making it simple for even and amateur stargazer to spot. However, this nickname is misleading since Venus is actually a planet. While Venus is simple to see from the distant but safe vantage point of Earth, it has proved a very challenging place to examine more closely.
Often referred to as Earth's “twin,” Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size, and occasionally the closest in distance too. Earth, Venus, and Mars, our other planetary neighbor, orbit the sun at different speeds. These differences in speed mean that sometimes we are closer to Mars and other times to Venus. Because Venus is sometimes right around the corner - in space terms - humans have spent numerous spacecraft to land on this cloud-draped world. Each previous mission was unmanned, and for good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours. Maybe this issue explains why not a single spaceship has touched down of Venus in more than three decades. Numberous factors contribute to Venus's reputation as a challenging planet for humans to study, despite its proximity to us.
A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere. On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet. These conditions are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth; such an environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans and would liquefy many metals. Also notable, Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system, even though Mercury is closer to our sun. Beyond high presure and heat, Venusian geology and weather present additional impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface.
If our sister is so inhospitable, why are scientists even discussing further visits to its surface? Astronomers are fascinated by Venus beccause it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth. Today, Venus still has some features that are analogous to those on Earth. The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters. Furthermore, recall that Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit, a crucial consideration given the long time frames of space travel. The value of returning to Venus seems indisputable, but what are the options for making such a mission both safe and scientifically productive?
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has one particularly compelling idea for sending humans to study Venus. NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray. Imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape. Just as our jet airplanes travel at a higher altitude to fly over many storms, a vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly ground conditions by staying up and out of their way. At thirty-plus miles above the surface, temperatures would still be toasty at around 170 degrees Farenheit, but the air pressure would be close to that of sea level on Earth. Solar power would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth levels. Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans.
However, peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions rendering standard forms of photography and videography ineffective. More importantly, researchers cannot take samples of rock, gas, or anything else, from a distance. Therefore, scientists seeking to conduct a thorough mission to understand Venus would need to get up close and personal despite the risks. Or maybe we should think of them as challenges. Many researchers are working on innovattions that would allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowledge of Venus.
NASA is working on other approaches to studying Venus. For example, some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simuulating the chaos of Venus's surface and have laster for three weeks in such conditions. Another project is looking back to an old technology called mechanical computers. These devices were first envisioned in the 1800s and played an important role int he 1940s during World War II. The thought of computers existing in those days may sound shocking, but these devices make calculations by using gears and levers and do not require electronics at all. Modern commputers are enormously powerful, flexible, and quick, but tend to be more delicate when it comes to extreme physical conditions. Just imagine exposing a cell phone or tablet to acid or heat capable of melting tin. By comparison, systems that use mechanical parts can be made mroe resistant to pressure, heat, and other forces.
Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also because human curiousity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors. Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation. | null | null | null |
AAAVUP14319000093942 | 3 | The planet of Venus is one of the most intresting planets in our solar system. Being that it is our sister planet and closest to us, scientist want to study this planet more. The only issue they have is the conditions, Venus is a very harsh planet. But
scientist do not want to see this as an ending point. It is the closest planet to us. We have landed things on that planet before and it also means its another step forward into space exploration.
Venus is the closest planet to us in our solar system. It's even visible from the night sky on Earth. Being that it is so close to us, our scientist want to study the planet more. The only issue is the conditions on Venus. Many of the ships that we have landed there have only lasted a few hours due to the harsh conditions. scientist are looking for ways to make them last longer and theres been ideas.
The author explains many great ideas astronomers and scientist have come up with. Theres been thoughts about using old technology instead of computers so that they last longer. Theres thoughts about being at a high altitude to avoid many of the harsh conditions on the ground. Old technology would be more useful to study Venus because they aren't as delicate as computers. This would help astronomers with studying the planet. Many ideas are still being thought of and the author has hope that scientist will overcome the obstecles.
Humans have overcome many challenges and the author says that space exploration is just the next big challenge to face. He states in the text that Venus would be one of the best ideas for space exploration because how similar it is to Earth and hopes that we will be able to visit the planet someday. The author also says that dangers shouldn't be an excuse for us not to go. He wants to give hope for humans and find a way to get passed the dangers of the planet. Human curiosity is also another reason mankind will vistit Venus, the author knows how far curiosity has gotten us and he hopes it will get us farther.
This comes to that Venus could be the next focus for space explorataion. Scientist will be able to study the planet easier. Human will someday visit Venus. The author has many good reasons why Venus should be studied more. | In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus," the author suggests studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. Using details from the article, write an essay evaluating how well the author supports this idea. Be sure to include: a claim that evaluates how well the author supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers; an explanation of the evidence from the article that supports your claim; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your essay. | Exploring Venus | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Hispanic/Latino | M | The Challenge of Exploring Venus
Venus, sometimes called the “Evening Star,” is one of the brightest points of light in the night sky, making it simple for even and amateur stargazer to spot. However, this nickname is misleading since Venus is actually a planet. While Venus is simple to see from the distant but safe vantage point of Earth, it has proved a very challenging place to examine more closely.
Often referred to as Earth's “twin,” Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size, and occasionally the closest in distance too. Earth, Venus, and Mars, our other planetary neighbor, orbit the sun at different speeds. These differences in speed mean that sometimes we are closer to Mars and other times to Venus. Because Venus is sometimes right around the corner - in space terms - humans have spent numerous spacecraft to land on this cloud-draped world. Each previous mission was unmanned, and for good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours. Maybe this issue explains why not a single spaceship has touched down of Venus in more than three decades. Numberous factors contribute to Venus's reputation as a challenging planet for humans to study, despite its proximity to us.
A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere. On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet. These conditions are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth; such an environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans and would liquefy many metals. Also notable, Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system, even though Mercury is closer to our sun. Beyond high presure and heat, Venusian geology and weather present additional impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface.
If our sister is so inhospitable, why are scientists even discussing further visits to its surface? Astronomers are fascinated by Venus beccause it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth. Today, Venus still has some features that are analogous to those on Earth. The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters. Furthermore, recall that Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit, a crucial consideration given the long time frames of space travel. The value of returning to Venus seems indisputable, but what are the options for making such a mission both safe and scientifically productive?
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has one particularly compelling idea for sending humans to study Venus. NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray. Imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape. Just as our jet airplanes travel at a higher altitude to fly over many storms, a vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly ground conditions by staying up and out of their way. At thirty-plus miles above the surface, temperatures would still be toasty at around 170 degrees Farenheit, but the air pressure would be close to that of sea level on Earth. Solar power would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth levels. Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans.
However, peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions rendering standard forms of photography and videography ineffective. More importantly, researchers cannot take samples of rock, gas, or anything else, from a distance. Therefore, scientists seeking to conduct a thorough mission to understand Venus would need to get up close and personal despite the risks. Or maybe we should think of them as challenges. Many researchers are working on innovattions that would allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowledge of Venus.
NASA is working on other approaches to studying Venus. For example, some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simuulating the chaos of Venus's surface and have laster for three weeks in such conditions. Another project is looking back to an old technology called mechanical computers. These devices were first envisioned in the 1800s and played an important role int he 1940s during World War II. The thought of computers existing in those days may sound shocking, but these devices make calculations by using gears and levers and do not require electronics at all. Modern commputers are enormously powerful, flexible, and quick, but tend to be more delicate when it comes to extreme physical conditions. Just imagine exposing a cell phone or tablet to acid or heat capable of melting tin. By comparison, systems that use mechanical parts can be made mroe resistant to pressure, heat, and other forces.
Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also because human curiousity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors. Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation. | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000217736 | 3 | People should participate in the Seagoing Cowboy program because you will get travel the world and go different places. People should also participate in the Seagoing Cowboy program because people can spend time with animals.You will have a great time at the Seagoing Cowboy program
You can travel many places if you participate in the Seagoing Cowboy promgram.The text states Luke turned 18 before arriving in Geece. The text also states, In August 1945,they received their orders to report to New Orleans.The text also states, It took about two weeks to cross the Atlantic Ocean from the eastern coast of the United States and a month to get to China.This shows that you will travel many place at the Seagoing Cowboy program.
In the Seagoing Cowboy program you will also be with animals.The text states, UNRRA hired " Seagoing Cowboys"to take care of the hores,young cows, and mules that were shipped overseas. The text also states, Caring for the animals during the crossing kept Luke busy. They had to be fed and watered two or three times a day.The text also states, His job was to check on all the animals every hour.This shows that on the Seagoing Cowboy program you can be with animals.
This is why you should participate in the Seagoing Cowboy program because you will travel the world. If you participate you will be with some animals.If you participate you will have a lot of fun at the Seagoing Cowboy program.This will be a great time for you. | You have just read the article, 'A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves.' Luke's participation in the Seagoing Cowboys program allowed him to experience adventures and visit many unique places. Using information from the article, write an argument from Luke's point of view convincing others to participate in the Seagoing Cowboys program. Be sure to include: reasons to join the program; details from the article to support Luke's claims; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your essay. | "A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves" | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Black/African American | M | A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves
by Peggy Reif Miller
Luke Bomberger crossed the Atlantic Ocean 16 times and the Pacific Ocean twice to help people affected by World War II.
Luke Bomberger had no idea that his life would change soon after his high school graduation. He was working two part-time jobs in a grocery store and a bank when his friend Don Reist invited him to go to Europe on a cattle boat. Luke couldn’t say no. He knew it was an opportunity of a lifetime.
It was 1945, World War II was over in Europe, and many countries were left in ruins. To help these countries recover their food supplies, animals, and more, 44 nations joined together to form UNRRA (the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration). UNRRA hired “Seagoing Cowboys” to take care of the horses, young cows, and mules that were shipped overseas. Luke and Don signed up.
Heading Overseas
In August 1945, they received their orders to report to New Orleans. “We arrived August 14,” Luke says, “the day the Pacific war ended.” They got their seaman’s papers and boarded the SS Charles W. Wooster, headed for Greece – with a cargo of 335 horses plus enough hay and oats to feed them.
Luke turned 18 before arriving in Greece, which meant he could be drafted for military service. “When my draft board learned that I was on a cattle-boat trip, they told me to just keep doing that for my service.” By the time he was discharged in 1947, Luke had made nine trips – the most of any Seagoing Cowboy.
“The cattle-boat trips were an unbelievable opportunity for a small-town bow,” he says. “Besides helping people, I had the side benefit of seeing Europe and China. But seeing the Acropolis in Greece was special,” he says. “So was taking a gondola ride in Venice, Italy, a city with streets of water.” Luke also toured an excavated castle in Crete and marveled at the Panama Canal on his way to China.
Traveling the High Seas
It took about two weeks to cross the Atlantic Ocean from the eastern coast of the United States and a month to get to China. Caring for the animals during the crossings kept Luke busy. They had to be fed and watered two or three times a day. Bales of hay and bags of oats had to be pulled up from the lower holds of the ship. Stalls had to be cleaned.
Helping out on his aunt Katie’s farm as a boy had prepared Luke for hard work, but not for the dangers at sea. On his second trip, Luke served at night watchman. His job was to check on all the animals every hour. One rainy night, after making his hourly report to the captain, he slid down a slippery ladder on his backside. Luke’s heart raced as he shot feet first toward an opening on the side of the ship. A small strip of metal along the edge stopped his slide, keeping him from flying overboard into the dark Atlantic. He was happy to be alive. But he couldn’t work for a couple of days because of cracked ribs.
Luke also found time to have fun on board, especially on return trips after the animals had been unloaded. The cowboys played baseball and volleyball games in the empty holds where animals had been housed. Table-tennis tournaments, fencing, boxing, reading, whittling, and games also helped pass the time.
But being a Seagoing Cowboy was much more than an adventure for Luke Bomberger. It opened up the world to him. “I’m grateful for the opportunity,” he says. “It made me more aware of people of other countries and their needs.” And that awareness stayed with him, leading his family to host a number of international students and exchange visitors for many years.
“A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves” by Peggy Reif Miller from Highlights for Children Magazine’s October 2013 issue, copyright 2013 by Highlights for Children, Inc., Colombus, Ohio. Used by permission. | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000020266 | 3 | I think you should join the Seagoing Cowboys Program. If you think you shouldn't I will give you two
very good reasons why you should. But remember it's a once in a life time thing.
First of if your the kind of person that likes to save the community or help others this is the perfect job for it. If get you join the club you'll be saving lots of animals, people, plants,and habitats. The cows can be saved by building a farm. The animals like dear, wolfs, and squirrels and all the other animals can be saved by the forest. Sharks and fish and the other sea living animals can be saved by not putting polluted thing in the water. Snakes and the coyotes can be saved by helping the desert animals.
Second, if your the kind of guy or women that likes to climb, or go on journeys, and swim then this also the perfect club. You'll go climb mountains and sail on huge boats and for fun catch fish.
Those are the two amazing reasons now i'll see you there hope you have fun! | You have just read the article, 'A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves.' Luke's participation in the Seagoing Cowboys program allowed him to experience adventures and visit many unique places. Using information from the article, write an argument from Luke's point of view convincing others to participate in the Seagoing Cowboys program. Be sure to include: reasons to join the program; details from the article to support Luke's claims; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your essay. | "A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves" | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Black/African American | M | A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves
by Peggy Reif Miller
Luke Bomberger crossed the Atlantic Ocean 16 times and the Pacific Ocean twice to help people affected by World War II.
Luke Bomberger had no idea that his life would change soon after his high school graduation. He was working two part-time jobs in a grocery store and a bank when his friend Don Reist invited him to go to Europe on a cattle boat. Luke couldn’t say no. He knew it was an opportunity of a lifetime.
It was 1945, World War II was over in Europe, and many countries were left in ruins. To help these countries recover their food supplies, animals, and more, 44 nations joined together to form UNRRA (the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration). UNRRA hired “Seagoing Cowboys” to take care of the horses, young cows, and mules that were shipped overseas. Luke and Don signed up.
Heading Overseas
In August 1945, they received their orders to report to New Orleans. “We arrived August 14,” Luke says, “the day the Pacific war ended.” They got their seaman’s papers and boarded the SS Charles W. Wooster, headed for Greece – with a cargo of 335 horses plus enough hay and oats to feed them.
Luke turned 18 before arriving in Greece, which meant he could be drafted for military service. “When my draft board learned that I was on a cattle-boat trip, they told me to just keep doing that for my service.” By the time he was discharged in 1947, Luke had made nine trips – the most of any Seagoing Cowboy.
“The cattle-boat trips were an unbelievable opportunity for a small-town bow,” he says. “Besides helping people, I had the side benefit of seeing Europe and China. But seeing the Acropolis in Greece was special,” he says. “So was taking a gondola ride in Venice, Italy, a city with streets of water.” Luke also toured an excavated castle in Crete and marveled at the Panama Canal on his way to China.
Traveling the High Seas
It took about two weeks to cross the Atlantic Ocean from the eastern coast of the United States and a month to get to China. Caring for the animals during the crossings kept Luke busy. They had to be fed and watered two or three times a day. Bales of hay and bags of oats had to be pulled up from the lower holds of the ship. Stalls had to be cleaned.
Helping out on his aunt Katie’s farm as a boy had prepared Luke for hard work, but not for the dangers at sea. On his second trip, Luke served at night watchman. His job was to check on all the animals every hour. One rainy night, after making his hourly report to the captain, he slid down a slippery ladder on his backside. Luke’s heart raced as he shot feet first toward an opening on the side of the ship. A small strip of metal along the edge stopped his slide, keeping him from flying overboard into the dark Atlantic. He was happy to be alive. But he couldn’t work for a couple of days because of cracked ribs.
Luke also found time to have fun on board, especially on return trips after the animals had been unloaded. The cowboys played baseball and volleyball games in the empty holds where animals had been housed. Table-tennis tournaments, fencing, boxing, reading, whittling, and games also helped pass the time.
But being a Seagoing Cowboy was much more than an adventure for Luke Bomberger. It opened up the world to him. “I’m grateful for the opportunity,” he says. “It made me more aware of people of other countries and their needs.” And that awareness stayed with him, leading his family to host a number of international students and exchange visitors for many years.
“A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves” by Peggy Reif Miller from Highlights for Children Magazine’s October 2013 issue, copyright 2013 by Highlights for Children, Inc., Colombus, Ohio. Used by permission. | null | null | null |
AAATRP14318000192573 | 3 | Facial action coding systems on computers in classrooms would be a very helpful tool. Some classes wouldn't even need teachers any longer. When the student looks confused the computer could change up the lesson or help you out. If the student is smiling the computer could tell they are doing well and move them on to the next lesson in the chapter. It would be very helpful to schools around the United states to have the Facial actions coding system.
According to the text the facial action coding system can identify six different emotions, happiness, surprise, anger, disgust, fear, and sadness. When your cheek muscles are raised and your eyes are slightly squinted the computer can tell that you are smiling and are happy. If your eyes are norma;l and your mouth is just opened side to side then the compuer knows it is a fake smile. If your eyebrows are raised up than you are surprised. When your eyebrows are sloped downward towards your nose and your lips are tightened it shows anger and the computer will know you are angry with the lesson. When your fearfull maybe the computer can sense that your lip is trembling or your eyes are looking around a lot.
in conclusion, The facial action coding system would be very helpful to schools and students around the world. it could even possibly be a very important part of our everyday life. Kids might go to school and their teacher may be a computer. Schools would save money in the long run not having to employ teaching staff year round. Students could learn better because the computer could adjust the lesson if they are confused or it is to easy for them. When kids are angry the computer could play a short but relaxing video to calm them down and give them examples on the lesson. | In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile," the author describes how a new technology called the Facial Action Coding System enables computers to identify human emotions. Using details from the article, write an essay arguing whether the use of this technology to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is valuable. | Facial action coding system | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | White | M | Copyright Restricted | null | null | null |
5179277 | 3 | The invention of the automobile was one of the most important inventions of all time. Everyone uses cars! They're everywhere! But what are the effects of car emissions? Are they even worth using if they cause negative effects on people and our environment? Many people are trying to cut back on driving, or even live without cars. Why are they doing this? Well, let me inform you about some of the advanrtages of limited car usage throughout the world.
In Vauban, Germany, there is a suburb where people have decided to ban cars all together. The neighborhood roads are completely car-free and even having a garage is usually not allowed. About 5500 people live in this suburb and 70% of these people do not own cars. For the other 30%, there is a parking garage that is located on the edge of the community that requires a $40,000 payment to use. This trend is growing immensely in Europe and there could quite possibly be several communites that would mirror Vauban and what it is all about. This effort to ban cars is based on the idea of reducing pollution as well as reducing stress, and many members of the community insist they live happier and less stressful lives since moving into Vauban.
Bogota, Columbia is the home to nearly 7 million people, and in Bogota there is an annual car-free day, with hopes to reduce smog and promote alternative transportation. There is also hope that this idea will spread to other cities and to other countries around the world. For the people who decide not to participate in the annual car-free day, a fine of $25 would be handed out. This "holiday" if you will, could be revolutionary potentially and if implemented year round, could really put a dent in the ammount of pollution throughout the city. Even the mayor of Asuncion, Paraguay revered the program, saying it is "generating a revolutionary change".
Officials in Paris, France put a partial driving ban on the city in an effort to reduce smog in the city. The ban worked like this, on Monday, drivers with even-numbered license plates would not be allowed on the road. The next day, it would be the drivers eith odd-numbered license plates that would have to leave their cars at home. Nearly 4000 people were fined due to the enforcement of this ban, for somewhere around $120,000 total. The strictness of the ban was due to the seriousness of the smog and the fact that it was intensifying. The dissapearance of the smog resulted in loosening of the ban and less negative feedback from drivers.
As you can see, these places have been limiting car usage and found at least some sort of benefit from doing so. Maybe if these restrictions or all together bans were implemented in more places, pollution in the world would be hindered. | Write an explanatory essay to inform fellow citizens about the advantages of limiting car usage. Your essay must be based on ideas and information that can be found in the passage set. Manage your time carefully so that you can read the passages; plan your response; write your response; and revise and edit your response. Be sure to use evidence from multiple sources; and avoid overly relying on one source. Your response should be in the form of a multiparagraph essay. Write your essay in the space provided. | Car-free cities | null | null | No | White | M | In German
Suburb, Life Goes On
Without Cars
by Elisabeth Rosenthal
VAUBAN, Germany—Residents of this upscale community are suburban pioneers, going
where few soccer moms or commuting executives have ever gone before: they have given up
their cars.
Street parking, driveways and home garages are generally forbidden in this experimental
new district on the outskirts of Freiburg, near the French and Swiss borders. Vauban’s streets are
completely “car-free”—except the main thoroughfare, where the tram to downtown Freiburg runs,
and a few streets on one edge of the community. Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two
places to park—large garages at the edge of the development, where a car-owner buys a space,
for $40,000, along with a home.
As a result, 70 percent of Vauban’s families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to
move here. “When I had a car I was always tense. I’m much happier this way,” said Heidrun
Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of
bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor.
Vauban, completed in 2006, is an example of a growing trend in Europe, the United States
and elsewhere to separate suburban life from auto use, as a component of a movement called
“smart planning.”
Automobiles are the linchpin of suburbs, where middle-class families from Chicago to
Shanghai tend to make their homes. And that, experts say, is a huge impediment to current
efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes . . . . Passenger cars are
responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe . . . and up to 50 percent in
some car-intensive areas in the United States.
While there have been efforts in the past two decades to make cities denser, and better for
walking, planners are now taking the concept to the suburbs . . . . Vauban, home to 5,500 residents within a rectangular square mile, may be the most advanced experiment in low-car
suburban life. But its basic precepts are being adopted around the world in attempts to make
suburbs more compact and more accessible to public transportation, with less space for parking.
In this new approach, stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along
some distant highway.
“All of our development since World War II has been centered on the car, and that will have
to change,” said David Goldberg, an official of Transportation for America, a fast-growing coalition
of hundreds of groups in the United States . . . who are promoting new communities that are less
dependent on cars. Mr. Goldberg added: “How much you drive is as important as whether you
have a hybrid.”
Levittown and Scarsdale, New York suburbs with spread-out homes and private garages,
were the dream towns of the 1950s and still exert a strong appeal. But some new suburbs may
well look more Vauban-like, not only in developed countries but also in the developing world,
where emissions from an increasing number of private cars owned by the burgeoning middle
class are choking cities.
In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency is promoting “car reduced”
communities, and legislators are starting to act, if cautiously. Many experts expect public
transport serving suburbs to play a much larger role in a new six-year federal transportation bill
to be approved this year, Mr. Goldberg said. In previous bills, 80 percent of appropriations have by
law gone to highways and only 20 percent to other transport.
Excerpt from “In German Suburb, Life Goes On
Without Cars” by Elisabeth Rosenthal, from the
New York Times. Copyright © 2009 by the New
York Times Company. Reprinted by permission of
the New York Times Company via Copyright
Clearance Center. | Paris bans
driving due to smog
by Robert Duffer
After days of near-record pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the
global city.
On Monday motorists with even-numbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22-euro fine ($31). The same would apply to odd-numbered plates the following
day.
Almost 4,000 drivers were fined, according to Reuters . . . [Twenty-seven] people had their
cars impounded for their reaction to the fine.
That’s easier to imagine than a car-free Champs-Elysees.
Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after five-days of intensifying
smog . . . [The smog] rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in
the world.
Cold nights and warm days caused the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions.
Diesel fuel was blamed, since France has . . . [a] tax policy that favors diesel over gasoline.
Diesels make up 67 percent of vehicles in France, compared to a 53.3 percent average of diesel
engines in the rest of Western Europe, according to Reuters.
Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals . . . [Last] week Paris had 147
micrograms of particulate matter (PM) per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7
in London, Reuters found.
Delivery companies complained of lost revenue, while exceptions were made for plug-in
cars, hybrids, and cars carrying three or more passengers. Public transit was free of charge from
Friday to Monday, according to the BBC.
The smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday.
Reuters: an international news agency
headquartered in London
Champs-Elysees: a famous street in Paris
congestion: car traffic
Excerpt from “Paris bans driving due to smog” by
Robert Duffer, from the Chicago Tribune.
Copyright © 2014 by the Chicago Tribune.
Reprinted by permission of the Chicago Tribune via
Copyright Clearance Center. | Car-free day is
spinning into a big hit in
Bogota
by Andrew Selsky
BOGOTA, Colombia—In a program that’s set to spread to other countries, millions of
Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a car-free day yesterday, leaving
the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams.
It was the third straight year cars have been banned with only buses and taxis permitted for
the Day Without Cars in this capital city of 7 million. The goal is to promote alternative
transportation and reduce smog. Violators faced $25 fines.
The turnout was large, despite gray clouds that dumped occasional rain showers on Bogota.
“The rain hasn’t stopped people from participating,” said Bogota Mayor Antanas Mockus . . .
.
“It’s a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,” said businessman
Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a two-seat bicycle with his wife.
For the first time, two other Colombian cities, Cali and Valledupar, joined the event.
Municipal authorities from other countries came to Bogota to see the event and were
enthusiastic. “These people are generating a revolutionary change, and this is crossing borders,”
said Enrique Riera, the mayor of Asunción, Paraguay. . . .
The day without cars is part of an improvement campaign that began in Bogota in the mid1990s. It has seen the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths, the most of any Latin American
city, according to Mockus, the city’s mayor.
Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city; uneven, pitted sidewalks
have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks; rush-hour restrictions have dramatically cut
traffic; and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up.
Excerpt from “Car-free day is spinning into a big
hit in Bogota” by Andrew Selsky, from the Seattle
Times. Copyright © 2002 by the Seattle Times
Company. Reprinted by permission of the Seattle
Times Company via Copyright Clearance Center. | The End of Car
Culture
by Elisabeth Rosenthal
President Obama’s ambitious goals to curb the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions,
unveiled last week, will get a fortuitous assist from an incipient shift in American behavior:
recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer
licenses as each year goes by.
That has left researchers pondering a fundamental question: Has America passed peak
driving?
The United States, with its broad expanses and suburban ideals, had long been one of the
world’s prime car cultures. It is the birthplace of the Model T; the home of Detroit; the place
where Wilson Pickett immortalized “Mustang Sally” . . . .
But America’s love affair with its vehicles seems to be cooling. When adjusted for population
growth, the number of miles driven in the United States peaked in 2005 and dropped steadily
thereafter, according to an analysis by Doug Short of Advisor Perspectives, an investment
research company. As of April 2013, the number of miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent
below the peak and equal to where the country was in January 1995. Part of the explanation
certainly lies in the recession, because cash-strapped Americans could not afford new cars, and
the unemployed weren’t going to work anyway. But by many measures the decrease in driving
preceded the downturn and appears to be persisting now that recovery is under way. The next
few years will be telling.
“What most intrigues me is that rates of car ownership per household and per person
started to come down two to three years before the downturn,” said Michael Sivak, who studies
the trend and who is a research professor at the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research
Institute. “I think that means something more fundamental is going on.”
If the pattern persists—and many sociologists believe it will—it will have beneficial
implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest
source of America’s emissions, just behind power plants. But it could have negative implications
for the car industry. Indeed, companies like Ford and Mercedes are already rebranding themselves
“mobility” companies with a broader product range beyond the personal vehicle.
“Different things are converging which suggest that we are witnessing a long-term cultural
shift,” said Mimi Sheller, a sociology professor at Drexel University and director of its Mobilities
Research and Policy Center. She cites various factors: the Internet makes telecommuting possible
and allows people to feel more connected without driving to meet friends. The renewal of center
cities has made the suburbs less appealing and has drawn empty nesters back in. Likewise the
rise in cellphones and car-pooling apps has facilitated more flexible commuting arrangements,
including the evolution of shared van services for getting to work.
With all these changes, people who stopped car commuting as a result of the recession may
find less reason to resume the habit. . . .
New York’s new bike-sharing program and its skyrocketing bridge and tunnel tolls reflect
those new priorities, as do a proliferation of car-sharing programs across the nation.
Demographic shifts in the driving population suggest that the trend may accelerate. There
has been a large drop in the percentage of 16- to 39-year-olds getting a license, while older
people are likely to retain their licenses as they age, Mr. Sivak’s research has found.
He and I have similar observations about our children. Mine (19 and 21) have not bothered
to get a driver’s license, even though they both live in places where one could come in handy.
They are interested, but it’s not a priority. They organize their summer jobs and social life around
where they can walk or take public transportation or car-pool with friends.
Mr. Sivak’s son lives in San Francisco and has a car but takes Bay Area Rapid Transit, when
he can, even though that often takes longer than driving. “When I was in my 20s and 30s,” Mr.
Sivak said, “I was curious about what kind of car people drove, but young people don’t really
care. A car is just a means of getting from A to B when BART doesn’t work.”
A study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001
and 2009. . . .
Whether members of the millennial generation will start buying more cars once they have
kids to take to soccer practice and school plays remains an open question. But such projections
have important business implications, even if car buyers are merely older or buying fewer cars in
a lifetime rather than rejecting car culture outright.
At the Mobile World Congress last year in Barcelona, Spain, Bill Ford, executive chairman of
the Ford Motor Company, laid out a business plan for a world in which personal vehicle ownership
is impractical or undesirable. He proposed partnering with the telecommunications industry to
create cities in which “pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation
traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and
improve safety.”
incipient: at an initial stage; beginning to happen
or develop
Excerpt from “The End of Car Culture” by
Elisabeth Rosenthal, from the New York Times.
Copyright © 2013 by the New York Times
Company. Reprinted by permission of the New
York Times Company via Copyright Clearance
Center. |
5150354 | 4 | What would you do if you got written a ticket by a police officer for just driving your car? It could happen if we had a day that driving was banned to help the enviroment. I think this is great idea and we shold all get involved with trying to make it work. Other countries have done it and it doesn't seem to effect anybody negativly. The only thing this would do is limit the pollution put off in America and all over.
Cars are probably the biggest source of pollution in our world today. We use cars for eveerything now and it is very convenient but have you ever really thought of what they are doing to our atmoshpere and ozone. Smog is one of the biggest efects from driving and its not a pretty one. I wouldn't want my city to be covered in a thick layer of foggy gas fuems. In paris the smog was so thick they had to make driving outlawed for a few days just to keep it under control. If we did it even just a couple times a year nation wide it could really help.
In columbia they tried this to help with car emisions and everybody enjoyed it. They even said other countrioes joined in so I think its our turn to give it a try.
The people of Vauban, Germany have a pretty much car free town. If towns started going car free like this in America the emmisions would drop greatly. In Vauban evrybody really likes not needing cars and say it is much less stressful than driving everyday. If just one in every 20 cities of the United States went car free we would notice how much cleaner the air is and the greenhouse effect or global warming would be almost nonexistent.
Another thing the articles mentioned is hybrid cars. I think hybrid cars are great, I personally have one, but some people don't really understand or like them. These cars could really help save the enviroment in just a few years if people were to start only using them. Which I doubt will happen but they still are driven by many people and its much better then everyone driving a diesel truck around all the time.
In all honesty I don't think any of this will happen here anytime soon but it sure would be nice. The greenhouse effect is very real no matter how many people argue about it and there is thigs that can be done to help prevent it. We just have to be willing to make some sacrafices to save our planet. | Write an explanatory essay to inform fellow citizens about the advantages of limiting car usage. Your essay must be based on ideas and information that can be found in the passage set. Manage your time carefully so that you can read the passages; plan your response; write your response; and revise and edit your response. Be sure to use evidence from multiple sources; and avoid overly relying on one source. Your response should be in the form of a multiparagraph essay. Write your essay in the space provided. | Car-free cities | null | null | No | White | M | In German
Suburb, Life Goes On
Without Cars
by Elisabeth Rosenthal
VAUBAN, Germany—Residents of this upscale community are suburban pioneers, going
where few soccer moms or commuting executives have ever gone before: they have given up
their cars.
Street parking, driveways and home garages are generally forbidden in this experimental
new district on the outskirts of Freiburg, near the French and Swiss borders. Vauban’s streets are
completely “car-free”—except the main thoroughfare, where the tram to downtown Freiburg runs,
and a few streets on one edge of the community. Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two
places to park—large garages at the edge of the development, where a car-owner buys a space,
for $40,000, along with a home.
As a result, 70 percent of Vauban’s families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to
move here. “When I had a car I was always tense. I’m much happier this way,” said Heidrun
Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of
bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor.
Vauban, completed in 2006, is an example of a growing trend in Europe, the United States
and elsewhere to separate suburban life from auto use, as a component of a movement called
“smart planning.”
Automobiles are the linchpin of suburbs, where middle-class families from Chicago to
Shanghai tend to make their homes. And that, experts say, is a huge impediment to current
efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes . . . . Passenger cars are
responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe . . . and up to 50 percent in
some car-intensive areas in the United States.
While there have been efforts in the past two decades to make cities denser, and better for
walking, planners are now taking the concept to the suburbs . . . . Vauban, home to 5,500 residents within a rectangular square mile, may be the most advanced experiment in low-car
suburban life. But its basic precepts are being adopted around the world in attempts to make
suburbs more compact and more accessible to public transportation, with less space for parking.
In this new approach, stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along
some distant highway.
“All of our development since World War II has been centered on the car, and that will have
to change,” said David Goldberg, an official of Transportation for America, a fast-growing coalition
of hundreds of groups in the United States . . . who are promoting new communities that are less
dependent on cars. Mr. Goldberg added: “How much you drive is as important as whether you
have a hybrid.”
Levittown and Scarsdale, New York suburbs with spread-out homes and private garages,
were the dream towns of the 1950s and still exert a strong appeal. But some new suburbs may
well look more Vauban-like, not only in developed countries but also in the developing world,
where emissions from an increasing number of private cars owned by the burgeoning middle
class are choking cities.
In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency is promoting “car reduced”
communities, and legislators are starting to act, if cautiously. Many experts expect public
transport serving suburbs to play a much larger role in a new six-year federal transportation bill
to be approved this year, Mr. Goldberg said. In previous bills, 80 percent of appropriations have by
law gone to highways and only 20 percent to other transport.
Excerpt from “In German Suburb, Life Goes On
Without Cars” by Elisabeth Rosenthal, from the
New York Times. Copyright © 2009 by the New
York Times Company. Reprinted by permission of
the New York Times Company via Copyright
Clearance Center. | Paris bans
driving due to smog
by Robert Duffer
After days of near-record pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the
global city.
On Monday motorists with even-numbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22-euro fine ($31). The same would apply to odd-numbered plates the following
day.
Almost 4,000 drivers were fined, according to Reuters . . . [Twenty-seven] people had their
cars impounded for their reaction to the fine.
That’s easier to imagine than a car-free Champs-Elysees.
Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after five-days of intensifying
smog . . . [The smog] rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in
the world.
Cold nights and warm days caused the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions.
Diesel fuel was blamed, since France has . . . [a] tax policy that favors diesel over gasoline.
Diesels make up 67 percent of vehicles in France, compared to a 53.3 percent average of diesel
engines in the rest of Western Europe, according to Reuters.
Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals . . . [Last] week Paris had 147
micrograms of particulate matter (PM) per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7
in London, Reuters found.
Delivery companies complained of lost revenue, while exceptions were made for plug-in
cars, hybrids, and cars carrying three or more passengers. Public transit was free of charge from
Friday to Monday, according to the BBC.
The smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday.
Reuters: an international news agency
headquartered in London
Champs-Elysees: a famous street in Paris
congestion: car traffic
Excerpt from “Paris bans driving due to smog” by
Robert Duffer, from the Chicago Tribune.
Copyright © 2014 by the Chicago Tribune.
Reprinted by permission of the Chicago Tribune via
Copyright Clearance Center. | Car-free day is
spinning into a big hit in
Bogota
by Andrew Selsky
BOGOTA, Colombia—In a program that’s set to spread to other countries, millions of
Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a car-free day yesterday, leaving
the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams.
It was the third straight year cars have been banned with only buses and taxis permitted for
the Day Without Cars in this capital city of 7 million. The goal is to promote alternative
transportation and reduce smog. Violators faced $25 fines.
The turnout was large, despite gray clouds that dumped occasional rain showers on Bogota.
“The rain hasn’t stopped people from participating,” said Bogota Mayor Antanas Mockus . . .
.
“It’s a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,” said businessman
Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a two-seat bicycle with his wife.
For the first time, two other Colombian cities, Cali and Valledupar, joined the event.
Municipal authorities from other countries came to Bogota to see the event and were
enthusiastic. “These people are generating a revolutionary change, and this is crossing borders,”
said Enrique Riera, the mayor of Asunción, Paraguay. . . .
The day without cars is part of an improvement campaign that began in Bogota in the mid1990s. It has seen the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths, the most of any Latin American
city, according to Mockus, the city’s mayor.
Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city; uneven, pitted sidewalks
have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks; rush-hour restrictions have dramatically cut
traffic; and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up.
Excerpt from “Car-free day is spinning into a big
hit in Bogota” by Andrew Selsky, from the Seattle
Times. Copyright © 2002 by the Seattle Times
Company. Reprinted by permission of the Seattle
Times Company via Copyright Clearance Center. | The End of Car
Culture
by Elisabeth Rosenthal
President Obama’s ambitious goals to curb the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions,
unveiled last week, will get a fortuitous assist from an incipient shift in American behavior:
recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer
licenses as each year goes by.
That has left researchers pondering a fundamental question: Has America passed peak
driving?
The United States, with its broad expanses and suburban ideals, had long been one of the
world’s prime car cultures. It is the birthplace of the Model T; the home of Detroit; the place
where Wilson Pickett immortalized “Mustang Sally” . . . .
But America’s love affair with its vehicles seems to be cooling. When adjusted for population
growth, the number of miles driven in the United States peaked in 2005 and dropped steadily
thereafter, according to an analysis by Doug Short of Advisor Perspectives, an investment
research company. As of April 2013, the number of miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent
below the peak and equal to where the country was in January 1995. Part of the explanation
certainly lies in the recession, because cash-strapped Americans could not afford new cars, and
the unemployed weren’t going to work anyway. But by many measures the decrease in driving
preceded the downturn and appears to be persisting now that recovery is under way. The next
few years will be telling.
“What most intrigues me is that rates of car ownership per household and per person
started to come down two to three years before the downturn,” said Michael Sivak, who studies
the trend and who is a research professor at the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research
Institute. “I think that means something more fundamental is going on.”
If the pattern persists—and many sociologists believe it will—it will have beneficial
implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest
source of America’s emissions, just behind power plants. But it could have negative implications
for the car industry. Indeed, companies like Ford and Mercedes are already rebranding themselves
“mobility” companies with a broader product range beyond the personal vehicle.
“Different things are converging which suggest that we are witnessing a long-term cultural
shift,” said Mimi Sheller, a sociology professor at Drexel University and director of its Mobilities
Research and Policy Center. She cites various factors: the Internet makes telecommuting possible
and allows people to feel more connected without driving to meet friends. The renewal of center
cities has made the suburbs less appealing and has drawn empty nesters back in. Likewise the
rise in cellphones and car-pooling apps has facilitated more flexible commuting arrangements,
including the evolution of shared van services for getting to work.
With all these changes, people who stopped car commuting as a result of the recession may
find less reason to resume the habit. . . .
New York’s new bike-sharing program and its skyrocketing bridge and tunnel tolls reflect
those new priorities, as do a proliferation of car-sharing programs across the nation.
Demographic shifts in the driving population suggest that the trend may accelerate. There
has been a large drop in the percentage of 16- to 39-year-olds getting a license, while older
people are likely to retain their licenses as they age, Mr. Sivak’s research has found.
He and I have similar observations about our children. Mine (19 and 21) have not bothered
to get a driver’s license, even though they both live in places where one could come in handy.
They are interested, but it’s not a priority. They organize their summer jobs and social life around
where they can walk or take public transportation or car-pool with friends.
Mr. Sivak’s son lives in San Francisco and has a car but takes Bay Area Rapid Transit, when
he can, even though that often takes longer than driving. “When I was in my 20s and 30s,” Mr.
Sivak said, “I was curious about what kind of car people drove, but young people don’t really
care. A car is just a means of getting from A to B when BART doesn’t work.”
A study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001
and 2009. . . .
Whether members of the millennial generation will start buying more cars once they have
kids to take to soccer practice and school plays remains an open question. But such projections
have important business implications, even if car buyers are merely older or buying fewer cars in
a lifetime rather than rejecting car culture outright.
At the Mobile World Congress last year in Barcelona, Spain, Bill Ford, executive chairman of
the Ford Motor Company, laid out a business plan for a world in which personal vehicle ownership
is impractical or undesirable. He proposed partnering with the telecommunications industry to
create cities in which “pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation
traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and
improve safety.”
incipient: at an initial stage; beginning to happen
or develop
Excerpt from “The End of Car Culture” by
Elisabeth Rosenthal, from the New York Times.
Copyright © 2013 by the New York Times
Company. Reprinted by permission of the New
York Times Company via Copyright Clearance
Center. |
AAAVUP14319000080141 | 2 | I personally think that the author supports this idea rather well, he has mentioned many dangerous things that occur on Venus and why no spacecrafts has touched down on Venus in more than three decades. To back up my thoughts I will include where I've found this information in the article and which paragraphs they are found in.
In paragraph 2 it talks about the spacecrafts. It states, "Each previous mission was unmanned, and for good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours". So this right here is explaining why no spacecraft has even tried to land on Venus in over three decades.
In paragraph 3 it states, "On the planet's surface temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet. So if a human would land on Venus it would be more than dangerous, it would be deadly, or unlivable. | In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus," the author suggests studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. Using details from the article, write an essay evaluating how well the author supports this idea. Be sure to include: a claim that evaluates how well the author supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers; an explanation of the evidence from the article that supports your claim; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your essay. | Exploring Venus | Economically disadvantaged | Identified as having disability | No | White | F | The Challenge of Exploring Venus
Venus, sometimes called the “Evening Star,” is one of the brightest points of light in the night sky, making it simple for even and amateur stargazer to spot. However, this nickname is misleading since Venus is actually a planet. While Venus is simple to see from the distant but safe vantage point of Earth, it has proved a very challenging place to examine more closely.
Often referred to as Earth's “twin,” Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size, and occasionally the closest in distance too. Earth, Venus, and Mars, our other planetary neighbor, orbit the sun at different speeds. These differences in speed mean that sometimes we are closer to Mars and other times to Venus. Because Venus is sometimes right around the corner - in space terms - humans have spent numerous spacecraft to land on this cloud-draped world. Each previous mission was unmanned, and for good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours. Maybe this issue explains why not a single spaceship has touched down of Venus in more than three decades. Numberous factors contribute to Venus's reputation as a challenging planet for humans to study, despite its proximity to us.
A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere. On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet. These conditions are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth; such an environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans and would liquefy many metals. Also notable, Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system, even though Mercury is closer to our sun. Beyond high presure and heat, Venusian geology and weather present additional impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface.
If our sister is so inhospitable, why are scientists even discussing further visits to its surface? Astronomers are fascinated by Venus beccause it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth. Today, Venus still has some features that are analogous to those on Earth. The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters. Furthermore, recall that Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit, a crucial consideration given the long time frames of space travel. The value of returning to Venus seems indisputable, but what are the options for making such a mission both safe and scientifically productive?
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has one particularly compelling idea for sending humans to study Venus. NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray. Imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape. Just as our jet airplanes travel at a higher altitude to fly over many storms, a vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly ground conditions by staying up and out of their way. At thirty-plus miles above the surface, temperatures would still be toasty at around 170 degrees Farenheit, but the air pressure would be close to that of sea level on Earth. Solar power would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth levels. Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans.
However, peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions rendering standard forms of photography and videography ineffective. More importantly, researchers cannot take samples of rock, gas, or anything else, from a distance. Therefore, scientists seeking to conduct a thorough mission to understand Venus would need to get up close and personal despite the risks. Or maybe we should think of them as challenges. Many researchers are working on innovattions that would allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowledge of Venus.
NASA is working on other approaches to studying Venus. For example, some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simuulating the chaos of Venus's surface and have laster for three weeks in such conditions. Another project is looking back to an old technology called mechanical computers. These devices were first envisioned in the 1800s and played an important role int he 1940s during World War II. The thought of computers existing in those days may sound shocking, but these devices make calculations by using gears and levers and do not require electronics at all. Modern commputers are enormously powerful, flexible, and quick, but tend to be more delicate when it comes to extreme physical conditions. Just imagine exposing a cell phone or tablet to acid or heat capable of melting tin. By comparison, systems that use mechanical parts can be made mroe resistant to pressure, heat, and other forces.
Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also because human curiousity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors. Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation. | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000049896 | 2 | Some people say that they face was created by aliens and others think it was just a natural landform. What do you think it is? How do you think it got there? Well im here to answer all those quetions for you.
There are so many people in the world that thought the face was created by aliens, but it really wasn't. It's just like all of the landforms on Earth that were created by people, animals, plants, and much more. NASA and a couple of scientists had an arugment about whither it was a face created by aliens or landformation. In the end it was created just like all the other landformations. I bet people still wander if NASA was right or wrong.
Well now that i told you about the face and what people think. Do you still believe in what you first thought before reading this? Maybe your right and maybe your wrong everyone has their own opinion. | You have read the article 'Unmasking the Face on Mars.' Imagine you are a scientist at NASA discussing the Face with someone who thinks it was created by aliens. Using information in the article, write an argumentative essay to convince someone that the Face is just a natural landform.Be sure to include: claims to support your argument that the Face is a natural landform; evidence from the article to support your claims; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | The Face on Mars | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Two or more races/Other | F | Unmasking the Face on Mars
Side by side: a Viking 1 photo from 1975, a Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) image from 1998, and the latest MGS image from 2001.
New high-resolution images and 3D altimetry from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft reveal the Face on Mars for what it really is: a mesa.
On May 24, 2001—Twenty five years ago, something funny happened around Mars. NASA’s Viking 1 spacecraft was circling the planet, snapping photos of possible landing sites for its sister ship Viking 2, when it spotted the shadowy likeness of a human face. An enormous head nearly two miles from end to end seemed to be staring back at the cameras from a region of the Red Planet called Cydonia.
There must have been a degree of surprise among mission controllers back at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory when the face appeared on their monitors. But the sensation was short-lived. Scientists figured it was just another Martian mesa, common enough around Cydonia, only this one had unusual shadows that made it look like an Egyptian Pharaoh.
A few days later NASA unveiled the image for all to see. The caption noted a “huge rock formation . . . which resembles a human head . . . formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose, and mouth.” The authors reasoned it would be a good way to engage the public and attract attention to Mars.
It certainly did!
The “Face on Mars” has since become a pop icon. It has starred in a Hollywood film, appeared in books, magazines, radio talk shows – even haunted grocery store checkout lines for 25 years! Some people think the Face is bona fide evidence of life on Mars – evidence that NASA would rather hide, say conspiracy theorists. Meanwhile, defenders of the NASA budget wish there was an ancient civilization on Mars.
A 1976 Viking 1 photograph of the Face on Mars
Although few scientists believed the Face was an alien artifact, photographing Cydonia became a priority for NASA when Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) arrived at the Red Planet in Sept. 1997, eighteen long years after the Viking missions ended. “We felt this was important to taxpayers,” explained Jim Garvin, chief scientist for NASA’s mars Exploration Program. “We photographed the Face as soon as we could get a good shot at it.”
And so on April 5, 1998, when Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia for the first time, Michael Malin and his Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) team snapped a picture ten times sharper than the original Viking photos. Thousands of anxious web surfers were waiting when the image first appeared on a JPL web site, revealing . . . a natural landform. There was no alien monument after all.
But not everyone was satisfied. The Face on Mars is located at 41 degrees north martial latitude where it was winter in April ‘98 – a cloudy time of year on the Red Planet. The camera on board MGS had to peer through wispy clouds to see the Face. Perhaps, said skeptics, alien markings were hidden by haze.
Mission controllers prepared to look again. “It’s not easy to target Cydonia,” says Garvin. “In fact, it’s hard work.” Mars Global Surveyor is a mapping spacecraft that normally looks straight down and scans the planet like a fax machine in narrow 2.5 km-wide strips. “We don’t pass over the Face very often,” he noted.
Nevertheless, on April 8, 2001 – a cloudless summer day in Cydonia – Mars Global Surveyor drew close enough for a second look. “We had to roll the spacecraft 25 degrees to center the Face in the field of view,” said Garvin. “Malin’s team captured an extraordinary photo using the camera’s absolute maximum resolution.” Each pixel in the 2001 image spans 1.56 meters, compared to the 43 meters per pixel in the best 1976 Viking photo.
“As a rule of thumb, you can discern things in a digital image 3 times bigger than the pixel size,” he added. “So, if there were objects in this picture like airplanes on the ground or Egyptian-style pyramids or even small shacks, you could see what they were!”
What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa – landforms common around the American West. “It reminds me of most of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho,” says Garvin. “That’s a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars.”
Text and photographs courtsey of NASA, “Unmasking the Face on Mars,” May 24, 2001 (retrieved from science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast24may_1/) | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000101249 | 3 | Driverless cars are coming like itor not. for one am against it. Yes you wont have to wory about going to the right place or staying awake but, there are still problems.
One thing I see as a problem is that sometypes of driverless car would take expensive road constrution as stated in pargaph 3 . Also the cars themselves may coast 2 or 3 times as much as a regular car because, they have alot of fancey sensers and gagets. Normal cars are better because they don't require lots of constrution or pin point mapping.
Driverless cars would be great but could they see if another car had a driver under the influens or not driving safly and take the right precotinos to keep you safe. I think that no robots or computers could tell that. I think that only humans could tell and thake the right procotionary measures to keep you safe. As stated in paragraph 5 and 8 they say that if a siquation comes up the car may tell yo uto take over because you know how to handle it. Well what if people start to get to comfortable with there smart car and take a nap on the way to work but there is constrution and the car needs
you but you are sleepping what would happen. Well yes they have put in way that the car will get you atichtoin but will you be awake enough to screw up to the way of the man carring tools acrost the road. I for one think that it you won't and there will be a weark. Then that man would die and, you would fell bad and, the car company would put all the blam on you. And you, the man or woman that thought driverless car were a good idea, would have to live with that for the rest of your life.
Also they would have to change tones of laws wich would take time and money witch we a a country don't have right now. Also some of the new laws might mess up some of the existing laws and make every thing more difficult for Driverless cars and normal cars.
Driverless cars are a thing of the futer and that is were they belong not here right now there are just to many things that could go wrong. All and all I thik they are a good idea they just need alot more work to make sure they are safe but for now I am all against driverless cars. | In the article “Driverless Cars are Coming,” the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. Using details from the article, create an argument for or against the development of these cars. Be sure to include: your position on driverless cars; appropriate details from the article that support your position; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | Driverless cars | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | White | M | Driverless Cars Are Coming
Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore? Google cofounder Sergey Brin can. He envisions a future with a public transportation system where fleets of driverless cars form a public-transport taxi system. The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today’s taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus. He believes such cars would fundamentally change the world.
Television and movies have long been fascinated with cars that could drive themselves. In reality, Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash, but so far, Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents. So what roadblocks lie ahead for the autonomous car?
Sensing the World
Let's begin by looking at which companies are making computer-driven cars. Originally, many futurists believed the key to developing self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as smarter roads. For example, in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. The track was embedded with an electrical cable that sent radio signals to a receiver on the front end of the car. Engineers at Berkeley tried something similar, but they used magnets with alternating polarity. The car read the positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code. These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical.
Without the option of smarter roads, manufacturers turned to smarter cars—but how much smarter did the cars need to be? For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors. Google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. The most important bit of technology in this system is the spinning sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR, it uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the car's surroundings. The combination of all this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel.
Sensors are nothing new, of course. In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheels in the creation of antilock brakes. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone. Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own.
Driving or Assisting?
Antilock brakes and driver assistance still seem a long way from the dream of calling a driverless cab to take us wherever we desire, but Sebastian Thrun, founder of the Google Car project, believes that the technology has finally begun to catch up to the dream. “There was no way, before 2000, to make something interesting. The sensors weren't there, the computers weren't there, and the mapping wasn't there. Radar was a device on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack.” So just how driverless will the cars be in the near future?
In 2013, BMW announced the development of “Traffic Jam Assistant.” The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. This necessitates the car being ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs. GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object. The Google car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over. Other options under consideration are flashing lights on the windshield and other heads-up displays. Manufacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver.
Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn’t drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive? “The psychological aspects of automation are really a challenge,” admits Dr. Werner Huber, a BMW project manager driver. “We have to interpret the driving fun in a new way.” Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays. Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over—something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. In this way, the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern.
Waiting on the Law
Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars. California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have led the country in allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars; manufacturers believe that more states will follow as soon as the cars are proved more reliably safe. Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault—the driver or the manufacturer?
Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved. Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. The road to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us, but we grow closer to the destination every day. | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000038312 | 3 | I disagree of the production or development of driverless cars. The cars that are being developed to be driverless sounds like it could work but there are to many factors that are holding the car back from actually being safe and driverless. It will take many computer run test to make it accident free or cable of going through traffic like humans. Weather could have an effect on the devices that are making the care driverless, they could malfunction and that could lead to a car crash. How much will these car cost when they are sold to the public. Are we going to depend on the driverless car to much.
A car crash happens everyday, cause of humans. Sometimes the weather has an effect on the accident. Driverless are can still get in car crashes, cause the car will be a computer with standard driving skills, but humans can change the way they are driving when ever. Driverless cars cant do that, they will still have a driver in the car just in case the gets into a situation. How reliable will the alert system be. If it doesnt work right the car could get in a crash and injure or kill the driver in the car and the one it crashed in to.
Weather could have an effect on the driverless cars abilitys. The Devices it has could be damaged by the rain of hail of storm. Which could leave the car blind in what device gets damaged. If the device is damaged then the car could possibly get into a car crash. What if the driverless car gets in to a fog and cant see with the cameras it has. That could lead to a car crash. Also the driverless car could get hacked.
Will anyone be able to afford a driverless car when they eventually become the only car allowed on the road.
The car that Tesla has released to the public is not a cheap car and also its not a fully driverless car. So when they release a fully driverless car to the public, will the middle and bottom class of people be able to afford these, Probably not. The Government will have to help out people that need to buy a driverless car, and we are already indebt from many things.
Once these car are released, humans will be to dependent on these cars. Eventually they will be used for military purposes. Which would cost alot of money. Also the cars will be electricals, which they can be destroyed by a EMP bomb. A EMP is a bomb that destroy any electrical thing in its blast radius which means the car will be effect. That would mean a waste of money. Taxi company would close down cause of driverless car. Taxi require humans and driverless cars don't. Many people would lose there job cause of driverless cars. Also what about Sports races. Like Nascar, there car would be replaced by driverless race cars. There no entertainment in that. | In the article “Driverless Cars are Coming,” the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. Using details from the article, create an argument for or against the development of these cars. Be sure to include: your position on driverless cars; appropriate details from the article that support your position; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | Driverless cars | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | null | Hispanic/Latino | M | Driverless Cars Are Coming
Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore? Google cofounder Sergey Brin can. He envisions a future with a public transportation system where fleets of driverless cars form a public-transport taxi system. The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today’s taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus. He believes such cars would fundamentally change the world.
Television and movies have long been fascinated with cars that could drive themselves. In reality, Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash, but so far, Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents. So what roadblocks lie ahead for the autonomous car?
Sensing the World
Let's begin by looking at which companies are making computer-driven cars. Originally, many futurists believed the key to developing self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as smarter roads. For example, in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. The track was embedded with an electrical cable that sent radio signals to a receiver on the front end of the car. Engineers at Berkeley tried something similar, but they used magnets with alternating polarity. The car read the positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code. These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical.
Without the option of smarter roads, manufacturers turned to smarter cars—but how much smarter did the cars need to be? For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors. Google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. The most important bit of technology in this system is the spinning sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR, it uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the car's surroundings. The combination of all this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel.
Sensors are nothing new, of course. In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheels in the creation of antilock brakes. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone. Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own.
Driving or Assisting?
Antilock brakes and driver assistance still seem a long way from the dream of calling a driverless cab to take us wherever we desire, but Sebastian Thrun, founder of the Google Car project, believes that the technology has finally begun to catch up to the dream. “There was no way, before 2000, to make something interesting. The sensors weren't there, the computers weren't there, and the mapping wasn't there. Radar was a device on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack.” So just how driverless will the cars be in the near future?
In 2013, BMW announced the development of “Traffic Jam Assistant.” The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. This necessitates the car being ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs. GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object. The Google car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over. Other options under consideration are flashing lights on the windshield and other heads-up displays. Manufacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver.
Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn’t drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive? “The psychological aspects of automation are really a challenge,” admits Dr. Werner Huber, a BMW project manager driver. “We have to interpret the driving fun in a new way.” Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays. Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over—something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. In this way, the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern.
Waiting on the Law
Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars. California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have led the country in allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars; manufacturers believe that more states will follow as soon as the cars are proved more reliably safe. Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault—the driver or the manufacturer?
Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved. Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. The road to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us, but we grow closer to the destination every day. | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000006808 | 3 | Now that Driverless Cars are coming I really think that it is a bad idea. The author did give us some good information about the car and what it can do without a driver but then yet again it is honestly a bad idea.
First, even if the author said that the car would alert the driver if anything happened that alert could stop workng and it would not warn the driver. The warning from the car can stop working anytime and the driver would not know. Why would they not know? That is because they would not ne focus on the road.
Second, the driver should always focus on the road because anything can happen right there and then. The driver should not be on their phones or anything thing that can distract them from the road. The way that the rules are now we should keep them like that. We can say that the car is very smart but do they see any upcoming cars getting close to them and occuring an accident. I really do not. Thats when the human should focus and be very careful on the road.
Finally, the Driverless Cars are very expensive. When you buy them you do not just buy the car. Some Driverless Cars do come with the left rear wheel and rotating sensor, video camera, four automotive radar sensors, GPS receiver, and inertial motion snesor. The cars will need laser beams to form a updating 3-D model of the cars's around them. But what people do not realize is that all those items can stop working and get ruin then it is your job to repair them as soon as possible.
So now that you see my opinions maybe you should think about the negative and postive thoughts about the car. Always remember the alert can stop working, humans should always focus on the road and lastly the Driverless Cars are very expensive. Always think about yourself and your surroundings. | In the article “Driverless Cars are Coming,” the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. Using details from the article, create an argument for or against the development of these cars. Be sure to include: your position on driverless cars; appropriate details from the article that support your position; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | Driverless cars | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Hispanic/Latino | F | Driverless Cars Are Coming
Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore? Google cofounder Sergey Brin can. He envisions a future with a public transportation system where fleets of driverless cars form a public-transport taxi system. The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today’s taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus. He believes such cars would fundamentally change the world.
Television and movies have long been fascinated with cars that could drive themselves. In reality, Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash, but so far, Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents. So what roadblocks lie ahead for the autonomous car?
Sensing the World
Let's begin by looking at which companies are making computer-driven cars. Originally, many futurists believed the key to developing self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as smarter roads. For example, in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. The track was embedded with an electrical cable that sent radio signals to a receiver on the front end of the car. Engineers at Berkeley tried something similar, but they used magnets with alternating polarity. The car read the positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code. These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical.
Without the option of smarter roads, manufacturers turned to smarter cars—but how much smarter did the cars need to be? For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors. Google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. The most important bit of technology in this system is the spinning sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR, it uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the car's surroundings. The combination of all this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel.
Sensors are nothing new, of course. In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheels in the creation of antilock brakes. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone. Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own.
Driving or Assisting?
Antilock brakes and driver assistance still seem a long way from the dream of calling a driverless cab to take us wherever we desire, but Sebastian Thrun, founder of the Google Car project, believes that the technology has finally begun to catch up to the dream. “There was no way, before 2000, to make something interesting. The sensors weren't there, the computers weren't there, and the mapping wasn't there. Radar was a device on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack.” So just how driverless will the cars be in the near future?
In 2013, BMW announced the development of “Traffic Jam Assistant.” The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. This necessitates the car being ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs. GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object. The Google car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over. Other options under consideration are flashing lights on the windshield and other heads-up displays. Manufacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver.
Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn’t drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive? “The psychological aspects of automation are really a challenge,” admits Dr. Werner Huber, a BMW project manager driver. “We have to interpret the driving fun in a new way.” Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays. Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over—something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. In this way, the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern.
Waiting on the Law
Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars. California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have led the country in allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars; manufacturers believe that more states will follow as soon as the cars are proved more reliably safe. Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault—the driver or the manufacturer?
Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved. Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. The road to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us, but we grow closer to the destination every day. | null | null | null |
AAAVUP14319000048781 | 4 | The authors suggestion about studying Venus is a worthy despite of the dangers it presents.
Exporing Venus wouldn't be too bad regardless of the dangers it presents. The author tells us good reasons why it wouldn't hurt to explore Venus. "Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also becuase human curiosity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors". This shows us that if we took the time to go and explore Venus we weould be overcoming a challenge we never thought we would have to. Also it helps us see that us as humans going and exploring we'd get our curiosity answered ike questions we have about Venus for example, How does it look? , How are temperatures different there than in Earth?, How is it different from Earth, and etc.
Another reason is , If we think about it Venus is kind of our nearest option. In the article the author says ,"Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit". This shows us that Venus is the planet that is closer to us and we could have a higher chance to visit it. Also it helps us know that with it being the closest planet for us to visit we can go learn about it and overcome the fear and just go and enjoy it , which if you don't you'll just be having questions about Venus.
Lastly, Just like how we go and travel we shoud go and explore Venus you wouldn't really spend much like you would when you travel and buy yourself a lot of things. In the article the author tells us "Our travels on earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the edges of imagination and innovation". The author is telling us that we shoud just go and travel leave our fears behind being scared to go and explore Venus shouldn't scare us, We should just overcome the fear because if we don't go we're not going to know exaclty how venus looks we're just going to imagine how it looks. Also the doubts shouldn't stop us from going the main doubts people would have would probably be like would I get there safe? and would I get back safe? those doubts shouldn't stop us as long as you know you over came your fear and went should make you proud.
In conclusion, The authors suggestion that studying Venus is worthy despite the dangers it presents is a good idea. Due to the reaosns I talked about that the author supported in the article. Overcoming your fears is something we face in life eveyday so why not make exploring Venus one. | In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus," the author suggests studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. Using details from the article, write an essay evaluating how well the author supports this idea. Be sure to include: a claim that evaluates how well the author supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers; an explanation of the evidence from the article that supports your claim; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your essay. | Exploring Venus | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | Yes | Hispanic/Latino | F | The Challenge of Exploring Venus
Venus, sometimes called the “Evening Star,” is one of the brightest points of light in the night sky, making it simple for even and amateur stargazer to spot. However, this nickname is misleading since Venus is actually a planet. While Venus is simple to see from the distant but safe vantage point of Earth, it has proved a very challenging place to examine more closely.
Often referred to as Earth's “twin,” Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size, and occasionally the closest in distance too. Earth, Venus, and Mars, our other planetary neighbor, orbit the sun at different speeds. These differences in speed mean that sometimes we are closer to Mars and other times to Venus. Because Venus is sometimes right around the corner - in space terms - humans have spent numerous spacecraft to land on this cloud-draped world. Each previous mission was unmanned, and for good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours. Maybe this issue explains why not a single spaceship has touched down of Venus in more than three decades. Numberous factors contribute to Venus's reputation as a challenging planet for humans to study, despite its proximity to us.
A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere. On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet. These conditions are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth; such an environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans and would liquefy many metals. Also notable, Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system, even though Mercury is closer to our sun. Beyond high presure and heat, Venusian geology and weather present additional impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface.
If our sister is so inhospitable, why are scientists even discussing further visits to its surface? Astronomers are fascinated by Venus beccause it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth. Today, Venus still has some features that are analogous to those on Earth. The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters. Furthermore, recall that Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit, a crucial consideration given the long time frames of space travel. The value of returning to Venus seems indisputable, but what are the options for making such a mission both safe and scientifically productive?
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has one particularly compelling idea for sending humans to study Venus. NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray. Imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape. Just as our jet airplanes travel at a higher altitude to fly over many storms, a vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly ground conditions by staying up and out of their way. At thirty-plus miles above the surface, temperatures would still be toasty at around 170 degrees Farenheit, but the air pressure would be close to that of sea level on Earth. Solar power would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth levels. Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans.
However, peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions rendering standard forms of photography and videography ineffective. More importantly, researchers cannot take samples of rock, gas, or anything else, from a distance. Therefore, scientists seeking to conduct a thorough mission to understand Venus would need to get up close and personal despite the risks. Or maybe we should think of them as challenges. Many researchers are working on innovattions that would allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowledge of Venus.
NASA is working on other approaches to studying Venus. For example, some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simuulating the chaos of Venus's surface and have laster for three weeks in such conditions. Another project is looking back to an old technology called mechanical computers. These devices were first envisioned in the 1800s and played an important role int he 1940s during World War II. The thought of computers existing in those days may sound shocking, but these devices make calculations by using gears and levers and do not require electronics at all. Modern commputers are enormously powerful, flexible, and quick, but tend to be more delicate when it comes to extreme physical conditions. Just imagine exposing a cell phone or tablet to acid or heat capable of melting tin. By comparison, systems that use mechanical parts can be made mroe resistant to pressure, heat, and other forces.
Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also because human curiousity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors. Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation. | null | null | null |
5153194 | 3 | According to the article, fellow citizens are imformed about the advangtages of limting cars. As it says in the artcle "As a result, 70 percent of Vaubang' familes not own and 57 solid a carpercent throw a cow."I'm much happier his way" "All of our development since World War 2 has been centered on the car, and that will change" says David. Not only were they focused on the car, that was all that mattered at the time. Not only were the people trying to make a change "An offical of Transportation for America, fast- growing coalition of hundreds of groups in the United States, who were promoting new communities that are less dependent on cars. Mr. Goldberg added "How much you drive is as important as whether you have a hybrid." in the United States, the Evironmental Protection Agency is promoting "car reduced" communities"
Not only are they trying to reduce and/ or limit car useage "After days of near car pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. Cars are not the only ones taking act in this "On Monday motorists with even-numbered license plaes were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22-euro fine ($31). The same would apply to odd-numbered plates the following day. Backing down wasn't an issue because according to the article "Almost 4,000 drivers were fined, according to Reuters. Twenty-seven people had their car impounded for their reaction to the fine". The article also states "Diesel fuel was blamed, since France has a tax policy that favors diesel over gasoline." Buses and taxis?"It was the third straight year cars have been banned with only buses and textis permitted for the Day without Cars in capital city of 7 million. The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog"
The article not only states "The day without cars is part of an improvement campaign that began in Begota in the mid-1990s. it has seen the contruction of 118 miles of bicycle paths, the most of any Latin American city, according to Mockus, the city's mayor." but it also states the end of the car culture. "New York's new bike-sharing program and its skyrocketing bridge and tunnel tolls reflect those a new pirorities, as do a proliferation of car- sharing programs across the nation. A study last year found that driving by young people decresed 23 percent between 2001 and 2009" | Write an explanatory essay to inform fellow citizens about the advantages of limiting car usage. Your essay must be based on ideas and information that can be found in the passage set. Manage your time carefully so that you can read the passages; plan your response; write your response; and revise and edit your response. Be sure to use evidence from multiple sources; and avoid overly relying on one source. Your response should be in the form of a multiparagraph essay. Write your essay in the space provided. | Car-free cities | null | null | No | Black/African American | F | In German
Suburb, Life Goes On
Without Cars
by Elisabeth Rosenthal
VAUBAN, Germany—Residents of this upscale community are suburban pioneers, going
where few soccer moms or commuting executives have ever gone before: they have given up
their cars.
Street parking, driveways and home garages are generally forbidden in this experimental
new district on the outskirts of Freiburg, near the French and Swiss borders. Vauban’s streets are
completely “car-free”—except the main thoroughfare, where the tram to downtown Freiburg runs,
and a few streets on one edge of the community. Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two
places to park—large garages at the edge of the development, where a car-owner buys a space,
for $40,000, along with a home.
As a result, 70 percent of Vauban’s families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to
move here. “When I had a car I was always tense. I’m much happier this way,” said Heidrun
Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of
bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor.
Vauban, completed in 2006, is an example of a growing trend in Europe, the United States
and elsewhere to separate suburban life from auto use, as a component of a movement called
“smart planning.”
Automobiles are the linchpin of suburbs, where middle-class families from Chicago to
Shanghai tend to make their homes. And that, experts say, is a huge impediment to current
efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes . . . . Passenger cars are
responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe . . . and up to 50 percent in
some car-intensive areas in the United States.
While there have been efforts in the past two decades to make cities denser, and better for
walking, planners are now taking the concept to the suburbs . . . . Vauban, home to 5,500 residents within a rectangular square mile, may be the most advanced experiment in low-car
suburban life. But its basic precepts are being adopted around the world in attempts to make
suburbs more compact and more accessible to public transportation, with less space for parking.
In this new approach, stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along
some distant highway.
“All of our development since World War II has been centered on the car, and that will have
to change,” said David Goldberg, an official of Transportation for America, a fast-growing coalition
of hundreds of groups in the United States . . . who are promoting new communities that are less
dependent on cars. Mr. Goldberg added: “How much you drive is as important as whether you
have a hybrid.”
Levittown and Scarsdale, New York suburbs with spread-out homes and private garages,
were the dream towns of the 1950s and still exert a strong appeal. But some new suburbs may
well look more Vauban-like, not only in developed countries but also in the developing world,
where emissions from an increasing number of private cars owned by the burgeoning middle
class are choking cities.
In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency is promoting “car reduced”
communities, and legislators are starting to act, if cautiously. Many experts expect public
transport serving suburbs to play a much larger role in a new six-year federal transportation bill
to be approved this year, Mr. Goldberg said. In previous bills, 80 percent of appropriations have by
law gone to highways and only 20 percent to other transport.
Excerpt from “In German Suburb, Life Goes On
Without Cars” by Elisabeth Rosenthal, from the
New York Times. Copyright © 2009 by the New
York Times Company. Reprinted by permission of
the New York Times Company via Copyright
Clearance Center. | Paris bans
driving due to smog
by Robert Duffer
After days of near-record pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the
global city.
On Monday motorists with even-numbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22-euro fine ($31). The same would apply to odd-numbered plates the following
day.
Almost 4,000 drivers were fined, according to Reuters . . . [Twenty-seven] people had their
cars impounded for their reaction to the fine.
That’s easier to imagine than a car-free Champs-Elysees.
Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after five-days of intensifying
smog . . . [The smog] rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in
the world.
Cold nights and warm days caused the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions.
Diesel fuel was blamed, since France has . . . [a] tax policy that favors diesel over gasoline.
Diesels make up 67 percent of vehicles in France, compared to a 53.3 percent average of diesel
engines in the rest of Western Europe, according to Reuters.
Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals . . . [Last] week Paris had 147
micrograms of particulate matter (PM) per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7
in London, Reuters found.
Delivery companies complained of lost revenue, while exceptions were made for plug-in
cars, hybrids, and cars carrying three or more passengers. Public transit was free of charge from
Friday to Monday, according to the BBC.
The smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday.
Reuters: an international news agency
headquartered in London
Champs-Elysees: a famous street in Paris
congestion: car traffic
Excerpt from “Paris bans driving due to smog” by
Robert Duffer, from the Chicago Tribune.
Copyright © 2014 by the Chicago Tribune.
Reprinted by permission of the Chicago Tribune via
Copyright Clearance Center. | Car-free day is
spinning into a big hit in
Bogota
by Andrew Selsky
BOGOTA, Colombia—In a program that’s set to spread to other countries, millions of
Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a car-free day yesterday, leaving
the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams.
It was the third straight year cars have been banned with only buses and taxis permitted for
the Day Without Cars in this capital city of 7 million. The goal is to promote alternative
transportation and reduce smog. Violators faced $25 fines.
The turnout was large, despite gray clouds that dumped occasional rain showers on Bogota.
“The rain hasn’t stopped people from participating,” said Bogota Mayor Antanas Mockus . . .
.
“It’s a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,” said businessman
Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a two-seat bicycle with his wife.
For the first time, two other Colombian cities, Cali and Valledupar, joined the event.
Municipal authorities from other countries came to Bogota to see the event and were
enthusiastic. “These people are generating a revolutionary change, and this is crossing borders,”
said Enrique Riera, the mayor of Asunción, Paraguay. . . .
The day without cars is part of an improvement campaign that began in Bogota in the mid1990s. It has seen the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths, the most of any Latin American
city, according to Mockus, the city’s mayor.
Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city; uneven, pitted sidewalks
have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks; rush-hour restrictions have dramatically cut
traffic; and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up.
Excerpt from “Car-free day is spinning into a big
hit in Bogota” by Andrew Selsky, from the Seattle
Times. Copyright © 2002 by the Seattle Times
Company. Reprinted by permission of the Seattle
Times Company via Copyright Clearance Center. | The End of Car
Culture
by Elisabeth Rosenthal
President Obama’s ambitious goals to curb the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions,
unveiled last week, will get a fortuitous assist from an incipient shift in American behavior:
recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer
licenses as each year goes by.
That has left researchers pondering a fundamental question: Has America passed peak
driving?
The United States, with its broad expanses and suburban ideals, had long been one of the
world’s prime car cultures. It is the birthplace of the Model T; the home of Detroit; the place
where Wilson Pickett immortalized “Mustang Sally” . . . .
But America’s love affair with its vehicles seems to be cooling. When adjusted for population
growth, the number of miles driven in the United States peaked in 2005 and dropped steadily
thereafter, according to an analysis by Doug Short of Advisor Perspectives, an investment
research company. As of April 2013, the number of miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent
below the peak and equal to where the country was in January 1995. Part of the explanation
certainly lies in the recession, because cash-strapped Americans could not afford new cars, and
the unemployed weren’t going to work anyway. But by many measures the decrease in driving
preceded the downturn and appears to be persisting now that recovery is under way. The next
few years will be telling.
“What most intrigues me is that rates of car ownership per household and per person
started to come down two to three years before the downturn,” said Michael Sivak, who studies
the trend and who is a research professor at the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research
Institute. “I think that means something more fundamental is going on.”
If the pattern persists—and many sociologists believe it will—it will have beneficial
implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest
source of America’s emissions, just behind power plants. But it could have negative implications
for the car industry. Indeed, companies like Ford and Mercedes are already rebranding themselves
“mobility” companies with a broader product range beyond the personal vehicle.
“Different things are converging which suggest that we are witnessing a long-term cultural
shift,” said Mimi Sheller, a sociology professor at Drexel University and director of its Mobilities
Research and Policy Center. She cites various factors: the Internet makes telecommuting possible
and allows people to feel more connected without driving to meet friends. The renewal of center
cities has made the suburbs less appealing and has drawn empty nesters back in. Likewise the
rise in cellphones and car-pooling apps has facilitated more flexible commuting arrangements,
including the evolution of shared van services for getting to work.
With all these changes, people who stopped car commuting as a result of the recession may
find less reason to resume the habit. . . .
New York’s new bike-sharing program and its skyrocketing bridge and tunnel tolls reflect
those new priorities, as do a proliferation of car-sharing programs across the nation.
Demographic shifts in the driving population suggest that the trend may accelerate. There
has been a large drop in the percentage of 16- to 39-year-olds getting a license, while older
people are likely to retain their licenses as they age, Mr. Sivak’s research has found.
He and I have similar observations about our children. Mine (19 and 21) have not bothered
to get a driver’s license, even though they both live in places where one could come in handy.
They are interested, but it’s not a priority. They organize their summer jobs and social life around
where they can walk or take public transportation or car-pool with friends.
Mr. Sivak’s son lives in San Francisco and has a car but takes Bay Area Rapid Transit, when
he can, even though that often takes longer than driving. “When I was in my 20s and 30s,” Mr.
Sivak said, “I was curious about what kind of car people drove, but young people don’t really
care. A car is just a means of getting from A to B when BART doesn’t work.”
A study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001
and 2009. . . .
Whether members of the millennial generation will start buying more cars once they have
kids to take to soccer practice and school plays remains an open question. But such projections
have important business implications, even if car buyers are merely older or buying fewer cars in
a lifetime rather than rejecting car culture outright.
At the Mobile World Congress last year in Barcelona, Spain, Bill Ford, executive chairman of
the Ford Motor Company, laid out a business plan for a world in which personal vehicle ownership
is impractical or undesirable. He proposed partnering with the telecommunications industry to
create cities in which “pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation
traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and
improve safety.”
incipient: at an initial stage; beginning to happen
or develop
Excerpt from “The End of Car Culture” by
Elisabeth Rosenthal, from the New York Times.
Copyright © 2013 by the New York Times
Company. Reprinted by permission of the New
York Times Company via Copyright Clearance
Center. |
AAAOPP13416000052205 | 4 | As the idea of a car operating without the assistance of a driver has become more popular, more and more companies have stepped up to create such vehicles. While there are many beneficial outcomes of innovating these cars, there are, however, many concerns that have arose around the idea. Because of safety issus, potential conflicts that could form between companies and clients, and development complications, the production of smart cars will not be as successful as designers are hoping.
Technology tends to fail, and when that happens, safety can be greatly affected. In 'Driverless Cars Are Coming,' the article mainy focuses on how the smart car's future is continuously being pursued, but also points out that there are several safety concerns. For one thing, smarter cars need "a whole lot of sensors." While technology is improving, problems could always potentially arise in the proficiency of the senors, which could then lead to crashes if the driver is not paying well enough attention. While the idea of a computer-run car being scary to people is enevitable, it is in fact a problem that some consumers and lawmakers might not overcome.
Because the smart car is evolving to the point where drivers only have to be in control about 10% of the time, it is probable that issues between manufacturers and consumers will become more popular. "If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault-the driver or the manufacturer?" With this question in mind, these problems will likely lead to an increase of accident cases and plain confusion.
Even if the safety of smartcars and liability issues are improved and sorted out, the introduction of these vehicles will take a lot of work. Manufacturers are currently developping cars that can operate on current roads, but with the increase of their usage, many changes will have to be made to the streets of today. Some designers have tried to make smart-road systems, that have actually worked well, but "they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expenseive to be practical." Additionally, it may be some time until smart cars are safe enough to even be legally driven. Only 3 states, along with Washington DC, have legalized their usage. These obstacles will further complicate the future of the cars.
Smart cars today are undoubtfully improving and have a growing popularity. Unfortunately, a great number of downfalls to developping such a technology cloud the vehicles' future. With concerns of safety, accident liability issues, and development obstacles, there just might be too many faults to make the smart car dream a reality. | In the article “Driverless Cars are Coming,” the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. Using details from the article, create an argument for or against the development of these cars. Be sure to include: your position on driverless cars; appropriate details from the article that support your position; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | Driverless cars | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Asian/Pacific Islander | F | Driverless Cars Are Coming
Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore? Google cofounder Sergey Brin can. He envisions a future with a public transportation system where fleets of driverless cars form a public-transport taxi system. The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today’s taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus. He believes such cars would fundamentally change the world.
Television and movies have long been fascinated with cars that could drive themselves. In reality, Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash, but so far, Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents. So what roadblocks lie ahead for the autonomous car?
Sensing the World
Let's begin by looking at which companies are making computer-driven cars. Originally, many futurists believed the key to developing self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as smarter roads. For example, in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. The track was embedded with an electrical cable that sent radio signals to a receiver on the front end of the car. Engineers at Berkeley tried something similar, but they used magnets with alternating polarity. The car read the positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code. These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical.
Without the option of smarter roads, manufacturers turned to smarter cars—but how much smarter did the cars need to be? For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors. Google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. The most important bit of technology in this system is the spinning sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR, it uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the car's surroundings. The combination of all this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel.
Sensors are nothing new, of course. In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheels in the creation of antilock brakes. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone. Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own.
Driving or Assisting?
Antilock brakes and driver assistance still seem a long way from the dream of calling a driverless cab to take us wherever we desire, but Sebastian Thrun, founder of the Google Car project, believes that the technology has finally begun to catch up to the dream. “There was no way, before 2000, to make something interesting. The sensors weren't there, the computers weren't there, and the mapping wasn't there. Radar was a device on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack.” So just how driverless will the cars be in the near future?
In 2013, BMW announced the development of “Traffic Jam Assistant.” The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. This necessitates the car being ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs. GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object. The Google car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over. Other options under consideration are flashing lights on the windshield and other heads-up displays. Manufacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver.
Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn’t drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive? “The psychological aspects of automation are really a challenge,” admits Dr. Werner Huber, a BMW project manager driver. “We have to interpret the driving fun in a new way.” Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays. Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over—something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. In this way, the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern.
Waiting on the Law
Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars. California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have led the country in allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars; manufacturers believe that more states will follow as soon as the cars are proved more reliably safe. Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault—the driver or the manufacturer?
Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved. Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. The road to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us, but we grow closer to the destination every day. | null | null | null |
AAAVUP14319000066814 | 3 | The article that is called "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" is about the dangers that you could come upon if you go to or explore Venus. Some challenges that can come with when exploring Venus, are temputure, gravity, its atmosphere, body damage, or even death. There have been many mission that scientists have planned to go to Venus.
The first danger that Venus definately has, is its thick atmosphere that's almost 97 percent carbon dioxide that blankets the planet. This is true, because it says "A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus." Also no scientists want to go there, because of the even more challenging clouds that are highly corrosive sulfuric acid in the planet's atmosphere. This is also true, because the passage says "Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere.
The second danger that Venus's includes, is its very hot temputures. The passage talks about how the surface temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, which could even melt a submarine at the bottom of the ocean, and its atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than Earth's. Venus also has the hottest surface temputure out of all the planets in our solar system. These dangers are found from the passage and it says "On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our planet." "...such an environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans and would liquefy many metals. Also notable, Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system...".
Scientists now have been testing simplified electronics made from silicon carbide in a simulator that simulates the chaos of Venus's surface, and so far they have lasted weeks in those conditions. This was found in the passage and it says "... some simplified electronics made of silicom carbon have been tested in a chamber simulating the chaos of Venus's surface and have lasted for three weeks in such conditions." Another project the NASA is working on to get to the planet is a technology from the 1800's and played an important role during World War two, these devices make calculations by the use of gears and levers. This was also found in the passage and it says "Another project is looking back to an old technology called mechanical computers. These devices were first envisioned in the 1800's and played an important role in the 1940's during World War II." "... but these devices make calculations by using gears and levers and do not require electronics at all."
Striving to meet the challenges of Venus have been proven to be hard, because of human curiosity which will lead us to intiminating endeavors. We should not be limited by the danger and doubts and decide not to explore. Instead we should explore to gain more experience and new technology. | In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus," the author suggests studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. Using details from the article, write an essay evaluating how well the author supports this idea. Be sure to include: a claim that evaluates how well the author supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers; an explanation of the evidence from the article that supports your claim; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your essay. | Exploring Venus | Economically disadvantaged | Identified as having disability | No | White | M | The Challenge of Exploring Venus
Venus, sometimes called the “Evening Star,” is one of the brightest points of light in the night sky, making it simple for even and amateur stargazer to spot. However, this nickname is misleading since Venus is actually a planet. While Venus is simple to see from the distant but safe vantage point of Earth, it has proved a very challenging place to examine more closely.
Often referred to as Earth's “twin,” Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size, and occasionally the closest in distance too. Earth, Venus, and Mars, our other planetary neighbor, orbit the sun at different speeds. These differences in speed mean that sometimes we are closer to Mars and other times to Venus. Because Venus is sometimes right around the corner - in space terms - humans have spent numerous spacecraft to land on this cloud-draped world. Each previous mission was unmanned, and for good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours. Maybe this issue explains why not a single spaceship has touched down of Venus in more than three decades. Numberous factors contribute to Venus's reputation as a challenging planet for humans to study, despite its proximity to us.
A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere. On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet. These conditions are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth; such an environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans and would liquefy many metals. Also notable, Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system, even though Mercury is closer to our sun. Beyond high presure and heat, Venusian geology and weather present additional impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface.
If our sister is so inhospitable, why are scientists even discussing further visits to its surface? Astronomers are fascinated by Venus beccause it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth. Today, Venus still has some features that are analogous to those on Earth. The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters. Furthermore, recall that Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit, a crucial consideration given the long time frames of space travel. The value of returning to Venus seems indisputable, but what are the options for making such a mission both safe and scientifically productive?
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has one particularly compelling idea for sending humans to study Venus. NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray. Imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape. Just as our jet airplanes travel at a higher altitude to fly over many storms, a vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly ground conditions by staying up and out of their way. At thirty-plus miles above the surface, temperatures would still be toasty at around 170 degrees Farenheit, but the air pressure would be close to that of sea level on Earth. Solar power would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth levels. Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans.
However, peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions rendering standard forms of photography and videography ineffective. More importantly, researchers cannot take samples of rock, gas, or anything else, from a distance. Therefore, scientists seeking to conduct a thorough mission to understand Venus would need to get up close and personal despite the risks. Or maybe we should think of them as challenges. Many researchers are working on innovattions that would allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowledge of Venus.
NASA is working on other approaches to studying Venus. For example, some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simuulating the chaos of Venus's surface and have laster for three weeks in such conditions. Another project is looking back to an old technology called mechanical computers. These devices were first envisioned in the 1800s and played an important role int he 1940s during World War II. The thought of computers existing in those days may sound shocking, but these devices make calculations by using gears and levers and do not require electronics at all. Modern commputers are enormously powerful, flexible, and quick, but tend to be more delicate when it comes to extreme physical conditions. Just imagine exposing a cell phone or tablet to acid or heat capable of melting tin. By comparison, systems that use mechanical parts can be made mroe resistant to pressure, heat, and other forces.
Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also because human curiousity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors. Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation. | null | null | null |
AAATRP14318000711830 | 2 | This is for the facial recination i say yes to it becuse it can modify the students lesson so that the student is not bored with the lesson. Sure it might cost a little to make this happen for the students but they are this nation future. The program that they are using will let the help out the students to get better grades with other thing .
To help in thir life when they are in math class and they do not understand what is going on the computer will send them a little message to ask them to see what they need help with in the lesson. The program that they were using reconized a 600 year old painting that is all kinds of other things wrong with the painting . they were able to get the stats from the old painting they were 83% happy 9% distigusted 6% fearful 2% angery . The computer will scan all 44 mucle's in ure face that make the emotins that you feel every day. The emotions that you feel in ure day are happy,sad,cheerful,mad, these are some of the emotions that you feel in a normal day in ure life.
The thery of emotions are when you make a face it helps tell how ever that you are feeling. World renowned drama coach Constantin Stanislavsky. He tells his actors to reproduce faces to help them out better with all of there things that they are doing to help them be better actors. In one part of the story it says imagin a computer that imagins when you are sad or happy when and add pops on ure screan and it can tell that you are not interested in the add so it finds better adds when it is time for one to pop up.
Most humans have a nonverble type of way when they see each other. When leaonardo devinchi painted the mono lisa he had information the human body. That he had found out when he was diesecting peapole so that he could find out more. The Computers that he dose with all of these things . The devise all have all of the soft ware on these little electronic codes that help if distiguise between which faces that the person makes when they are happy fear and other.
With having this kind of tech we can do amazing things like figger out who is going to freak out and kill somone or somthing elses that is crazy when peapole go crazy for som odd reasone. This will prpobly save somone life in the long run with this kind of tech that is avalible that we are able to use. With it will give you facial feedback when ever you are using the device that has this program on it that you are able to use with it . these are my reasone for all of theses things. | In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile," the author describes how a new technology called the Facial Action Coding System enables computers to identify human emotions. Using details from the article, write an essay arguing whether the use of this technology to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is valuable. | Facial action coding system | Economically disadvantaged | Identified as having disability | No | American Indian/Alaskan Native | M | Copyright Restricted | null | null | null |
AAATRP14318000197138 | 3 | In the passage the author gave some really good information about the new inovation to emotional technology. As the technology world is growing we are going to have new opertunities such as this one to make our life's easier. But the real question is this good? Or could it be bad?
Honestly i think it would be a great invention and it would sell great on products like Apple phones and also it would be great for students with homework. Technology is always growing and the new products will make it grow more and more popular. How the world is now it will become over popular and i think too much of a good thing is a bad thing like fruits they are good for you but if you eat too many you could consume a mass amount of sugar. In the passage the author said "For example, if you smile when a Web ad appears on your screen, a smililar ad might follow. But if you frown, the next ad will be different." How would they know what your facial expression is? By watching through a camera and what else can the camera see? Humans relie in the enternet to bank for us, communicate for us, and know everything for us. Losing our phone is like losing our wallet. The enternet knows way too much information about us let alone when they know our facail expressions.
As much as people would love to have this technology the world could live without it. Students could ask thier techer for help so they know how to solve the hard problems. And people could learn to tell others facial expressions. | In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile," the author describes how a new technology called the Facial Action Coding System enables computers to identify human emotions. Using details from the article, write an essay arguing whether the use of this technology to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is valuable. | Facial action coding system | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | White | F | Copyright Restricted | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000070758 | 3 | As a scientist at NASA I strongly believe that the "The Face on Mars" is simply a martian from of a mesa, which is commonly found on Cydonia. According to the text "There was no alien monument after all." This was of course after the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) flew over Cydonia and captured a higher resolution image of "The Face." In the world of today, you can never prove anything to be real without people spreading rumors.
Some conspiracy theorists like to think that there actually is life on Mars, and that's fine, but their reasoning is not credible and make believe. In the story it states "Some people think the Face is bona fide evidence of life on Mars-evidence that NASA would rather hide, say conspiracy theorists." This reasoning behind believeing that there is life on Mars is unfactual and merely people's opinion. But as soon as my co-workers and I heard that people thought the Face was real, we took matters into our own hands and managed to take a couple of other photographs of the landform. Under a closer inspection in 2001 we were able to see that the mysterious Face was a "Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa" as stated in the text. No ancient alien civilization, just a common landform.
In conclusion, my team here at NASA and I have proven that the pop icon "Mars martian face" is actually a natrual landform that can be found just about anywhere. There was no need for all the chaos and random conspiracy theories, all it need was a little bit of science and hard work. | You have read the article 'Unmasking the Face on Mars.' Imagine you are a scientist at NASA discussing the Face with someone who thinks it was created by aliens. Using information in the article, write an argumentative essay to convince someone that the Face is just a natural landform.Be sure to include: claims to support your argument that the Face is a natural landform; evidence from the article to support your claims; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | The Face on Mars | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Hispanic/Latino | M | Unmasking the Face on Mars
Side by side: a Viking 1 photo from 1975, a Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) image from 1998, and the latest MGS image from 2001.
New high-resolution images and 3D altimetry from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft reveal the Face on Mars for what it really is: a mesa.
On May 24, 2001—Twenty five years ago, something funny happened around Mars. NASA’s Viking 1 spacecraft was circling the planet, snapping photos of possible landing sites for its sister ship Viking 2, when it spotted the shadowy likeness of a human face. An enormous head nearly two miles from end to end seemed to be staring back at the cameras from a region of the Red Planet called Cydonia.
There must have been a degree of surprise among mission controllers back at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory when the face appeared on their monitors. But the sensation was short-lived. Scientists figured it was just another Martian mesa, common enough around Cydonia, only this one had unusual shadows that made it look like an Egyptian Pharaoh.
A few days later NASA unveiled the image for all to see. The caption noted a “huge rock formation . . . which resembles a human head . . . formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose, and mouth.” The authors reasoned it would be a good way to engage the public and attract attention to Mars.
It certainly did!
The “Face on Mars” has since become a pop icon. It has starred in a Hollywood film, appeared in books, magazines, radio talk shows – even haunted grocery store checkout lines for 25 years! Some people think the Face is bona fide evidence of life on Mars – evidence that NASA would rather hide, say conspiracy theorists. Meanwhile, defenders of the NASA budget wish there was an ancient civilization on Mars.
A 1976 Viking 1 photograph of the Face on Mars
Although few scientists believed the Face was an alien artifact, photographing Cydonia became a priority for NASA when Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) arrived at the Red Planet in Sept. 1997, eighteen long years after the Viking missions ended. “We felt this was important to taxpayers,” explained Jim Garvin, chief scientist for NASA’s mars Exploration Program. “We photographed the Face as soon as we could get a good shot at it.”
And so on April 5, 1998, when Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia for the first time, Michael Malin and his Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) team snapped a picture ten times sharper than the original Viking photos. Thousands of anxious web surfers were waiting when the image first appeared on a JPL web site, revealing . . . a natural landform. There was no alien monument after all.
But not everyone was satisfied. The Face on Mars is located at 41 degrees north martial latitude where it was winter in April ‘98 – a cloudy time of year on the Red Planet. The camera on board MGS had to peer through wispy clouds to see the Face. Perhaps, said skeptics, alien markings were hidden by haze.
Mission controllers prepared to look again. “It’s not easy to target Cydonia,” says Garvin. “In fact, it’s hard work.” Mars Global Surveyor is a mapping spacecraft that normally looks straight down and scans the planet like a fax machine in narrow 2.5 km-wide strips. “We don’t pass over the Face very often,” he noted.
Nevertheless, on April 8, 2001 – a cloudless summer day in Cydonia – Mars Global Surveyor drew close enough for a second look. “We had to roll the spacecraft 25 degrees to center the Face in the field of view,” said Garvin. “Malin’s team captured an extraordinary photo using the camera’s absolute maximum resolution.” Each pixel in the 2001 image spans 1.56 meters, compared to the 43 meters per pixel in the best 1976 Viking photo.
“As a rule of thumb, you can discern things in a digital image 3 times bigger than the pixel size,” he added. “So, if there were objects in this picture like airplanes on the ground or Egyptian-style pyramids or even small shacks, you could see what they were!”
What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa – landforms common around the American West. “It reminds me of most of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho,” says Garvin. “That’s a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars.”
Text and photographs courtsey of NASA, “Unmasking the Face on Mars,” May 24, 2001 (retrieved from science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast24may_1/) | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000149372 | 3 | Driverless Cars Are Here!! Some may like them and some may not. The future is here and no more buying cars. I believe that this is newest and biggest thing yet.These car are safe and easy to use.The Google cofounder Sergey Brin has a public transport taxi system with these amazing driverless cares.
Even though these cars have saftey rules they still are easy to use. For saftey rules drivers must be alert.I know that drivless cars and regular cars must come with saftey rules. It say that human drivers must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires.This means when the human driver is ready to drive they would be able to shift over from driveless mode.
The driverless cars may sound good all good ,but it does have some negative aspects. Drivers would have to make sure if there's any computer problems.In only few states it is illegal even to test computer driven cars.In my opinion I feel that what's the point of getting one of these cars and it not being legal for them being tested. Many peope would believe that these cars may not even be such a good idea.
In conculsion future is here and they have created driverless cars.Driverless cars have mostly positive aspects in my opinion.Even though there are some negative aspects as well.The driverless cars does have saftey rules many would think that it wouldn't come with saftey rules.These such cars would fundamentally change the world. | In the article “Driverless Cars are Coming,” the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. Using details from the article, create an argument for or against the development of these cars. Be sure to include: your position on driverless cars; appropriate details from the article that support your position; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | Driverless cars | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Black/African American | F | Driverless Cars Are Coming
Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore? Google cofounder Sergey Brin can. He envisions a future with a public transportation system where fleets of driverless cars form a public-transport taxi system. The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today’s taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus. He believes such cars would fundamentally change the world.
Television and movies have long been fascinated with cars that could drive themselves. In reality, Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash, but so far, Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents. So what roadblocks lie ahead for the autonomous car?
Sensing the World
Let's begin by looking at which companies are making computer-driven cars. Originally, many futurists believed the key to developing self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as smarter roads. For example, in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. The track was embedded with an electrical cable that sent radio signals to a receiver on the front end of the car. Engineers at Berkeley tried something similar, but they used magnets with alternating polarity. The car read the positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code. These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical.
Without the option of smarter roads, manufacturers turned to smarter cars—but how much smarter did the cars need to be? For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors. Google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. The most important bit of technology in this system is the spinning sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR, it uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the car's surroundings. The combination of all this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel.
Sensors are nothing new, of course. In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheels in the creation of antilock brakes. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone. Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own.
Driving or Assisting?
Antilock brakes and driver assistance still seem a long way from the dream of calling a driverless cab to take us wherever we desire, but Sebastian Thrun, founder of the Google Car project, believes that the technology has finally begun to catch up to the dream. “There was no way, before 2000, to make something interesting. The sensors weren't there, the computers weren't there, and the mapping wasn't there. Radar was a device on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack.” So just how driverless will the cars be in the near future?
In 2013, BMW announced the development of “Traffic Jam Assistant.” The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. This necessitates the car being ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs. GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object. The Google car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over. Other options under consideration are flashing lights on the windshield and other heads-up displays. Manufacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver.
Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn’t drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive? “The psychological aspects of automation are really a challenge,” admits Dr. Werner Huber, a BMW project manager driver. “We have to interpret the driving fun in a new way.” Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays. Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over—something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. In this way, the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern.
Waiting on the Law
Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars. California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have led the country in allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars; manufacturers believe that more states will follow as soon as the cars are proved more reliably safe. Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault—the driver or the manufacturer?
Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved. Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. The road to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us, but we grow closer to the destination every day. | null | null | null |
AAAVUP14319000033630 | 3 | The author suggests that studing Venus is a worthy pursuit depite the dangers it presents. The author supported his idea of studying and understanding Venus can help us in many ways. Studying help will help us know more about Venus which will benefit in the future. And also maybe it will be the planet where it supported life.
The first reason why studying is Venus is a worthy is because Venus can be a very helpful planet for humanity. Venus can be a planet that is the most alike planet with Earth. According to the article, it says " Astronomers are fascinated by Venus because it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system". This show that Venus can the next place like Earth and where human can life.
Second, if Venus is most Earth-like planet then it mean there are some feature or some landscape that are similar with Earth in Venus. This will help us because it similar to where we live right now. And it will can be the second planet to live for us. According to the the text, is says "Lang ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth". This show that
like Earth, Venus could have supported life.
The author also talk about how Venus has some feature that are similar to Earth. How it has similar faetures like valleys, mountains, and craters. And also talk about the nearest option for a planerty visit. According to the article, " Today, Venus still had some features that are analogous to those on Earth. The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters. Futhermore, recall that Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for planetary visit, a crucial consideration given the long time frames of space travel". This mean that Venus is very silimar to Earth and worth studying.
In conclusion, the author supports the his idea of studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the danger in many ways. He talk about how the Venus might have been the most Earth-like planet. How Venus might have covered with oceans and might have supported life. And the features that Venus have that are similar to Earth. This shows that Venus is worth studying despite the dangers. | In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus," the author suggests studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. Using details from the article, write an essay evaluating how well the author supports this idea. Be sure to include: a claim that evaluates how well the author supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers; an explanation of the evidence from the article that supports your claim; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your essay. | Exploring Venus | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | Yes | Asian/Pacific Islander | F | The Challenge of Exploring Venus
Venus, sometimes called the “Evening Star,” is one of the brightest points of light in the night sky, making it simple for even and amateur stargazer to spot. However, this nickname is misleading since Venus is actually a planet. While Venus is simple to see from the distant but safe vantage point of Earth, it has proved a very challenging place to examine more closely.
Often referred to as Earth's “twin,” Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size, and occasionally the closest in distance too. Earth, Venus, and Mars, our other planetary neighbor, orbit the sun at different speeds. These differences in speed mean that sometimes we are closer to Mars and other times to Venus. Because Venus is sometimes right around the corner - in space terms - humans have spent numerous spacecraft to land on this cloud-draped world. Each previous mission was unmanned, and for good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours. Maybe this issue explains why not a single spaceship has touched down of Venus in more than three decades. Numberous factors contribute to Venus's reputation as a challenging planet for humans to study, despite its proximity to us.
A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere. On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet. These conditions are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth; such an environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans and would liquefy many metals. Also notable, Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system, even though Mercury is closer to our sun. Beyond high presure and heat, Venusian geology and weather present additional impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface.
If our sister is so inhospitable, why are scientists even discussing further visits to its surface? Astronomers are fascinated by Venus beccause it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth. Today, Venus still has some features that are analogous to those on Earth. The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters. Furthermore, recall that Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit, a crucial consideration given the long time frames of space travel. The value of returning to Venus seems indisputable, but what are the options for making such a mission both safe and scientifically productive?
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has one particularly compelling idea for sending humans to study Venus. NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray. Imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape. Just as our jet airplanes travel at a higher altitude to fly over many storms, a vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly ground conditions by staying up and out of their way. At thirty-plus miles above the surface, temperatures would still be toasty at around 170 degrees Farenheit, but the air pressure would be close to that of sea level on Earth. Solar power would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth levels. Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans.
However, peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions rendering standard forms of photography and videography ineffective. More importantly, researchers cannot take samples of rock, gas, or anything else, from a distance. Therefore, scientists seeking to conduct a thorough mission to understand Venus would need to get up close and personal despite the risks. Or maybe we should think of them as challenges. Many researchers are working on innovattions that would allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowledge of Venus.
NASA is working on other approaches to studying Venus. For example, some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simuulating the chaos of Venus's surface and have laster for three weeks in such conditions. Another project is looking back to an old technology called mechanical computers. These devices were first envisioned in the 1800s and played an important role int he 1940s during World War II. The thought of computers existing in those days may sound shocking, but these devices make calculations by using gears and levers and do not require electronics at all. Modern commputers are enormously powerful, flexible, and quick, but tend to be more delicate when it comes to extreme physical conditions. Just imagine exposing a cell phone or tablet to acid or heat capable of melting tin. By comparison, systems that use mechanical parts can be made mroe resistant to pressure, heat, and other forces.
Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also because human curiousity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors. Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation. | null | null | null |
AAATRP14318000121042 | 5 | This new peice of technology called the Facial Action Coding System, or FACS, is able to show peoples emotions and tell when people are hiding and masking their emotions. It is a new peice of technology developed by Prof. Thomas Huang, and Prof. Nicu Sebe. This product is revolutionary in many diffrenf ways. It not only valuable to a modern day life, but it also could have many real-world and technilogical applications.
The FACS system is a new and valuable peice of technology that has many interesting and strong applications. Like it was said im the text, it could adjust an assignment for a student to make it more engaging for them. A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored, Dr. Huang predicts. Then it could modify the lesson, like an effective human instructor." (D'Alto). That would make teachers lifes easier, and have less annoyed and out of control students, because they would be doing an assignment they would want to do, and not be extremely bored throughout class. Another way this could be valuable is for when cops do lie detector test. They would be able to pick up movements in the face that could show them that they are lying, or not telling the whole story. There are also many real world applications for this technology out there.
The FACS made by Prof. Thomas Huang could have many real world applications that would make life easier or more fun for some people. One of the many real world applications for this system would be Police Videos. You would be able to see the emotions on the criminal's face while he was being recorded on video, helping the police aid in the investigation. Another brought up by the article could be politics. You would be able to see how the politician is feeling, or which emotions. You would also be able to tell if they are faking emotions they are emitting while they are giving a speech, or if they are outright lying to you. The article itself says "To an expert, faces dont lie; these muscle clues are sometimes used to spot when a smiling politician or celebrity isnt being truthful." (D'Alto). The final point I want to bring up is how this could be used for therapy or working through yout problems.
The FACS system could be a great peice of technolgy for therapists to use, working posple through their issues. People could tell how angry or depressed you were actually feeling. It would be a good way to work through the problems you have been facing, because people would know how you are feeling. The machine is able to sense the emotions you have been feeling, so people would be there to comfort you and work through your emotional turmoil. It would make venting about your problems much easier, and less hard to agknowledge
The FACS system is an important and valuable peice of technology for people to use that will most likely become valuable in the near future. It has countless applications, from Police work to Emotional Therapy. In conclusion, Prof. Thomas Huang and Prof. Nibu Sebe has most likely make an invalubale innovation in the scientific feild with many real world and scientific innovations. | In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile," the author describes how a new technology called the Facial Action Coding System enables computers to identify human emotions. Using details from the article, write an essay arguing whether the use of this technology to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is valuable. | Facial action coding system | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | White | M | Copyright Restricted | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000003746 | 2 | In the article "A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves" Luke was a young seventeen-year-old boy who couldn't turn down the opportunity of a lifetime to go to Europe and help with the horses.
Some of the reasons to join the seagoing cowboys is that they get to see tons of awesome landmarks. If you love horses and cattle then is most likely the job for you. You get to enteract with them and feed them care for them like they were your own. Even if you just want to help out your world out then this could be the job for you.
It's amazing how much stuff you can do there to when the jobs done you might be able to look at the pretty things there. Sometimes if your lucky you have to go right through town so you get to see the pretty things on the way there. When it's time to go back home you play games where the horses were cared for. If seagoing cowboys were still around I would love to be one so badly. It would be so cool if I could be one too.
In conclusion, all i'm saying is that the seagoing cowboys would be something worth doing and worth while. You can go so many places and you rarely go to the same place ever. It sounds so cool and you never know where you'll go, hey you might just go to Egypt and see the pyrimids you just never know. | You have just read the article, 'A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves.' Luke's participation in the Seagoing Cowboys program allowed him to experience adventures and visit many unique places. Using information from the article, write an argument from Luke's point of view convincing others to participate in the Seagoing Cowboys program. Be sure to include: reasons to join the program; details from the article to support Luke's claims; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your essay. | "A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves" | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Hispanic/Latino | F | A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves
by Peggy Reif Miller
Luke Bomberger crossed the Atlantic Ocean 16 times and the Pacific Ocean twice to help people affected by World War II.
Luke Bomberger had no idea that his life would change soon after his high school graduation. He was working two part-time jobs in a grocery store and a bank when his friend Don Reist invited him to go to Europe on a cattle boat. Luke couldn’t say no. He knew it was an opportunity of a lifetime.
It was 1945, World War II was over in Europe, and many countries were left in ruins. To help these countries recover their food supplies, animals, and more, 44 nations joined together to form UNRRA (the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration). UNRRA hired “Seagoing Cowboys” to take care of the horses, young cows, and mules that were shipped overseas. Luke and Don signed up.
Heading Overseas
In August 1945, they received their orders to report to New Orleans. “We arrived August 14,” Luke says, “the day the Pacific war ended.” They got their seaman’s papers and boarded the SS Charles W. Wooster, headed for Greece – with a cargo of 335 horses plus enough hay and oats to feed them.
Luke turned 18 before arriving in Greece, which meant he could be drafted for military service. “When my draft board learned that I was on a cattle-boat trip, they told me to just keep doing that for my service.” By the time he was discharged in 1947, Luke had made nine trips – the most of any Seagoing Cowboy.
“The cattle-boat trips were an unbelievable opportunity for a small-town bow,” he says. “Besides helping people, I had the side benefit of seeing Europe and China. But seeing the Acropolis in Greece was special,” he says. “So was taking a gondola ride in Venice, Italy, a city with streets of water.” Luke also toured an excavated castle in Crete and marveled at the Panama Canal on his way to China.
Traveling the High Seas
It took about two weeks to cross the Atlantic Ocean from the eastern coast of the United States and a month to get to China. Caring for the animals during the crossings kept Luke busy. They had to be fed and watered two or three times a day. Bales of hay and bags of oats had to be pulled up from the lower holds of the ship. Stalls had to be cleaned.
Helping out on his aunt Katie’s farm as a boy had prepared Luke for hard work, but not for the dangers at sea. On his second trip, Luke served at night watchman. His job was to check on all the animals every hour. One rainy night, after making his hourly report to the captain, he slid down a slippery ladder on his backside. Luke’s heart raced as he shot feet first toward an opening on the side of the ship. A small strip of metal along the edge stopped his slide, keeping him from flying overboard into the dark Atlantic. He was happy to be alive. But he couldn’t work for a couple of days because of cracked ribs.
Luke also found time to have fun on board, especially on return trips after the animals had been unloaded. The cowboys played baseball and volleyball games in the empty holds where animals had been housed. Table-tennis tournaments, fencing, boxing, reading, whittling, and games also helped pass the time.
But being a Seagoing Cowboy was much more than an adventure for Luke Bomberger. It opened up the world to him. “I’m grateful for the opportunity,” he says. “It made me more aware of people of other countries and their needs.” And that awareness stayed with him, leading his family to host a number of international students and exchange visitors for many years.
“A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves” by Peggy Reif Miller from Highlights for Children Magazine’s October 2013 issue, copyright 2013 by Highlights for Children, Inc., Colombus, Ohio. Used by permission. | null | null | null |
AAAVUP14319000092864 | 2 | In the aricle "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" says that Venus is really good to study despite the dangers you might encounter. The article says that you may study it,imagen all the wonders you can find.
Also in paragrpah two it says that Venus and Earth are "twin". They say that planet Venus has the closest planet to Earth, but the density and size are some what close. It also say's that the speed of orbiting around the sun is close to Mars, and also Venus. Yet also Venus is very close to us that the humans have tried to send spacecraft to land on Venus numerous times. And yet each time was a fail since it only survived for a few hours.
Also in paragraph three it says that the atmosphere is very thick in Venus. That it has a 97 percent of carbon dioxide that covers Venus. Also the temperature is very extreme which is why we cannot live in Venus, even though Mercury is closest to the sun Venus is much hotter than Mercury.
Another reason is that Venus has a high pressure and also heat which states in paragraph three. Venusian geology says that Venus has erupting volcanoes, and very powerful erathquakes, it also has frequent lightning strikes that hits on the land.
Also in paragraph four it says Venus was probably coverd in largely oceans which can also supported the various forms of life. Yet also Venus does have some features of Earth, Venus has rocky sediment which includes valleys,mountains,and also craters. Also scientist say that to visit Venus it will take a long time frames of space travel, and also if you want to return form Venus it will be very hard.
Another reason on why Venus can be dangerous to study is that humans are having an idea on sending humans to Venus. Scientist are coming up with a solution have them float above the fray and not land. They are coming up with ideas of having a blimp like vehicle just hovering about 30 or more miles above the landscape. They may have a vehicle hovering over Venus so it could avoid the ground conditions for just staying off ground. The surface on Venus is around 170 degrees Fahrenheit, but the air pressure is close to the sea level on Earth which says on paragraph five.
In conclusion Venus is very dangerous, it has high temperatures and high pressure which the humans can not survive. Earth and Venus may have the same mountains and valleys, but Venus is to hot for us to survive. In conclusion Venus is dangerous to study. | In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus," the author suggests studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. Using details from the article, write an essay evaluating how well the author supports this idea. Be sure to include: a claim that evaluates how well the author supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers; an explanation of the evidence from the article that supports your claim; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your essay. | Exploring Venus | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Hispanic/Latino | F | The Challenge of Exploring Venus
Venus, sometimes called the “Evening Star,” is one of the brightest points of light in the night sky, making it simple for even and amateur stargazer to spot. However, this nickname is misleading since Venus is actually a planet. While Venus is simple to see from the distant but safe vantage point of Earth, it has proved a very challenging place to examine more closely.
Often referred to as Earth's “twin,” Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size, and occasionally the closest in distance too. Earth, Venus, and Mars, our other planetary neighbor, orbit the sun at different speeds. These differences in speed mean that sometimes we are closer to Mars and other times to Venus. Because Venus is sometimes right around the corner - in space terms - humans have spent numerous spacecraft to land on this cloud-draped world. Each previous mission was unmanned, and for good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours. Maybe this issue explains why not a single spaceship has touched down of Venus in more than three decades. Numberous factors contribute to Venus's reputation as a challenging planet for humans to study, despite its proximity to us.
A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere. On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet. These conditions are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth; such an environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans and would liquefy many metals. Also notable, Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system, even though Mercury is closer to our sun. Beyond high presure and heat, Venusian geology and weather present additional impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface.
If our sister is so inhospitable, why are scientists even discussing further visits to its surface? Astronomers are fascinated by Venus beccause it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth. Today, Venus still has some features that are analogous to those on Earth. The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters. Furthermore, recall that Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit, a crucial consideration given the long time frames of space travel. The value of returning to Venus seems indisputable, but what are the options for making such a mission both safe and scientifically productive?
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has one particularly compelling idea for sending humans to study Venus. NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray. Imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape. Just as our jet airplanes travel at a higher altitude to fly over many storms, a vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly ground conditions by staying up and out of their way. At thirty-plus miles above the surface, temperatures would still be toasty at around 170 degrees Farenheit, but the air pressure would be close to that of sea level on Earth. Solar power would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth levels. Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans.
However, peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions rendering standard forms of photography and videography ineffective. More importantly, researchers cannot take samples of rock, gas, or anything else, from a distance. Therefore, scientists seeking to conduct a thorough mission to understand Venus would need to get up close and personal despite the risks. Or maybe we should think of them as challenges. Many researchers are working on innovattions that would allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowledge of Venus.
NASA is working on other approaches to studying Venus. For example, some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simuulating the chaos of Venus's surface and have laster for three weeks in such conditions. Another project is looking back to an old technology called mechanical computers. These devices were first envisioned in the 1800s and played an important role int he 1940s during World War II. The thought of computers existing in those days may sound shocking, but these devices make calculations by using gears and levers and do not require electronics at all. Modern commputers are enormously powerful, flexible, and quick, but tend to be more delicate when it comes to extreme physical conditions. Just imagine exposing a cell phone or tablet to acid or heat capable of melting tin. By comparison, systems that use mechanical parts can be made mroe resistant to pressure, heat, and other forces.
Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also because human curiousity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors. Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation. | null | null | null |
5149962 | 3 | Dear state senator,
I trying to understand why we have the system of choosing our state's electors when you vote for president beacuse when you vote for your candidant you are actualy voting for your candidante's electors. This process is easier for most individuals beacause you do not have to sit in a room, for hours, counting up millions of votes; all you have to do is count up the elector's votes in stead. This process is what our founding fathers established in the constitution as a compromise between election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens. How can you be a qualified citizen, arent we all the same? I know that the electoral college consists of 538 electors and a majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the president. So, another thing that I would like to know is do you believe that this process that has been going on for ages is still a acturate system.
Does voting for people to vote for the president of your choice is a great idea. Does it not seem a bit ludacris that you have to choose your state electors in order for your vote to be counted since you think that who you pick as the electors will actually pick the vote you wanted. Why cant we vote for our won presient, why should we have to go through someone to vote for our president. It has been known that president's may be the popular vote winner, but still can lose the presidency. Why is that? Individuals that vote on their electors can not always control who their electors choose for president. Occasionally, sometimes the electors you pick will not vote for his or her party's candidate; they will cast a vote for whomever they please.
Some of these candidates that people choose are what you call "faithless" electors because of the winner-takes-all system. This means that most candidates do not spend time in states they know that they have no chance of winning. Meaning, they only stay focused on the "swing" states which in other words means the states that will either go for the person they like or against him. During the 2000 campaign, 17 state had not even seen their candidates at all and the voters in 25 of the largest media markets did not get to see a single campaign ad. So, tell me why we are still using this same system that cheats citizens out of their votes. Is it beacuse we are not qualified citizens?
If you do not already know by now the electoral college is a process, not a place and this process needs to be abolished. Who picks these electors, are they just people like you and I or are they the qualified citizens. They can be anyone not holding an office and the state actually chooses the electors. So, this means that the people really have no place in the president election. The electors are chosen by the state and even if you choose those electors they can go against what you decide and choose who ever they want. What happened to what the people wanted, why are those candidates choosing who runs our country for four years. What did they do so amazing that they get the final say on the matter. No, they are like us so why should we have to go through them just so we can make sure are vote matters in electing the president. Most of America has to deal with making sure are kids are getting a good eduacation, making sure are water or light bill is paid every month, and we also have deal with getting up at seven in the morning working and not coming home untill eleven at night all the while praying that our kids are safe since we could not pay for a nanny. With all of these things worrying us, putting a lot of stress in our minds one of the only things that we should not have to worry about is if our vote is going to count in electing our president. In conclusion, I believe, senator, that we should change our election by popular vote for the president of the United States of America. | Write a letter to your state senator in which you argue in favor of keeping the Electoral College or changing to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. Use the information from the texts in your essay. Manage your time carefully so that you can read the passages; plan your response; write your response; and revise and edit your response. Be sure to include a claim; address counterclaims; use evidence from multiple sources; and avoid overly relying on one source. Your response should be in the form of a multiparagraph essay. Write your response in the space provided. | Does the electoral college work? | null | null | No | Black/African American | F | What Is the
Electoral College?
by the Office of the Federal Register
The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the
Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and
election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.
The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the
electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes
by Congress.
The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required
to elect the President. Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in
its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for
your Senators. . . .
Under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution, the District of Columbia is allocated 3
electors and treated like a state for purposes of the Electoral College. For this reason, in the
following discussion, the word “state” also refers to the District of Columbia.
Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. The
electors are generally chosen by the candidate’s political party, but state laws vary on how the
electors are selected and what their responsibilities are. . . .
The presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in
November. You help choose your state’s electors when you vote for President because when you
vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate’s electors.
Most states have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors to the winning
presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of “proportional representation.” . . .
After the presidential election, your governor prepares a “Certificate of Ascertainment”
listing all of the candidates who ran for President in your state along with the names of their
respective electors. The Certificate of Ascertainment also declares the winning presidential
candidate in your state and shows which electors will represent your state at the meeting of the
electors in December of the election year. Your state’s Certificates of Ascertainments are sent to
the Congress and the National Archives as part of the official records of the presidential election.
Excerpt from “What Is the Electoral College?” by
the Office of the Federal Register, from
www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoralcollege/about.html. In the public domain. | The Indefensible
Electoral College: Why even
the best-laid defenses of
the system are wrong
by Bradford Plumer
What have Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the
AFL-CIO all, in their time, agreed on? Answer: Abolishing the electoral college! They’re not alone;
according to a Gallup poll in 2000, taken shortly after Al Gore—thanks to the quirks of the
electoral college—won the popular vote but lost the presidency, over 60 percent of voters would
prefer a direct election to the kind we have now. This year voters can expect another close
election in which the popular vote winner could again lose the presidency. And yet, the electoral
college still has its defenders. What gives? . . .
What’s wrong with the electoral college
Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of
electors, who in turn elect the president. If you lived in Texas, for instance, and wanted to vote
for [John] Kerry, you’d vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors pledged to Kerry. On the offchance that those electors won the statewide election, they would go to Congress and Kerry
would get 34 electoral votes. Who are the electors? They can be anyone not holding public office.
Who picks the electors in the first place? It depends on the state. Sometimes state conventions,
sometimes the state party’s central committee, sometimes the presidential candidates
themselves. Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always. Do voters sometimes
get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate? Sometimes.
The single best argument against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster
factor. The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the
biggest election crisis in a century; the system allows for much worse. Consider that state
legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always
defy the will of the people. Back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly
succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F.
Kennedy. (So that a popular vote for Kennedy would not have actually gone to Kennedy.) In the
same vein, “faithless” electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party’s candidate and
cast a deciding vote for whomever they please. . . . Oh, and what if a state sends two slates of
electors to Congress? It happened in Hawaii in 1960. Luckily, Vice President Richard Nixon, who
was presiding over the Senate, validated only his opponent’s electors, but he made sure to do so
“without establishing a precedent.” What if it happened again?
Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. In that case, the
election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the
president. (The Senate would choose the vice-president.) Because each state casts only one vote,
the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say
as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters. Given that many
voters vote one party for president and another for Congress, the House’s selection can hardly be
expected to reflect the will of the people. And if an electoral tie seems unlikely, consider this: In
1968, a shift of just 41,971 votes would have deadlocked the election; In 1976, a tie would have
occurred if a mere 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted the other way. The
election is only a few swing voters away from catastrophe.
At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winner-takeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of
winning, focusing only on the tight races in the “swing” states. 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 anyone has a
good argument for putting the fate of the presidency in the hands of a few swing voters in Ohio,
they have yet to make it. . . .
It’s official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The best arguments in
favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality. And the arguments against direct
elections are spurious at best. It’s hard to say this, but Bob Dole was right: Abolish the electoral
college!
lost the presidency: In the 2000 U.S. presidential
race, Al Gore received more individual votes than
George W. Bush nationwide, but Bush won the
election, receiving 271 electoral votes to Gore’s
266.
John Kerry: Kerry ran for President against George
W. Bush (43rd president of the United States),
representing the Democratic Party in 2004.
segregationists: people who favored separation
based on race
Excerpt from “The Indefensible Electoral College:
Why even the best-laid defenses are wrong” from
Mother Jones by Bradford Plumer. Copyright ©
2004 by Mother Jones and the Foundation for
National Progress. All Rights Reserved. | In Defense of the
Electoral College: Five
reasons to keep our
despised method of
choosing the President
by Judge Richard A. Posner
The Electoral College is widely regarded as an anachronism, a non-democratic method of
selecting a president that ought to be [overruled] by declaring the candidate who receives the
most popular votes the winner. The advocates of this position are correct in arguing that 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 presidential candidate you’re actually voting for a
slate of electors.
But each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party’s nominee (and that
trust is rarely betrayed) . . . [; however,] it is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral
vote will not win the national popular vote. Yet that has happened very rarely. It happened in
2000, when Gore had more popular votes than Bush yet fewer electoral votes, but that was the
first time since 1888.
There are five reasons for retaining the Electoral College despite its lack of democratic
pedigree; all are practical reasons, not liberal or conservative reasons.
1) Certainty of Outcome
A dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote is possible—it happened in 2000
—but it’s less likely than a dispute over the popular vote. The reason is that the winning
candidate’s share of the Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote. In
[2012’s] election, for example, Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to
only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and Romney. . . . Because almost all states
award electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis, even a very slight plurality in a state creates a
landslide electoral-vote victory in that state. A tie in the nationwide electoral vote is possible
because the total number of votes—538—is an even number, but it is highly unlikely. . . .
2) Everyone’s President
The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have trans-regional appeal. No
region (South, Northeast, etc.) has enough electoral votes to elect a president. So a solid regional
favorite, such as Romney was in the South, has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states,
for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his plurality in states that he knows he will win. This
is a desirable result because a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful
president. The residents of the other regions are likely to feel disenfranchised—to feel that their
votes do not count, that the new president will have no regard for their interests, that he really
isn’t their president.
3) Swing States
The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes induces the candidates—as we saw
in [2012’s] election—to focus their campaign efforts on the toss-up states . . . . Voters in toss-up
states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign—to really listen to the competing
candidates—knowing that they are going to decide the election. They are likely to be the most
thoughtful voters, on average (and for the further reason that they will have received the most
information and attention from the candidates), and the most thoughtful voters should be the
ones to decide the election.
4) Big States
The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states
(by population) lose by virtue of the mal-apportionment of the Senate decreed in the
Constitution. . . . The popular vote was very close in Florida [in 2012]; nevertheless Obama, who
won that vote, got 29 electoral votes. A victory by the same margin in Wyoming would net the
winner only 3 electoral votes. So, other things being equal, a large state gets more attention from
presidential candidates in a campaign than a small state does. . . .
5) Avoid Run-Off Elections
The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a
majority of the votes cast. For example, Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had only a 43
percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the Electoral College (301 and
370 electoral votes, respectively). There is pressure for run-off elections when no candidate wins
a majority of the votes cast; that pressure, which would greatly complicate the presidential
election process, is reduced by the Electoral College, which invariably produces a clear winner. . . .
It can be argued that the Electoral College method of selecting the president may turn off
potential voters for a candidate who has no hope of carrying their state—Democrats in Texas, for
example, or Republicans in California. Knowing their vote will have no effect, they have less
incentive to pay attention to the campaign than they would have if the president were picked by
popular vote . . . . But of course no voter’s vote swings a national election, and in spite of that,
about one-half the eligible American population did vote in [2012’s] election. Voters in
presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people
who think that a single vote may decide an election. . . .
anachronism: a person or a thing that seems to
belong to the past and not to fit in the present
pedigree: the origin and history of something,
especially when it is good or impressive
liberal or conservative: political philosophies
commonly seen as opposite each other
Obama: Barack Obama, 44th president of the
United States
Romney: Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee for
President in 2012
plurality: when a candidate receives more votes
than other candidates while not receiving a clear
majority of votes
Excerpt from “In Defense of the Electoral College:
Five reasons to keep our despised method of
choosing the President” from Slate Magazine by
Judge Richard A. Posner. Copyright © 2012. | null |
AAAVUP14319000082103 | 1 | People referr Venus as the Earth's twin since it is the closest planet to Earth, but this does not mean that it is easy to explore. Venus is easy to spot, but people have sent spacecraft to Venus but not a single one touched Venus in three decades. This makes it hard for people to explore the planet if they can only see it, but can't be on it to see how it really looks and works on the inside.
The atmospheric pressure it 90 times than that of Earth's. The conditions that occur in Venus make it extreme for any man to even step foot on, due to the envierment of the plantet to crush even a submarine and causing the submarine to liguidfy and no human being could survive.
The harsh conditons are not stopping scientists from exploring Venus. The reason for this is because a long time ago, Venus might have been surrounded by oceans. And water means life. | In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus," the author suggests studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. Using details from the article, write an essay evaluating how well the author supports this idea. Be sure to include: a claim that evaluates how well the author supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers; an explanation of the evidence from the article that supports your claim; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your essay. | Exploring Venus | Economically disadvantaged | Identified as having disability | Yes | Hispanic/Latino | F | The Challenge of Exploring Venus
Venus, sometimes called the “Evening Star,” is one of the brightest points of light in the night sky, making it simple for even and amateur stargazer to spot. However, this nickname is misleading since Venus is actually a planet. While Venus is simple to see from the distant but safe vantage point of Earth, it has proved a very challenging place to examine more closely.
Often referred to as Earth's “twin,” Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size, and occasionally the closest in distance too. Earth, Venus, and Mars, our other planetary neighbor, orbit the sun at different speeds. These differences in speed mean that sometimes we are closer to Mars and other times to Venus. Because Venus is sometimes right around the corner - in space terms - humans have spent numerous spacecraft to land on this cloud-draped world. Each previous mission was unmanned, and for good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours. Maybe this issue explains why not a single spaceship has touched down of Venus in more than three decades. Numberous factors contribute to Venus's reputation as a challenging planet for humans to study, despite its proximity to us.
A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere. On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet. These conditions are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth; such an environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans and would liquefy many metals. Also notable, Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system, even though Mercury is closer to our sun. Beyond high presure and heat, Venusian geology and weather present additional impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface.
If our sister is so inhospitable, why are scientists even discussing further visits to its surface? Astronomers are fascinated by Venus beccause it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth. Today, Venus still has some features that are analogous to those on Earth. The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters. Furthermore, recall that Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit, a crucial consideration given the long time frames of space travel. The value of returning to Venus seems indisputable, but what are the options for making such a mission both safe and scientifically productive?
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has one particularly compelling idea for sending humans to study Venus. NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray. Imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape. Just as our jet airplanes travel at a higher altitude to fly over many storms, a vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly ground conditions by staying up and out of their way. At thirty-plus miles above the surface, temperatures would still be toasty at around 170 degrees Farenheit, but the air pressure would be close to that of sea level on Earth. Solar power would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth levels. Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans.
However, peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions rendering standard forms of photography and videography ineffective. More importantly, researchers cannot take samples of rock, gas, or anything else, from a distance. Therefore, scientists seeking to conduct a thorough mission to understand Venus would need to get up close and personal despite the risks. Or maybe we should think of them as challenges. Many researchers are working on innovattions that would allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowledge of Venus.
NASA is working on other approaches to studying Venus. For example, some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simuulating the chaos of Venus's surface and have laster for three weeks in such conditions. Another project is looking back to an old technology called mechanical computers. These devices were first envisioned in the 1800s and played an important role int he 1940s during World War II. The thought of computers existing in those days may sound shocking, but these devices make calculations by using gears and levers and do not require electronics at all. Modern commputers are enormously powerful, flexible, and quick, but tend to be more delicate when it comes to extreme physical conditions. Just imagine exposing a cell phone or tablet to acid or heat capable of melting tin. By comparison, systems that use mechanical parts can be made mroe resistant to pressure, heat, and other forces.
Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also because human curiousity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors. Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation. | null | null | null |
5216460 | 2 | Dear, senator
I honestely think that it should be popular vote instaed of the electoral college. i think that because its going to effect our lives, our way of living, and how our way of life is going to work. If we pick a president then thats who we wanted now what a group of people want.
Having a popular vote is the same thing but with more people and more accurate.
The way we like to live is the better wa, not being forced on how to live our lives. It is also a faster prosses to vote. If the group all are equal then they have to wait a longer time to see who the presedent is going to be and no one wants that. If i can ask you one question its going to be "how long will you be willing to wait to see who the new presedent id going to be?" The people of nthe united states dont want to wait, they want to see who the presedent is going to be the week after they vote.
Can we live the way we want to live
? can we live our lives without something happening that changes everything? Most of the time no, there is always something/someone that changes things in our lives. Like in 2001 the twin towers got hit by a plane, that changed everything. the way we go through airports, the way we fly, the way how people find jobs, and how people look and their beliefs. Some people are judged by what they do for living or what they look like , but thats the point of freedome in the united states. If we have a popular vote in the US they most of that will change and i can garantee that more laws will be fast that will help the US.
I'm going to agree with Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Bob Dole. they all wanted the electoral collede to be abolished. there is no need to have them if we have the people in out states. The people in out states have a big use in voting. without the people then whats the use in being in states why not just one big land. Every state has its own way of voting but the peoples votes really dont mean anything with the electoral college. The electoral college just take over voting and wont let the people oppinions work in voting. Without them our votes will mean something, not just thrown away and just be forgotten.
If they stay they should be used for emergencies . If by any chance everyone has a tie they should be the tie breaker.
Most ruls shouldnt just be in texas or california.
They should occure in all states.
why do only two states get special treatment? If every state had tghe same rulls do you think it would be more fair to all the states? If not then i dont know what to say, because im pretty sure in one of the amendmendments it states thats "every human being will be treated equal no matter what."So this is my tought on how we should vote and that is by popular vote.. | Write a letter to your state senator in which you argue in favor of keeping the Electoral College or changing to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. Use the information from the texts in your essay. Manage your time carefully so that you can read the passages; plan your response; write your response; and revise and edit your response. Be sure to include a claim; address counterclaims; use evidence from multiple sources; and avoid overly relying on one source. Your response should be in the form of a multiparagraph essay. Write your response in the space provided. | Does the electoral college work? | null | null | No | Hispanic/Latino | M | What Is the
Electoral College?
by the Office of the Federal Register
The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the
Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and
election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.
The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the
electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes
by Congress.
The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required
to elect the President. Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in
its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for
your Senators. . . .
Under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution, the District of Columbia is allocated 3
electors and treated like a state for purposes of the Electoral College. For this reason, in the
following discussion, the word “state” also refers to the District of Columbia.
Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. The
electors are generally chosen by the candidate’s political party, but state laws vary on how the
electors are selected and what their responsibilities are. . . .
The presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in
November. You help choose your state’s electors when you vote for President because when you
vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate’s electors.
Most states have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors to the winning
presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of “proportional representation.” . . .
After the presidential election, your governor prepares a “Certificate of Ascertainment”
listing all of the candidates who ran for President in your state along with the names of their
respective electors. The Certificate of Ascertainment also declares the winning presidential
candidate in your state and shows which electors will represent your state at the meeting of the
electors in December of the election year. Your state’s Certificates of Ascertainments are sent to
the Congress and the National Archives as part of the official records of the presidential election.
Excerpt from “What Is the Electoral College?” by
the Office of the Federal Register, from
www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoralcollege/about.html. In the public domain. | The Indefensible
Electoral College: Why even
the best-laid defenses of
the system are wrong
by Bradford Plumer
What have Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the
AFL-CIO all, in their time, agreed on? Answer: Abolishing the electoral college! They’re not alone;
according to a Gallup poll in 2000, taken shortly after Al Gore—thanks to the quirks of the
electoral college—won the popular vote but lost the presidency, over 60 percent of voters would
prefer a direct election to the kind we have now. This year voters can expect another close
election in which the popular vote winner could again lose the presidency. And yet, the electoral
college still has its defenders. What gives? . . .
What’s wrong with the electoral college
Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of
electors, who in turn elect the president. If you lived in Texas, for instance, and wanted to vote
for [John] Kerry, you’d vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors pledged to Kerry. On the offchance that those electors won the statewide election, they would go to Congress and Kerry
would get 34 electoral votes. Who are the electors? They can be anyone not holding public office.
Who picks the electors in the first place? It depends on the state. Sometimes state conventions,
sometimes the state party’s central committee, sometimes the presidential candidates
themselves. Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always. Do voters sometimes
get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate? Sometimes.
The single best argument against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster
factor. The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the
biggest election crisis in a century; the system allows for much worse. Consider that state
legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always
defy the will of the people. Back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly
succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F.
Kennedy. (So that a popular vote for Kennedy would not have actually gone to Kennedy.) In the
same vein, “faithless” electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party’s candidate and
cast a deciding vote for whomever they please. . . . Oh, and what if a state sends two slates of
electors to Congress? It happened in Hawaii in 1960. Luckily, Vice President Richard Nixon, who
was presiding over the Senate, validated only his opponent’s electors, but he made sure to do so
“without establishing a precedent.” What if it happened again?
Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. In that case, the
election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the
president. (The Senate would choose the vice-president.) Because each state casts only one vote,
the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say
as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters. Given that many
voters vote one party for president and another for Congress, the House’s selection can hardly be
expected to reflect the will of the people. And if an electoral tie seems unlikely, consider this: In
1968, a shift of just 41,971 votes would have deadlocked the election; In 1976, a tie would have
occurred if a mere 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted the other way. The
election is only a few swing voters away from catastrophe.
At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winner-takeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of
winning, focusing only on the tight races in the “swing” states. 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 anyone has a
good argument for putting the fate of the presidency in the hands of a few swing voters in Ohio,
they have yet to make it. . . .
It’s official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The best arguments in
favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality. And the arguments against direct
elections are spurious at best. It’s hard to say this, but Bob Dole was right: Abolish the electoral
college!
lost the presidency: In the 2000 U.S. presidential
race, Al Gore received more individual votes than
George W. Bush nationwide, but Bush won the
election, receiving 271 electoral votes to Gore’s
266.
John Kerry: Kerry ran for President against George
W. Bush (43rd president of the United States),
representing the Democratic Party in 2004.
segregationists: people who favored separation
based on race
Excerpt from “The Indefensible Electoral College:
Why even the best-laid defenses are wrong” from
Mother Jones by Bradford Plumer. Copyright ©
2004 by Mother Jones and the Foundation for
National Progress. All Rights Reserved. | In Defense of the
Electoral College: Five
reasons to keep our
despised method of
choosing the President
by Judge Richard A. Posner
The Electoral College is widely regarded as an anachronism, a non-democratic method of
selecting a president that ought to be [overruled] by declaring the candidate who receives the
most popular votes the winner. The advocates of this position are correct in arguing that 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 presidential candidate you’re actually voting for a
slate of electors.
But each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party’s nominee (and that
trust is rarely betrayed) . . . [; however,] it is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral
vote will not win the national popular vote. Yet that has happened very rarely. It happened in
2000, when Gore had more popular votes than Bush yet fewer electoral votes, but that was the
first time since 1888.
There are five reasons for retaining the Electoral College despite its lack of democratic
pedigree; all are practical reasons, not liberal or conservative reasons.
1) Certainty of Outcome
A dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote is possible—it happened in 2000
—but it’s less likely than a dispute over the popular vote. The reason is that the winning
candidate’s share of the Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote. In
[2012’s] election, for example, Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to
only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and Romney. . . . Because almost all states
award electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis, even a very slight plurality in a state creates a
landslide electoral-vote victory in that state. A tie in the nationwide electoral vote is possible
because the total number of votes—538—is an even number, but it is highly unlikely. . . .
2) Everyone’s President
The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have trans-regional appeal. No
region (South, Northeast, etc.) has enough electoral votes to elect a president. So a solid regional
favorite, such as Romney was in the South, has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states,
for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his plurality in states that he knows he will win. This
is a desirable result because a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful
president. The residents of the other regions are likely to feel disenfranchised—to feel that their
votes do not count, that the new president will have no regard for their interests, that he really
isn’t their president.
3) Swing States
The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes induces the candidates—as we saw
in [2012’s] election—to focus their campaign efforts on the toss-up states . . . . Voters in toss-up
states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign—to really listen to the competing
candidates—knowing that they are going to decide the election. They are likely to be the most
thoughtful voters, on average (and for the further reason that they will have received the most
information and attention from the candidates), and the most thoughtful voters should be the
ones to decide the election.
4) Big States
The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states
(by population) lose by virtue of the mal-apportionment of the Senate decreed in the
Constitution. . . . The popular vote was very close in Florida [in 2012]; nevertheless Obama, who
won that vote, got 29 electoral votes. A victory by the same margin in Wyoming would net the
winner only 3 electoral votes. So, other things being equal, a large state gets more attention from
presidential candidates in a campaign than a small state does. . . .
5) Avoid Run-Off Elections
The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a
majority of the votes cast. For example, Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had only a 43
percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the Electoral College (301 and
370 electoral votes, respectively). There is pressure for run-off elections when no candidate wins
a majority of the votes cast; that pressure, which would greatly complicate the presidential
election process, is reduced by the Electoral College, which invariably produces a clear winner. . . .
It can be argued that the Electoral College method of selecting the president may turn off
potential voters for a candidate who has no hope of carrying their state—Democrats in Texas, for
example, or Republicans in California. Knowing their vote will have no effect, they have less
incentive to pay attention to the campaign than they would have if the president were picked by
popular vote . . . . But of course no voter’s vote swings a national election, and in spite of that,
about one-half the eligible American population did vote in [2012’s] election. Voters in
presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people
who think that a single vote may decide an election. . . .
anachronism: a person or a thing that seems to
belong to the past and not to fit in the present
pedigree: the origin and history of something,
especially when it is good or impressive
liberal or conservative: political philosophies
commonly seen as opposite each other
Obama: Barack Obama, 44th president of the
United States
Romney: Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee for
President in 2012
plurality: when a candidate receives more votes
than other candidates while not receiving a clear
majority of votes
Excerpt from “In Defense of the Electoral College:
Five reasons to keep our despised method of
choosing the President” from Slate Magazine by
Judge Richard A. Posner. Copyright © 2012. | null |
AAAOPP13416000071702 | 3 | you should join the Seagoing Cowboys program because you do not know how your life going to be and it is a huge and amazing opportunity.
You will be helping others who been affected by World War ll. You will be able to travel places you never been like China or the Pacific Ocean. You can get a chance to go to Greece and see wat it is like out there and get a chance to get out of the USA.
You should join the Seagoing Cowboys program and help the poor and homeless people get in the UNRRA so they will not be hungry and live a better life. You casn help all the people. in Europe and give them food and stuff so they do not starve to death and try to get them a home and thery will not be left out and hungry.
If you join the Seagoing Cowboys Program you can see the horses and feed them and stuff. Some people love animals so they can help out with the horese and other animals. You will have the Nightwatch and go and see iuf all the cows and horses are on the ship. But when it is raining and nyou on nightwatchb you will have to be careful because you can slip and break your bone or crack them and even worse you caN slip off the deck and be in the ocean or where you go but if you slip off there are some strong currents that can pull you down and you can drown or they can pull you away from the ship and take you to a island | You have just read the article, 'A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves.' Luke's participation in the Seagoing Cowboys program allowed him to experience adventures and visit many unique places. Using information from the article, write an argument from Luke's point of view convincing others to participate in the Seagoing Cowboys program. Be sure to include: reasons to join the program; details from the article to support Luke's claims; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your essay. | "A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves" | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Black/African American | M | A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves
by Peggy Reif Miller
Luke Bomberger crossed the Atlantic Ocean 16 times and the Pacific Ocean twice to help people affected by World War II.
Luke Bomberger had no idea that his life would change soon after his high school graduation. He was working two part-time jobs in a grocery store and a bank when his friend Don Reist invited him to go to Europe on a cattle boat. Luke couldn’t say no. He knew it was an opportunity of a lifetime.
It was 1945, World War II was over in Europe, and many countries were left in ruins. To help these countries recover their food supplies, animals, and more, 44 nations joined together to form UNRRA (the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration). UNRRA hired “Seagoing Cowboys” to take care of the horses, young cows, and mules that were shipped overseas. Luke and Don signed up.
Heading Overseas
In August 1945, they received their orders to report to New Orleans. “We arrived August 14,” Luke says, “the day the Pacific war ended.” They got their seaman’s papers and boarded the SS Charles W. Wooster, headed for Greece – with a cargo of 335 horses plus enough hay and oats to feed them.
Luke turned 18 before arriving in Greece, which meant he could be drafted for military service. “When my draft board learned that I was on a cattle-boat trip, they told me to just keep doing that for my service.” By the time he was discharged in 1947, Luke had made nine trips – the most of any Seagoing Cowboy.
“The cattle-boat trips were an unbelievable opportunity for a small-town bow,” he says. “Besides helping people, I had the side benefit of seeing Europe and China. But seeing the Acropolis in Greece was special,” he says. “So was taking a gondola ride in Venice, Italy, a city with streets of water.” Luke also toured an excavated castle in Crete and marveled at the Panama Canal on his way to China.
Traveling the High Seas
It took about two weeks to cross the Atlantic Ocean from the eastern coast of the United States and a month to get to China. Caring for the animals during the crossings kept Luke busy. They had to be fed and watered two or three times a day. Bales of hay and bags of oats had to be pulled up from the lower holds of the ship. Stalls had to be cleaned.
Helping out on his aunt Katie’s farm as a boy had prepared Luke for hard work, but not for the dangers at sea. On his second trip, Luke served at night watchman. His job was to check on all the animals every hour. One rainy night, after making his hourly report to the captain, he slid down a slippery ladder on his backside. Luke’s heart raced as he shot feet first toward an opening on the side of the ship. A small strip of metal along the edge stopped his slide, keeping him from flying overboard into the dark Atlantic. He was happy to be alive. But he couldn’t work for a couple of days because of cracked ribs.
Luke also found time to have fun on board, especially on return trips after the animals had been unloaded. The cowboys played baseball and volleyball games in the empty holds where animals had been housed. Table-tennis tournaments, fencing, boxing, reading, whittling, and games also helped pass the time.
But being a Seagoing Cowboy was much more than an adventure for Luke Bomberger. It opened up the world to him. “I’m grateful for the opportunity,” he says. “It made me more aware of people of other countries and their needs.” And that awareness stayed with him, leading his family to host a number of international students and exchange visitors for many years.
“A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves” by Peggy Reif Miller from Highlights for Children Magazine’s October 2013 issue, copyright 2013 by Highlights for Children, Inc., Colombus, Ohio. Used by permission. | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000109416 | 4 | The face on mars is not created by aliens this is a natural landform on earth there already were landforms that were created. We can't say aliens made those too. Such as vocanoes, rivers, and mountains we also couldn't say we built those because we didn't. If aliens really did build the face on mars how come their isn't any proof anything was on the planet? If there was any form of a living species you would have at least seen Egyptian- style pyramids or even small shacks.
Mars is a planet that is know for having rocks on it, there is a possibility that this is just a huge rock that was carved into the planet already or the planet it's self got either hit by and astroid or had been forming it's self in some way. Aliens could'nt have build the face they would've needed soem short of unground passege or even shelter's, none of these things were found when we discoverd the face. We get the picture looks blurry btu even with zooming in you can't see any such thing as if there was an alien.
Scientist has studied the photos the astronots had brought home we saw their were may rocks this could have been a mistake. How would an alien know what a human face looks like anyways? By our understand we could be looking at it and imageing it's a face when really it's just a rock that was formed to look like a humans head.
April 5, 1998 when mars Global Surveyor flew oven the face he snapped pictures ten times sharper then the original Viking photos. Thousands of people anxious to have the photo appear on JPL web site by yet still came out with saying that it was just an natural landform. People were not satisfied, this bring's me back to the point were it was just our imagination maybe we're lookingat it wrong it's really meant to look like one thing but were making it look like another.
We belive that if aliens really did make this face how come their wasn't any type of form in which we can tell their was any type of life form living on mars? Landscapes are usual to see on planest and this was one of them. If there was any type of life form i think Michale Malin would have already taken pictures of them if he had seen anything. He didn't which means this face was actually a natural landform. | You have read the article 'Unmasking the Face on Mars.' Imagine you are a scientist at NASA discussing the Face with someone who thinks it was created by aliens. Using information in the article, write an argumentative essay to convince someone that the Face is just a natural landform.Be sure to include: claims to support your argument that the Face is a natural landform; evidence from the article to support your claims; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | The Face on Mars | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Hispanic/Latino | F | Unmasking the Face on Mars
Side by side: a Viking 1 photo from 1975, a Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) image from 1998, and the latest MGS image from 2001.
New high-resolution images and 3D altimetry from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft reveal the Face on Mars for what it really is: a mesa.
On May 24, 2001—Twenty five years ago, something funny happened around Mars. NASA’s Viking 1 spacecraft was circling the planet, snapping photos of possible landing sites for its sister ship Viking 2, when it spotted the shadowy likeness of a human face. An enormous head nearly two miles from end to end seemed to be staring back at the cameras from a region of the Red Planet called Cydonia.
There must have been a degree of surprise among mission controllers back at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory when the face appeared on their monitors. But the sensation was short-lived. Scientists figured it was just another Martian mesa, common enough around Cydonia, only this one had unusual shadows that made it look like an Egyptian Pharaoh.
A few days later NASA unveiled the image for all to see. The caption noted a “huge rock formation . . . which resembles a human head . . . formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose, and mouth.” The authors reasoned it would be a good way to engage the public and attract attention to Mars.
It certainly did!
The “Face on Mars” has since become a pop icon. It has starred in a Hollywood film, appeared in books, magazines, radio talk shows – even haunted grocery store checkout lines for 25 years! Some people think the Face is bona fide evidence of life on Mars – evidence that NASA would rather hide, say conspiracy theorists. Meanwhile, defenders of the NASA budget wish there was an ancient civilization on Mars.
A 1976 Viking 1 photograph of the Face on Mars
Although few scientists believed the Face was an alien artifact, photographing Cydonia became a priority for NASA when Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) arrived at the Red Planet in Sept. 1997, eighteen long years after the Viking missions ended. “We felt this was important to taxpayers,” explained Jim Garvin, chief scientist for NASA’s mars Exploration Program. “We photographed the Face as soon as we could get a good shot at it.”
And so on April 5, 1998, when Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia for the first time, Michael Malin and his Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) team snapped a picture ten times sharper than the original Viking photos. Thousands of anxious web surfers were waiting when the image first appeared on a JPL web site, revealing . . . a natural landform. There was no alien monument after all.
But not everyone was satisfied. The Face on Mars is located at 41 degrees north martial latitude where it was winter in April ‘98 – a cloudy time of year on the Red Planet. The camera on board MGS had to peer through wispy clouds to see the Face. Perhaps, said skeptics, alien markings were hidden by haze.
Mission controllers prepared to look again. “It’s not easy to target Cydonia,” says Garvin. “In fact, it’s hard work.” Mars Global Surveyor is a mapping spacecraft that normally looks straight down and scans the planet like a fax machine in narrow 2.5 km-wide strips. “We don’t pass over the Face very often,” he noted.
Nevertheless, on April 8, 2001 – a cloudless summer day in Cydonia – Mars Global Surveyor drew close enough for a second look. “We had to roll the spacecraft 25 degrees to center the Face in the field of view,” said Garvin. “Malin’s team captured an extraordinary photo using the camera’s absolute maximum resolution.” Each pixel in the 2001 image spans 1.56 meters, compared to the 43 meters per pixel in the best 1976 Viking photo.
“As a rule of thumb, you can discern things in a digital image 3 times bigger than the pixel size,” he added. “So, if there were objects in this picture like airplanes on the ground or Egyptian-style pyramids or even small shacks, you could see what they were!”
What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa – landforms common around the American West. “It reminds me of most of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho,” says Garvin. “That’s a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars.”
Text and photographs courtsey of NASA, “Unmasking the Face on Mars,” May 24, 2001 (retrieved from science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast24may_1/) | null | null | null |
AAATRP14318000818435 | 4 | New innovations happen each and everyday as they have throughout history. Through these innovations
society grows and develops for the greater good of humanity. Although, not all new discoveries are as applicable as others. While the Facial Action Coding Sysytem is fascinating it isn`t particularly valuable to schools due to the expense of the software, how people already "calculate" other`s emotions, and it being unbeneficial
disruption of class time.
The major problem schools would run into with the FACS is the price. The PC that schools and people have at home can not handle the complexity of the algorithms required to decode emotions. Therefore they would have to purchase them. As is the case with most advanced software, the required materials are bound to be high up there in the dollar amount.This is a problem for a majority of schools because they are only allotted so much money by the state each year. With this state funding the school has to pay for everything else they may need during a school year. The money is usually streched thin as it is let alone trying to purchase outrageously expensive software.
Another reason having a program to calcualte people`s emotions would not be valuable in a classroom setting is the fact that we already "calculate" people`s emotions on our own. It is simply something that occurs naturally in human nature. A majority of communication used daily is non verbal. Therefore people are trained from a young age to pick up on emotions through facial expresions and other body language. Even subtle facial movements are quickly registered and assigned an emotion. Having a computer program to do something people already do themselves is like hiring someone to sit around doing nothing all day.
Finally, the FACS shoulld not be used in schools because it could become a distraction from valuable learning time. Students would be to focused on messing around with the software and testing it out on each other. There is no actual educational benefit to the use of the machine. The time students spend using it could instead be put toward more important topics such as studying. Studying their class material is going to help them get farther in life than knowing exactly how the person sitting next to tehm feels today.
In conclusion, the Facial Action Coding System is an amazing breakthrough in the coding world and may be extremely valuable for a number of things, but the classroom is not one of them. The FACS is to expensive for schools to afford on the state funding budget. Also, the use of a machine for something people have been doing their entire lives is completly unneccisary.Additionally, the machine has no value to learning and would only cause disruption. In a school day there should be drastically more important focuses than the science of emotions. It just simply is not worth the hassle to have a Facial Action Coding System in the classroom. | In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile," the author describes how a new technology called the Facial Action Coding System enables computers to identify human emotions. Using details from the article, write an essay arguing whether the use of this technology to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is valuable. | Facial action coding system | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | White | F | Copyright Restricted | null | null | null |
AAAVUP14319000094480 | 3 | Venus, whats it made out of? What are the dangers? Why haven't we gotten so much information on it? There are lots of questions people have about Venus. "Evening Star" they call it. It's not really a star but it is very bright. Venus is the closest planet to Earth despite Mars. Venus is made of gas and the surface is 800 degress Fahrenheit,which makes it impossible for any spacecraft to survive on its surface. In paragraph 2, it states that humans have sent numerous spacecrafts to land on the planet, but can only last a few hours. It is worth trying again and again to try and get up to Venus and try to study more of it. Heres why.
Venus is a gas planet,right? The tempature on there is extreme but we have devices that can actually get close to the planet. In paragraph 7, it says that in the 1940's during World War II there were devices that could make calculations without using any electricity at all. They are mechanical computers that can possibly stand the heat near Venus. The modern day computers are powerful and very useful but they cannot stand a chance between the extreme heat on Venus. It would just melt.
Even if technology does not work, we still have humans. In paragraph 5,it states that they can in fact send humans to Venus. They can send scientists to float above the planet. They wouldn't be comfortable because they would still be in 170 degree tempature, but they can still with stand it. The author compares it to a jetplane that can hover across storms and extreme weather at a high altitude. The scientists would be miles away from the planet but they can still make observations while being far away.
Venus is a beatiful planet, but if you get too close to it you might just burn to a crisp. Thats why we have NASA and other wonderful reasources to study Venus.Tune in next time on, "The Challenge of Exploring Venus"! | In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus," the author suggests studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. Using details from the article, write an essay evaluating how well the author supports this idea. Be sure to include: a claim that evaluates how well the author supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers; an explanation of the evidence from the article that supports your claim; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your essay. | Exploring Venus | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | Yes | Hispanic/Latino | F | The Challenge of Exploring Venus
Venus, sometimes called the “Evening Star,” is one of the brightest points of light in the night sky, making it simple for even and amateur stargazer to spot. However, this nickname is misleading since Venus is actually a planet. While Venus is simple to see from the distant but safe vantage point of Earth, it has proved a very challenging place to examine more closely.
Often referred to as Earth's “twin,” Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size, and occasionally the closest in distance too. Earth, Venus, and Mars, our other planetary neighbor, orbit the sun at different speeds. These differences in speed mean that sometimes we are closer to Mars and other times to Venus. Because Venus is sometimes right around the corner - in space terms - humans have spent numerous spacecraft to land on this cloud-draped world. Each previous mission was unmanned, and for good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours. Maybe this issue explains why not a single spaceship has touched down of Venus in more than three decades. Numberous factors contribute to Venus's reputation as a challenging planet for humans to study, despite its proximity to us.
A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere. On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet. These conditions are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth; such an environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans and would liquefy many metals. Also notable, Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system, even though Mercury is closer to our sun. Beyond high presure and heat, Venusian geology and weather present additional impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface.
If our sister is so inhospitable, why are scientists even discussing further visits to its surface? Astronomers are fascinated by Venus beccause it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth. Today, Venus still has some features that are analogous to those on Earth. The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters. Furthermore, recall that Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit, a crucial consideration given the long time frames of space travel. The value of returning to Venus seems indisputable, but what are the options for making such a mission both safe and scientifically productive?
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has one particularly compelling idea for sending humans to study Venus. NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray. Imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape. Just as our jet airplanes travel at a higher altitude to fly over many storms, a vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly ground conditions by staying up and out of their way. At thirty-plus miles above the surface, temperatures would still be toasty at around 170 degrees Farenheit, but the air pressure would be close to that of sea level on Earth. Solar power would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth levels. Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans.
However, peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions rendering standard forms of photography and videography ineffective. More importantly, researchers cannot take samples of rock, gas, or anything else, from a distance. Therefore, scientists seeking to conduct a thorough mission to understand Venus would need to get up close and personal despite the risks. Or maybe we should think of them as challenges. Many researchers are working on innovattions that would allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowledge of Venus.
NASA is working on other approaches to studying Venus. For example, some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simuulating the chaos of Venus's surface and have laster for three weeks in such conditions. Another project is looking back to an old technology called mechanical computers. These devices were first envisioned in the 1800s and played an important role int he 1940s during World War II. The thought of computers existing in those days may sound shocking, but these devices make calculations by using gears and levers and do not require electronics at all. Modern commputers are enormously powerful, flexible, and quick, but tend to be more delicate when it comes to extreme physical conditions. Just imagine exposing a cell phone or tablet to acid or heat capable of melting tin. By comparison, systems that use mechanical parts can be made mroe resistant to pressure, heat, and other forces.
Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also because human curiousity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors. Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation. | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000038663 | 4 | Both sides have good arguments when it comes to the development of driverless cars. On one side, technology is making up enough of these cars and these cars may cause more traffic problems. On the other side, this could end pollution as we know it. However, I know that certain things are inevitable and pollution is one of those. Therefore, I am going to vote against driverless car development.
Most of my reasons go towards the overall safety. According to the passage, " Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers." Alert driving prevents car crashes, time in the hospital, and, the biggest of them all, lawsuits. With these driverless cars, how can we prevent something bad happening? For example, say you're sitting your driverless car and you're in the middle of a traffic jam. The car overloads and begins to automatically pick up speed. Despite your attempts to stop the car, your'e going 120 mph in a traffic jam. All of a sudden, you crash into a building, and injure yourself, not to mention four passengers and three pedestrians.
Not only does this put your hospital bill a little bit out of your price range, but you have to pay for damages and lawsuits. Think about how many deaths/injuries that would cause. Also, it costs a lot to put these driverless cars together. The whole world could go bankrupt by putting at least 50 of these cars on the road. It's not like American is that rich.
According to the passage, Google attempted to make driverless cars in 2009. However, it was proved that those cars were not completely driverless, due to the fact that it still alerts "the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents." In my opinion, Google made yet another smart car. Though TV, movies and, video games contemplate the idea of cars that drive themselves (Cars 1&2), in reality, it might not happen.
In conclusion, driverless cars will be a problem, unless the technology for this car develops, which it probably will in the future. Newsflash, cars that can drive themselves are not real. ( Well, they're not real yet. That's for the future to decide.) Anyways, that is why I'm against the devlopment of these "driverless cars." | In the article “Driverless Cars are Coming,” the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. Using details from the article, create an argument for or against the development of these cars. Be sure to include: your position on driverless cars; appropriate details from the article that support your position; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | Driverless cars | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Black/African American | M | Driverless Cars Are Coming
Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore? Google cofounder Sergey Brin can. He envisions a future with a public transportation system where fleets of driverless cars form a public-transport taxi system. The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today’s taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus. He believes such cars would fundamentally change the world.
Television and movies have long been fascinated with cars that could drive themselves. In reality, Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash, but so far, Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents. So what roadblocks lie ahead for the autonomous car?
Sensing the World
Let's begin by looking at which companies are making computer-driven cars. Originally, many futurists believed the key to developing self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as smarter roads. For example, in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. The track was embedded with an electrical cable that sent radio signals to a receiver on the front end of the car. Engineers at Berkeley tried something similar, but they used magnets with alternating polarity. The car read the positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code. These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical.
Without the option of smarter roads, manufacturers turned to smarter cars—but how much smarter did the cars need to be? For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors. Google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. The most important bit of technology in this system is the spinning sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR, it uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the car's surroundings. The combination of all this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel.
Sensors are nothing new, of course. In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheels in the creation of antilock brakes. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone. Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own.
Driving or Assisting?
Antilock brakes and driver assistance still seem a long way from the dream of calling a driverless cab to take us wherever we desire, but Sebastian Thrun, founder of the Google Car project, believes that the technology has finally begun to catch up to the dream. “There was no way, before 2000, to make something interesting. The sensors weren't there, the computers weren't there, and the mapping wasn't there. Radar was a device on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack.” So just how driverless will the cars be in the near future?
In 2013, BMW announced the development of “Traffic Jam Assistant.” The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. This necessitates the car being ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs. GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object. The Google car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over. Other options under consideration are flashing lights on the windshield and other heads-up displays. Manufacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver.
Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn’t drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive? “The psychological aspects of automation are really a challenge,” admits Dr. Werner Huber, a BMW project manager driver. “We have to interpret the driving fun in a new way.” Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays. Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over—something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. In this way, the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern.
Waiting on the Law
Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars. California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have led the country in allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars; manufacturers believe that more states will follow as soon as the cars are proved more reliably safe. Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault—the driver or the manufacturer?
Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved. Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. The road to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us, but we grow closer to the destination every day. | null | null | null |
5380952 | 4 | Do you want to elect the president? The electoral college doesn't allow that unless you're an elector. Voting for president should be done with a popular vote rather than an electoral college. An elecotoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational.
An electoral college is unfair. In source two, it says, "At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winner-take-all system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know have no chance of winning..." This shows that candidates don't treat everyone the same. They spend more time in states that have a chance of winning. Some states never even get to see who the candidates are.
Not only are electoral colleges unfair, they're also outdated. The electoral college has been being used since 1960. In source two, it says, " It happened in Hawaii in 1960." This proves that the electoral college has been around for many years, and it's time for something new. Things change along with time, a new system would improve voting.
The electoral college is irrational. In an electoral college, you don't vote for the president, you vote for a slate of electors that then vote for the president. In source two, it says, "Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president." This proves that the system doesn't make sense and citizens should be able to directly vote for the president of their country.
To conclude, the electoral college system should be abolished. It is unfair, outdated, and irrational. Abolishing the electoral college would improve voting and make citizens want to vote. | Write a letter to your state senator in which you argue in favor of keeping the Electoral College or changing to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. Use the information from the texts in your essay. Manage your time carefully so that you can read the passages; plan your response; write your response; and revise and edit your response. Be sure to include a claim; address counterclaims; use evidence from multiple sources; and avoid overly relying on one source. Your response should be in the form of a multiparagraph essay. Write your response in the space provided. | Does the electoral college work? | null | null | No | White | F | What Is the
Electoral College?
by the Office of the Federal Register
The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the
Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and
election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.
The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the
electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes
by Congress.
The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required
to elect the President. Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in
its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for
your Senators. . . .
Under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution, the District of Columbia is allocated 3
electors and treated like a state for purposes of the Electoral College. For this reason, in the
following discussion, the word “state” also refers to the District of Columbia.
Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. The
electors are generally chosen by the candidate’s political party, but state laws vary on how the
electors are selected and what their responsibilities are. . . .
The presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in
November. You help choose your state’s electors when you vote for President because when you
vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate’s electors.
Most states have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors to the winning
presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of “proportional representation.” . . .
After the presidential election, your governor prepares a “Certificate of Ascertainment”
listing all of the candidates who ran for President in your state along with the names of their
respective electors. The Certificate of Ascertainment also declares the winning presidential
candidate in your state and shows which electors will represent your state at the meeting of the
electors in December of the election year. Your state’s Certificates of Ascertainments are sent to
the Congress and the National Archives as part of the official records of the presidential election.
Excerpt from “What Is the Electoral College?” by
the Office of the Federal Register, from
www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoralcollege/about.html. In the public domain. | The Indefensible
Electoral College: Why even
the best-laid defenses of
the system are wrong
by Bradford Plumer
What have Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the
AFL-CIO all, in their time, agreed on? Answer: Abolishing the electoral college! They’re not alone;
according to a Gallup poll in 2000, taken shortly after Al Gore—thanks to the quirks of the
electoral college—won the popular vote but lost the presidency, over 60 percent of voters would
prefer a direct election to the kind we have now. This year voters can expect another close
election in which the popular vote winner could again lose the presidency. And yet, the electoral
college still has its defenders. What gives? . . .
What’s wrong with the electoral college
Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of
electors, who in turn elect the president. If you lived in Texas, for instance, and wanted to vote
for [John] Kerry, you’d vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors pledged to Kerry. On the offchance that those electors won the statewide election, they would go to Congress and Kerry
would get 34 electoral votes. Who are the electors? They can be anyone not holding public office.
Who picks the electors in the first place? It depends on the state. Sometimes state conventions,
sometimes the state party’s central committee, sometimes the presidential candidates
themselves. Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always. Do voters sometimes
get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate? Sometimes.
The single best argument against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster
factor. The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the
biggest election crisis in a century; the system allows for much worse. Consider that state
legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always
defy the will of the people. Back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly
succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F.
Kennedy. (So that a popular vote for Kennedy would not have actually gone to Kennedy.) In the
same vein, “faithless” electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party’s candidate and
cast a deciding vote for whomever they please. . . . Oh, and what if a state sends two slates of
electors to Congress? It happened in Hawaii in 1960. Luckily, Vice President Richard Nixon, who
was presiding over the Senate, validated only his opponent’s electors, but he made sure to do so
“without establishing a precedent.” What if it happened again?
Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. In that case, the
election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the
president. (The Senate would choose the vice-president.) Because each state casts only one vote,
the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say
as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters. Given that many
voters vote one party for president and another for Congress, the House’s selection can hardly be
expected to reflect the will of the people. And if an electoral tie seems unlikely, consider this: In
1968, a shift of just 41,971 votes would have deadlocked the election; In 1976, a tie would have
occurred if a mere 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted the other way. The
election is only a few swing voters away from catastrophe.
At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winner-takeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of
winning, focusing only on the tight races in the “swing” states. 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 anyone has a
good argument for putting the fate of the presidency in the hands of a few swing voters in Ohio,
they have yet to make it. . . .
It’s official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The best arguments in
favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality. And the arguments against direct
elections are spurious at best. It’s hard to say this, but Bob Dole was right: Abolish the electoral
college!
lost the presidency: In the 2000 U.S. presidential
race, Al Gore received more individual votes than
George W. Bush nationwide, but Bush won the
election, receiving 271 electoral votes to Gore’s
266.
John Kerry: Kerry ran for President against George
W. Bush (43rd president of the United States),
representing the Democratic Party in 2004.
segregationists: people who favored separation
based on race
Excerpt from “The Indefensible Electoral College:
Why even the best-laid defenses are wrong” from
Mother Jones by Bradford Plumer. Copyright ©
2004 by Mother Jones and the Foundation for
National Progress. All Rights Reserved. | In Defense of the
Electoral College: Five
reasons to keep our
despised method of
choosing the President
by Judge Richard A. Posner
The Electoral College is widely regarded as an anachronism, a non-democratic method of
selecting a president that ought to be [overruled] by declaring the candidate who receives the
most popular votes the winner. The advocates of this position are correct in arguing that 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 presidential candidate you’re actually voting for a
slate of electors.
But each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party’s nominee (and that
trust is rarely betrayed) . . . [; however,] it is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral
vote will not win the national popular vote. Yet that has happened very rarely. It happened in
2000, when Gore had more popular votes than Bush yet fewer electoral votes, but that was the
first time since 1888.
There are five reasons for retaining the Electoral College despite its lack of democratic
pedigree; all are practical reasons, not liberal or conservative reasons.
1) Certainty of Outcome
A dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote is possible—it happened in 2000
—but it’s less likely than a dispute over the popular vote. The reason is that the winning
candidate’s share of the Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote. In
[2012’s] election, for example, Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to
only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and Romney. . . . Because almost all states
award electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis, even a very slight plurality in a state creates a
landslide electoral-vote victory in that state. A tie in the nationwide electoral vote is possible
because the total number of votes—538—is an even number, but it is highly unlikely. . . .
2) Everyone’s President
The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have trans-regional appeal. No
region (South, Northeast, etc.) has enough electoral votes to elect a president. So a solid regional
favorite, such as Romney was in the South, has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states,
for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his plurality in states that he knows he will win. This
is a desirable result because a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful
president. The residents of the other regions are likely to feel disenfranchised—to feel that their
votes do not count, that the new president will have no regard for their interests, that he really
isn’t their president.
3) Swing States
The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes induces the candidates—as we saw
in [2012’s] election—to focus their campaign efforts on the toss-up states . . . . Voters in toss-up
states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign—to really listen to the competing
candidates—knowing that they are going to decide the election. They are likely to be the most
thoughtful voters, on average (and for the further reason that they will have received the most
information and attention from the candidates), and the most thoughtful voters should be the
ones to decide the election.
4) Big States
The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states
(by population) lose by virtue of the mal-apportionment of the Senate decreed in the
Constitution. . . . The popular vote was very close in Florida [in 2012]; nevertheless Obama, who
won that vote, got 29 electoral votes. A victory by the same margin in Wyoming would net the
winner only 3 electoral votes. So, other things being equal, a large state gets more attention from
presidential candidates in a campaign than a small state does. . . .
5) Avoid Run-Off Elections
The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a
majority of the votes cast. For example, Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had only a 43
percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the Electoral College (301 and
370 electoral votes, respectively). There is pressure for run-off elections when no candidate wins
a majority of the votes cast; that pressure, which would greatly complicate the presidential
election process, is reduced by the Electoral College, which invariably produces a clear winner. . . .
It can be argued that the Electoral College method of selecting the president may turn off
potential voters for a candidate who has no hope of carrying their state—Democrats in Texas, for
example, or Republicans in California. Knowing their vote will have no effect, they have less
incentive to pay attention to the campaign than they would have if the president were picked by
popular vote . . . . But of course no voter’s vote swings a national election, and in spite of that,
about one-half the eligible American population did vote in [2012’s] election. Voters in
presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people
who think that a single vote may decide an election. . . .
anachronism: a person or a thing that seems to
belong to the past and not to fit in the present
pedigree: the origin and history of something,
especially when it is good or impressive
liberal or conservative: political philosophies
commonly seen as opposite each other
Obama: Barack Obama, 44th president of the
United States
Romney: Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee for
President in 2012
plurality: when a candidate receives more votes
than other candidates while not receiving a clear
majority of votes
Excerpt from “In Defense of the Electoral College:
Five reasons to keep our despised method of
choosing the President” from Slate Magazine by
Judge Richard A. Posner. Copyright © 2012. | null |
AAATRP14318000948049 | 2 | I do not approve to let people use any type of technology to read emotions. That is when it gets weird and people ask why are you feeling this way. This can sometimes lead to the student getting even sadder or madder than they were. If they are left alone and no one knows what is wrong, they will be fine.
To start off, expressions can not forsure tell what that person is feeling. I have seen people so mad but continue throughout their day like everything is fine. Plus, if that student is just doing a fake smile, that does not mean that they are really happy. The FACS can not read emotions but reads the emotions it thinks you are feeling because of what your facial expression is.
Therefore, to end my argument, in paragraph 9 it says that contracting your smile muscles can help you feel slightly happy. This means it can make you SLIGHTLY happy but not enough to classify yourself as happy and I do not approve to let people read emotions. It is unnecessary and we should be researching something better than this. | In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile," the author describes how a new technology called the Facial Action Coding System enables computers to identify human emotions. Using details from the article, write an essay arguing whether the use of this technology to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is valuable. | Facial action coding system | Not economically disadvantaged | Identified as having disability | No | White | M | Copyright Restricted | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000232991 | 1 | Driveless cars are basically rusty cars. The reason is because, of all the things that can hit the car and damage it. Sometimes it depends on the car if it will get really rusty or not. Box Chevy, for example, those things will rust up so quick if you don't drive them. That's why I think cars should be driven.
Cars originally, many futurists believed the key to developing self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as smarter roads. For example, in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. Those track would give a positive or negative messages in a binary code. The reason for that is so they know that the car is good for the roadmor not.
Let's not make driveless cars rusty ones, because you are just wasting money, but I have a feeling that we will do something big in these next couple of years. Our technology is getting better and better everyday, if we just keep improving on it, we will have some of the best cars to be ever made on planet earth. | In the article “Driverless Cars are Coming,” the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. Using details from the article, create an argument for or against the development of these cars. Be sure to include: your position on driverless cars; appropriate details from the article that support your position; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | Driverless cars | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Black/African American | M | Driverless Cars Are Coming
Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore? Google cofounder Sergey Brin can. He envisions a future with a public transportation system where fleets of driverless cars form a public-transport taxi system. The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today’s taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus. He believes such cars would fundamentally change the world.
Television and movies have long been fascinated with cars that could drive themselves. In reality, Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash, but so far, Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents. So what roadblocks lie ahead for the autonomous car?
Sensing the World
Let's begin by looking at which companies are making computer-driven cars. Originally, many futurists believed the key to developing self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as smarter roads. For example, in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. The track was embedded with an electrical cable that sent radio signals to a receiver on the front end of the car. Engineers at Berkeley tried something similar, but they used magnets with alternating polarity. The car read the positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code. These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical.
Without the option of smarter roads, manufacturers turned to smarter cars—but how much smarter did the cars need to be? For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors. Google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. The most important bit of technology in this system is the spinning sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR, it uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the car's surroundings. The combination of all this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel.
Sensors are nothing new, of course. In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheels in the creation of antilock brakes. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone. Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own.
Driving or Assisting?
Antilock brakes and driver assistance still seem a long way from the dream of calling a driverless cab to take us wherever we desire, but Sebastian Thrun, founder of the Google Car project, believes that the technology has finally begun to catch up to the dream. “There was no way, before 2000, to make something interesting. The sensors weren't there, the computers weren't there, and the mapping wasn't there. Radar was a device on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack.” So just how driverless will the cars be in the near future?
In 2013, BMW announced the development of “Traffic Jam Assistant.” The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. This necessitates the car being ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs. GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object. The Google car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over. Other options under consideration are flashing lights on the windshield and other heads-up displays. Manufacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver.
Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn’t drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive? “The psychological aspects of automation are really a challenge,” admits Dr. Werner Huber, a BMW project manager driver. “We have to interpret the driving fun in a new way.” Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays. Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over—something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. In this way, the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern.
Waiting on the Law
Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars. California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have led the country in allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars; manufacturers believe that more states will follow as soon as the cars are proved more reliably safe. Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault—the driver or the manufacturer?
Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved. Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. The road to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us, but we grow closer to the destination every day. | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000064031 | 4 | I think that you should join the Seagoing Cowboys program because you may get to see new sights. You may also play fun and exiting games while your off shift or while going on the return trips. You can also help out with fun things like feeding the animals or be put on night shift.
The sights you get to see could be amazing. The thing you get to see could be amazing. When you are a Seagoing Cowboy you get to see all types of new things like new fish or new landscapes. Some off the landscapes you might not be used to, but that means that you could enjoys the veiw! As your out on the sea you can see fish that you might of never seen before. You could also see reefs that are colorful and bright!
When your on the ship it could get quite borning. You might want to do something fun. Well on the return trip you get to play all the games etc. you want. Some games for when your in the mood for somehting sporty you can play baseball and volleyball where their are empty holds where the animals were kept. You can also play table tennis, fencing, and boxing. After you played the sports you might be ready for a relaxing game such as board games or cards. If your not into those kinds of things then you can just read or whittle. There is always a fun option.
When there are tons of animals on the ship there is always work to be done. To help out you can feed the animals and/or clean their stalls. You could also pull up bales of hay and bags of oats from the lower holds of the ship. When you feed the animals you have to feed and water them 2 or 3 times a day. To be extra helpful you could help clean. It may not be the funnest job, but it helps a lot. When we get to our destination there are tons of animals to load off the ship. You coild help unload them or if we are back at our returning place you could help load the animals and all the supplies into the ship.
Those are only some of the reansons why you should become a Seagoing Cowboy. Its a lot of fun, but it can be hard sometimes. You may get hurt, but thats okay. Thanks for your time. | You have just read the article, 'A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves.' Luke's participation in the Seagoing Cowboys program allowed him to experience adventures and visit many unique places. Using information from the article, write an argument from Luke's point of view convincing others to participate in the Seagoing Cowboys program. Be sure to include: reasons to join the program; details from the article to support Luke's claims; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your essay. | "A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves" | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | White | F | A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves
by Peggy Reif Miller
Luke Bomberger crossed the Atlantic Ocean 16 times and the Pacific Ocean twice to help people affected by World War II.
Luke Bomberger had no idea that his life would change soon after his high school graduation. He was working two part-time jobs in a grocery store and a bank when his friend Don Reist invited him to go to Europe on a cattle boat. Luke couldn’t say no. He knew it was an opportunity of a lifetime.
It was 1945, World War II was over in Europe, and many countries were left in ruins. To help these countries recover their food supplies, animals, and more, 44 nations joined together to form UNRRA (the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration). UNRRA hired “Seagoing Cowboys” to take care of the horses, young cows, and mules that were shipped overseas. Luke and Don signed up.
Heading Overseas
In August 1945, they received their orders to report to New Orleans. “We arrived August 14,” Luke says, “the day the Pacific war ended.” They got their seaman’s papers and boarded the SS Charles W. Wooster, headed for Greece – with a cargo of 335 horses plus enough hay and oats to feed them.
Luke turned 18 before arriving in Greece, which meant he could be drafted for military service. “When my draft board learned that I was on a cattle-boat trip, they told me to just keep doing that for my service.” By the time he was discharged in 1947, Luke had made nine trips – the most of any Seagoing Cowboy.
“The cattle-boat trips were an unbelievable opportunity for a small-town bow,” he says. “Besides helping people, I had the side benefit of seeing Europe and China. But seeing the Acropolis in Greece was special,” he says. “So was taking a gondola ride in Venice, Italy, a city with streets of water.” Luke also toured an excavated castle in Crete and marveled at the Panama Canal on his way to China.
Traveling the High Seas
It took about two weeks to cross the Atlantic Ocean from the eastern coast of the United States and a month to get to China. Caring for the animals during the crossings kept Luke busy. They had to be fed and watered two or three times a day. Bales of hay and bags of oats had to be pulled up from the lower holds of the ship. Stalls had to be cleaned.
Helping out on his aunt Katie’s farm as a boy had prepared Luke for hard work, but not for the dangers at sea. On his second trip, Luke served at night watchman. His job was to check on all the animals every hour. One rainy night, after making his hourly report to the captain, he slid down a slippery ladder on his backside. Luke’s heart raced as he shot feet first toward an opening on the side of the ship. A small strip of metal along the edge stopped his slide, keeping him from flying overboard into the dark Atlantic. He was happy to be alive. But he couldn’t work for a couple of days because of cracked ribs.
Luke also found time to have fun on board, especially on return trips after the animals had been unloaded. The cowboys played baseball and volleyball games in the empty holds where animals had been housed. Table-tennis tournaments, fencing, boxing, reading, whittling, and games also helped pass the time.
But being a Seagoing Cowboy was much more than an adventure for Luke Bomberger. It opened up the world to him. “I’m grateful for the opportunity,” he says. “It made me more aware of people of other countries and their needs.” And that awareness stayed with him, leading his family to host a number of international students and exchange visitors for many years.
“A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves” by Peggy Reif Miller from Highlights for Children Magazine’s October 2013 issue, copyright 2013 by Highlights for Children, Inc., Colombus, Ohio. Used by permission. | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000037624 | 3 | Say No to Driverless Cars
There has been a recent developement that has allowed the world renowned company Google to introduce and develope what may become the first "Driverless car". Though there have been some pro's that have come out of the on going research such as it being; more efficent, an easier mode of transportation, and it giving the driver some control over what happens with the car; for the future of transportaton, including a driverless car is a very bad idea.
Though the driverless car seems like a good idea from the surface, deep down it is very dangerous considering how much cars today are recalled to day because of the mistakes made by the manufacturer. Cars today have been recalled for reasons such as, defaults with air bags, problems with brakes, and mishaps with motors, which have all caused accidents and even deaths, The same problems have occured with technology. There have been problems that caused technology to work against humans. These problems include problems with gps, which are used in cars that at first were controled by humans. Imagine if the car was driving itself. Though the cars developed are still to some extent in human control, still are safty hazards. These cars are made to notify the driver if any mishaps were to occur, but humans make mistakes all the time which have caused accidents and deaths. These situations have dealth with; texting while driving, falling to sleep at the wheel, and drunk drivivng. These problems have occured when the driver have maximum responsibility over the car. Now imagine that the drivers only responsibility was to make sure no accidents happen and to avoid bad situations. There would be one prooblem, humans already lack in that
catagory. When responsibility is put in our hands, we tend to do a better job at fufilling it.But having this car around can only cause more accidents.
Driverless cars seem to be storming the new era of transportation as a smarter more efficient way of the road, but becauseof the lack of safetyand unthoughtout plans for the driverless cars; the idea of it should be a thing of the past. | In the article “Driverless Cars are Coming,” the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. Using details from the article, create an argument for or against the development of these cars. Be sure to include: your position on driverless cars; appropriate details from the article that support your position; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | Driverless cars | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Black/African American | F | Driverless Cars Are Coming
Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore? Google cofounder Sergey Brin can. He envisions a future with a public transportation system where fleets of driverless cars form a public-transport taxi system. The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today’s taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus. He believes such cars would fundamentally change the world.
Television and movies have long been fascinated with cars that could drive themselves. In reality, Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash, but so far, Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents. So what roadblocks lie ahead for the autonomous car?
Sensing the World
Let's begin by looking at which companies are making computer-driven cars. Originally, many futurists believed the key to developing self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as smarter roads. For example, in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. The track was embedded with an electrical cable that sent radio signals to a receiver on the front end of the car. Engineers at Berkeley tried something similar, but they used magnets with alternating polarity. The car read the positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code. These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical.
Without the option of smarter roads, manufacturers turned to smarter cars—but how much smarter did the cars need to be? For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors. Google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. The most important bit of technology in this system is the spinning sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR, it uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the car's surroundings. The combination of all this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel.
Sensors are nothing new, of course. In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheels in the creation of antilock brakes. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone. Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own.
Driving or Assisting?
Antilock brakes and driver assistance still seem a long way from the dream of calling a driverless cab to take us wherever we desire, but Sebastian Thrun, founder of the Google Car project, believes that the technology has finally begun to catch up to the dream. “There was no way, before 2000, to make something interesting. The sensors weren't there, the computers weren't there, and the mapping wasn't there. Radar was a device on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack.” So just how driverless will the cars be in the near future?
In 2013, BMW announced the development of “Traffic Jam Assistant.” The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. This necessitates the car being ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs. GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object. The Google car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over. Other options under consideration are flashing lights on the windshield and other heads-up displays. Manufacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver.
Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn’t drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive? “The psychological aspects of automation are really a challenge,” admits Dr. Werner Huber, a BMW project manager driver. “We have to interpret the driving fun in a new way.” Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays. Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over—something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. In this way, the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern.
Waiting on the Law
Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars. California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have led the country in allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars; manufacturers believe that more states will follow as soon as the cars are proved more reliably safe. Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault—the driver or the manufacturer?
Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved. Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. The road to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us, but we grow closer to the destination every day. | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000116765 | 2 | Have you ever heard of the face on Mars? It is proven to be an enormous head that is approximately two miles long that can be seen from Cydonia. Many people believe the face was created by aliens. Those are false rumors according to other companies who have studied it. NASA has known it be a natural landform. The article, "Unmasking the Face On Mars" includes information and studies on the face.
I, and NASA both believe it is natural landform. Our beliefs come from the studies scientists have discovered. Jim Garvin, chief scientist for NASA's Mars Exploration Program states, "What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of butte or mesa - landforms common around the American West." Which proves how it is a relatable landform from a different part of the world. The article also states, "Thousands of anxious web surfers were waiting when the image first appeared on a JPL web site, revealing ... a natural landfrom. There was no alien monument after all." Which helps explains to people who once believed that the face on Mars was created by aliens.
Although, many scientists have continously studied the face on Mars. Do you believe there could be possiblity of their studies to be incorrect? You can find out more information for yourself by studying and reading the article "Unmasking the Face on Mars." | You have read the article 'Unmasking the Face on Mars.' Imagine you are a scientist at NASA discussing the Face with someone who thinks it was created by aliens. Using information in the article, write an argumentative essay to convince someone that the Face is just a natural landform.Be sure to include: claims to support your argument that the Face is a natural landform; evidence from the article to support your claims; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | The Face on Mars | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Black/African American | F | Unmasking the Face on Mars
Side by side: a Viking 1 photo from 1975, a Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) image from 1998, and the latest MGS image from 2001.
New high-resolution images and 3D altimetry from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft reveal the Face on Mars for what it really is: a mesa.
On May 24, 2001—Twenty five years ago, something funny happened around Mars. NASA’s Viking 1 spacecraft was circling the planet, snapping photos of possible landing sites for its sister ship Viking 2, when it spotted the shadowy likeness of a human face. An enormous head nearly two miles from end to end seemed to be staring back at the cameras from a region of the Red Planet called Cydonia.
There must have been a degree of surprise among mission controllers back at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory when the face appeared on their monitors. But the sensation was short-lived. Scientists figured it was just another Martian mesa, common enough around Cydonia, only this one had unusual shadows that made it look like an Egyptian Pharaoh.
A few days later NASA unveiled the image for all to see. The caption noted a “huge rock formation . . . which resembles a human head . . . formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose, and mouth.” The authors reasoned it would be a good way to engage the public and attract attention to Mars.
It certainly did!
The “Face on Mars” has since become a pop icon. It has starred in a Hollywood film, appeared in books, magazines, radio talk shows – even haunted grocery store checkout lines for 25 years! Some people think the Face is bona fide evidence of life on Mars – evidence that NASA would rather hide, say conspiracy theorists. Meanwhile, defenders of the NASA budget wish there was an ancient civilization on Mars.
A 1976 Viking 1 photograph of the Face on Mars
Although few scientists believed the Face was an alien artifact, photographing Cydonia became a priority for NASA when Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) arrived at the Red Planet in Sept. 1997, eighteen long years after the Viking missions ended. “We felt this was important to taxpayers,” explained Jim Garvin, chief scientist for NASA’s mars Exploration Program. “We photographed the Face as soon as we could get a good shot at it.”
And so on April 5, 1998, when Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia for the first time, Michael Malin and his Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) team snapped a picture ten times sharper than the original Viking photos. Thousands of anxious web surfers were waiting when the image first appeared on a JPL web site, revealing . . . a natural landform. There was no alien monument after all.
But not everyone was satisfied. The Face on Mars is located at 41 degrees north martial latitude where it was winter in April ‘98 – a cloudy time of year on the Red Planet. The camera on board MGS had to peer through wispy clouds to see the Face. Perhaps, said skeptics, alien markings were hidden by haze.
Mission controllers prepared to look again. “It’s not easy to target Cydonia,” says Garvin. “In fact, it’s hard work.” Mars Global Surveyor is a mapping spacecraft that normally looks straight down and scans the planet like a fax machine in narrow 2.5 km-wide strips. “We don’t pass over the Face very often,” he noted.
Nevertheless, on April 8, 2001 – a cloudless summer day in Cydonia – Mars Global Surveyor drew close enough for a second look. “We had to roll the spacecraft 25 degrees to center the Face in the field of view,” said Garvin. “Malin’s team captured an extraordinary photo using the camera’s absolute maximum resolution.” Each pixel in the 2001 image spans 1.56 meters, compared to the 43 meters per pixel in the best 1976 Viking photo.
“As a rule of thumb, you can discern things in a digital image 3 times bigger than the pixel size,” he added. “So, if there were objects in this picture like airplanes on the ground or Egyptian-style pyramids or even small shacks, you could see what they were!”
What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa – landforms common around the American West. “It reminds me of most of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho,” says Garvin. “That’s a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars.”
Text and photographs courtsey of NASA, “Unmasking the Face on Mars,” May 24, 2001 (retrieved from science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast24may_1/) | null | null | null |
AAATRP14318000637024 | 1 | In the article called "Making Mona Lisa Smile" is about making humans express emotions by using a computer. Many scientists are finding out why it is possible to show emotions by using technology. First of all, Leonardo da Vinci created Mona Lisa during the Renissance. What something people don't know is the painting of the woman actually shows different emotions by moving parts of her face. For many decades, people from all over the world are attracted and have experienced the same thing. Years later, a group of scientists named Dr. Huang and Professor Nicu Sebe started to calculate human facial movements by computer. They wanted to show how people feel back in the past decades. In addition, what people call the artwork Mona Lisa "the only moving picture ever existed." No matter where you are, no matter where you stand, Mona Lisa can still stare at you. No one knows what make the human parts move. In conclusion, I think that the movement of human parts on Mona Lisa is the greatest achievement to have for Leonardo da Vinci because it would be remembered by millions of people around the world. | In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile," the author describes how a new technology called the Facial Action Coding System enables computers to identify human emotions. Using details from the article, write an essay arguing whether the use of this technology to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is valuable. | Facial action coding system | Not economically disadvantaged | Identified as having disability | No | White | M | Copyright Restricted | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000004638 | 6 | After the nice, relaxed weekend at the beach, Steve gets up to go to work at 6 AM to go to work that is half an hour away. His Monday morning seems to be great until he jolt upright, suddenly remembering about the end-of-the-month report he was supposed to do over the weekend. Steve scrambles around his house, quickly changing into his work clothes and shoving food in his mouth as he runs out the door. As Steve drives to work, he tries to think of ways he can get the report done quickly, but he eventually prepares himself for the verbal lashing he will recieve from his boss. Steve can be anyone. Forgetting to do work is a common occurance. Steve, however, could have gotten the report done if he did not have to drive to work. A relatively new technology that could have saved Steve from his boss' rage is the driverless car. A driverless car, obviously, does not require a driver most of the time. Google and many other car companies have been trying to perfect the driverless car by making the car not require a driver. There are many pros to driverless cars that far outweigh the cons. Driverless cars are more safe and saves time for the driver.
Every year, many people die in car accdients, whether the victim was the driver or an innocent pedestrian. Driverless cars can potentially lower the rate of car accidents. Unlike humans, driverless cars can detect objects around them with multiple sensors installed in the car. The Google-modified Toyota Prius uses nine sensors - "position estimating sensors on the left rear wheel,
a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor" (Paragraph 4). Also, the rotating sensor on the roof, called the LIDAR, makes a 3-D model of the cars surroundings. With all of these sensors, the driverless car can detect objects or people that a normal human driver cannot see, as there are many blindspots that a human driver has to be wary of. Also, the car can also "cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce the power from the engine" (Paragraph 5) based on the information received from the sensors. This gives the car "better response and control than an a human driver could manage alone" (Paragraph 5).
Although the idea of a driverless car sounds appealing, the current cars developed do not drive the full amount of time. The cars needs to alert the driver in special situations like work zones and driveways. Therefore, drivers need to be alert the whole time just in case one of these special situations pop up. If you have to be alert the whole time, why not just drive in the first place? Also, what happens if the car hits someone? Would it be the driver's fault or the manufacturer's fault? There are legal issues that can be avoided if humans just drove the cars in the first place like they have been doing for the past century. In addition to the legal problems and the drive time problem, the car can become faultly, like a computer that got a virus. This time, the consequences of faulty electronics are much higher than just replacing a computer. The car could end up taking someone's life.
The current driverless car does not drive the entire time. However,Tesla, Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan are expected to have cars that can drive of 90% of the time. Yes, there is a 10% chance that a human driver might have to take over but the 90% of the time that the driver is not driving, he or she can do work or just relax. Even if the driver fell asleep, there are many ways that the car can wake the driver up, like vibrating seats, sounds, and bright lights. Cars can be developed to become better at driving in traffc zones. The human instanct, however, cannot be developed to be more cautionous all of the time. Also, the legal issues do not present a problem. Laws often change to adapt with the times. Courts and lawmakers can debate on the issues, resolve them, and change the laws so that they can accomodate conflicts that the drierless car might present.
Driverless cars can solve many vehicle-related safety issues and lower the accident rate. Also, they give the driver more time to do whatever he or she wants to do. There are very little cons that come with the driverless car, and the ones that do come up can be easily solved. Driverless cars should be allowed to continue to develop so that eventually, they can replace humans drivers and make the roads mroe safe. Steve, too, can get a happy ending by frantically finishing is report while his new driverless car can take him to work. | In the article “Driverless Cars are Coming,” the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. Using details from the article, create an argument for or against the development of these cars. Be sure to include: your position on driverless cars; appropriate details from the article that support your position; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | Driverless cars | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Asian/Pacific Islander | F | Driverless Cars Are Coming
Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore? Google cofounder Sergey Brin can. He envisions a future with a public transportation system where fleets of driverless cars form a public-transport taxi system. The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today’s taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus. He believes such cars would fundamentally change the world.
Television and movies have long been fascinated with cars that could drive themselves. In reality, Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash, but so far, Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents. So what roadblocks lie ahead for the autonomous car?
Sensing the World
Let's begin by looking at which companies are making computer-driven cars. Originally, many futurists believed the key to developing self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as smarter roads. For example, in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. The track was embedded with an electrical cable that sent radio signals to a receiver on the front end of the car. Engineers at Berkeley tried something similar, but they used magnets with alternating polarity. The car read the positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code. These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical.
Without the option of smarter roads, manufacturers turned to smarter cars—but how much smarter did the cars need to be? For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors. Google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. The most important bit of technology in this system is the spinning sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR, it uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the car's surroundings. The combination of all this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel.
Sensors are nothing new, of course. In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheels in the creation of antilock brakes. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone. Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own.
Driving or Assisting?
Antilock brakes and driver assistance still seem a long way from the dream of calling a driverless cab to take us wherever we desire, but Sebastian Thrun, founder of the Google Car project, believes that the technology has finally begun to catch up to the dream. “There was no way, before 2000, to make something interesting. The sensors weren't there, the computers weren't there, and the mapping wasn't there. Radar was a device on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack.” So just how driverless will the cars be in the near future?
In 2013, BMW announced the development of “Traffic Jam Assistant.” The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. This necessitates the car being ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs. GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object. The Google car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over. Other options under consideration are flashing lights on the windshield and other heads-up displays. Manufacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver.
Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn’t drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive? “The psychological aspects of automation are really a challenge,” admits Dr. Werner Huber, a BMW project manager driver. “We have to interpret the driving fun in a new way.” Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays. Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over—something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. In this way, the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern.
Waiting on the Law
Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars. California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have led the country in allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars; manufacturers believe that more states will follow as soon as the cars are proved more reliably safe. Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault—the driver or the manufacturer?
Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved. Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. The road to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us, but we grow closer to the destination every day. | null | null | null |
5165195 | 1 | I think there should be a little changes like they need more meetings to choose there president and the vice president how many votes are in to choose there president. they need about 538 electors and a majority of 270 electoral votes for our president. The electors equals the number of memebers in congressional delegation. Columbia is allocated 3 electors and treated like a state for pureposes of the elctoral college. any of our candidates run for our president. It runs how they act and how they are with the people that they have. The presidential election are every four years. The winner takes all and be's the new president. Our governer talk to us like a big long speech. They do a recoding of the new president. The electoral college, they're not alone; according to a Gallup poll in 2000, taken shortly after every thing. Over 60 percent of voters would perfer a direct election. This year voters can expect another close election. Voters vote not just for there president, but for a slate of electors. The people would have to vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors. The american people are lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest ellection. The voting takes place in the House of Representative and that are we vote for the president. | Write a letter to your state senator in which you argue in favor of keeping the Electoral College or changing to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. Use the information from the texts in your essay. Manage your time carefully so that you can read the passages; plan your response; write your response; and revise and edit your response. Be sure to include a claim; address counterclaims; use evidence from multiple sources; and avoid overly relying on one source. Your response should be in the form of a multiparagraph essay. Write your response in the space provided. | Does the electoral college work? | null | null | No | White | F | What Is the
Electoral College?
by the Office of the Federal Register
The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the
Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and
election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.
The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the
electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes
by Congress.
The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required
to elect the President. Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in
its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for
your Senators. . . .
Under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution, the District of Columbia is allocated 3
electors and treated like a state for purposes of the Electoral College. For this reason, in the
following discussion, the word “state” also refers to the District of Columbia.
Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. The
electors are generally chosen by the candidate’s political party, but state laws vary on how the
electors are selected and what their responsibilities are. . . .
The presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in
November. You help choose your state’s electors when you vote for President because when you
vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate’s electors.
Most states have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors to the winning
presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of “proportional representation.” . . .
After the presidential election, your governor prepares a “Certificate of Ascertainment”
listing all of the candidates who ran for President in your state along with the names of their
respective electors. The Certificate of Ascertainment also declares the winning presidential
candidate in your state and shows which electors will represent your state at the meeting of the
electors in December of the election year. Your state’s Certificates of Ascertainments are sent to
the Congress and the National Archives as part of the official records of the presidential election.
Excerpt from “What Is the Electoral College?” by
the Office of the Federal Register, from
www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoralcollege/about.html. In the public domain. | The Indefensible
Electoral College: Why even
the best-laid defenses of
the system are wrong
by Bradford Plumer
What have Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the
AFL-CIO all, in their time, agreed on? Answer: Abolishing the electoral college! They’re not alone;
according to a Gallup poll in 2000, taken shortly after Al Gore—thanks to the quirks of the
electoral college—won the popular vote but lost the presidency, over 60 percent of voters would
prefer a direct election to the kind we have now. This year voters can expect another close
election in which the popular vote winner could again lose the presidency. And yet, the electoral
college still has its defenders. What gives? . . .
What’s wrong with the electoral college
Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of
electors, who in turn elect the president. If you lived in Texas, for instance, and wanted to vote
for [John] Kerry, you’d vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors pledged to Kerry. On the offchance that those electors won the statewide election, they would go to Congress and Kerry
would get 34 electoral votes. Who are the electors? They can be anyone not holding public office.
Who picks the electors in the first place? It depends on the state. Sometimes state conventions,
sometimes the state party’s central committee, sometimes the presidential candidates
themselves. Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always. Do voters sometimes
get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate? Sometimes.
The single best argument against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster
factor. The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the
biggest election crisis in a century; the system allows for much worse. Consider that state
legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always
defy the will of the people. Back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly
succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F.
Kennedy. (So that a popular vote for Kennedy would not have actually gone to Kennedy.) In the
same vein, “faithless” electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party’s candidate and
cast a deciding vote for whomever they please. . . . Oh, and what if a state sends two slates of
electors to Congress? It happened in Hawaii in 1960. Luckily, Vice President Richard Nixon, who
was presiding over the Senate, validated only his opponent’s electors, but he made sure to do so
“without establishing a precedent.” What if it happened again?
Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. In that case, the
election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the
president. (The Senate would choose the vice-president.) Because each state casts only one vote,
the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say
as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters. Given that many
voters vote one party for president and another for Congress, the House’s selection can hardly be
expected to reflect the will of the people. And if an electoral tie seems unlikely, consider this: In
1968, a shift of just 41,971 votes would have deadlocked the election; In 1976, a tie would have
occurred if a mere 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted the other way. The
election is only a few swing voters away from catastrophe.
At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winner-takeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of
winning, focusing only on the tight races in the “swing” states. 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 anyone has a
good argument for putting the fate of the presidency in the hands of a few swing voters in Ohio,
they have yet to make it. . . .
It’s official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The best arguments in
favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality. And the arguments against direct
elections are spurious at best. It’s hard to say this, but Bob Dole was right: Abolish the electoral
college!
lost the presidency: In the 2000 U.S. presidential
race, Al Gore received more individual votes than
George W. Bush nationwide, but Bush won the
election, receiving 271 electoral votes to Gore’s
266.
John Kerry: Kerry ran for President against George
W. Bush (43rd president of the United States),
representing the Democratic Party in 2004.
segregationists: people who favored separation
based on race
Excerpt from “The Indefensible Electoral College:
Why even the best-laid defenses are wrong” from
Mother Jones by Bradford Plumer. Copyright ©
2004 by Mother Jones and the Foundation for
National Progress. All Rights Reserved. | In Defense of the
Electoral College: Five
reasons to keep our
despised method of
choosing the President
by Judge Richard A. Posner
The Electoral College is widely regarded as an anachronism, a non-democratic method of
selecting a president that ought to be [overruled] by declaring the candidate who receives the
most popular votes the winner. The advocates of this position are correct in arguing that 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 presidential candidate you’re actually voting for a
slate of electors.
But each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party’s nominee (and that
trust is rarely betrayed) . . . [; however,] it is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral
vote will not win the national popular vote. Yet that has happened very rarely. It happened in
2000, when Gore had more popular votes than Bush yet fewer electoral votes, but that was the
first time since 1888.
There are five reasons for retaining the Electoral College despite its lack of democratic
pedigree; all are practical reasons, not liberal or conservative reasons.
1) Certainty of Outcome
A dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote is possible—it happened in 2000
—but it’s less likely than a dispute over the popular vote. The reason is that the winning
candidate’s share of the Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote. In
[2012’s] election, for example, Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to
only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and Romney. . . . Because almost all states
award electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis, even a very slight plurality in a state creates a
landslide electoral-vote victory in that state. A tie in the nationwide electoral vote is possible
because the total number of votes—538—is an even number, but it is highly unlikely. . . .
2) Everyone’s President
The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have trans-regional appeal. No
region (South, Northeast, etc.) has enough electoral votes to elect a president. So a solid regional
favorite, such as Romney was in the South, has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states,
for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his plurality in states that he knows he will win. This
is a desirable result because a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful
president. The residents of the other regions are likely to feel disenfranchised—to feel that their
votes do not count, that the new president will have no regard for their interests, that he really
isn’t their president.
3) Swing States
The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes induces the candidates—as we saw
in [2012’s] election—to focus their campaign efforts on the toss-up states . . . . Voters in toss-up
states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign—to really listen to the competing
candidates—knowing that they are going to decide the election. They are likely to be the most
thoughtful voters, on average (and for the further reason that they will have received the most
information and attention from the candidates), and the most thoughtful voters should be the
ones to decide the election.
4) Big States
The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states
(by population) lose by virtue of the mal-apportionment of the Senate decreed in the
Constitution. . . . The popular vote was very close in Florida [in 2012]; nevertheless Obama, who
won that vote, got 29 electoral votes. A victory by the same margin in Wyoming would net the
winner only 3 electoral votes. So, other things being equal, a large state gets more attention from
presidential candidates in a campaign than a small state does. . . .
5) Avoid Run-Off Elections
The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a
majority of the votes cast. For example, Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had only a 43
percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the Electoral College (301 and
370 electoral votes, respectively). There is pressure for run-off elections when no candidate wins
a majority of the votes cast; that pressure, which would greatly complicate the presidential
election process, is reduced by the Electoral College, which invariably produces a clear winner. . . .
It can be argued that the Electoral College method of selecting the president may turn off
potential voters for a candidate who has no hope of carrying their state—Democrats in Texas, for
example, or Republicans in California. Knowing their vote will have no effect, they have less
incentive to pay attention to the campaign than they would have if the president were picked by
popular vote . . . . But of course no voter’s vote swings a national election, and in spite of that,
about one-half the eligible American population did vote in [2012’s] election. Voters in
presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people
who think that a single vote may decide an election. . . .
anachronism: a person or a thing that seems to
belong to the past and not to fit in the present
pedigree: the origin and history of something,
especially when it is good or impressive
liberal or conservative: political philosophies
commonly seen as opposite each other
Obama: Barack Obama, 44th president of the
United States
Romney: Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee for
President in 2012
plurality: when a candidate receives more votes
than other candidates while not receiving a clear
majority of votes
Excerpt from “In Defense of the Electoral College:
Five reasons to keep our despised method of
choosing the President” from Slate Magazine by
Judge Richard A. Posner. Copyright © 2012. | null |
5025891 | 4 | Now a days you see everyone with cars driving to places instead of walking. There are some small towns that cars are not needed because everything is so close but other cities everyone has to drive because everything is very distant from one another. Cars are needed on a daily basis to get to school, or to get to their job but walking or even biking would be a great idea because you would not be poluting the environment there would be less traffic jams and it would reduce the greenhouse gas. Limiting car usage would be a great idea and it would make peoples life a lot better and healthier because instead of driving they would walk to take a bike.
Polution is a big problem especially in big cities because everyone is driving and the smoke the cars leave makes our environment gross. Polution is not only because of the smoke the cars produce, it can also be when someone throws plastic into the oceans and poluting the waters or having trash in parks without recycling. I think we should re-enforce the recycling systems because many people dont know the benefits to that and how better our community and even world could be. When your are driving a car and especially in big cities like New York you need a car everywhere or just take the taxi. But just taking the taxi it wont reduce the probablity of polluting the air, it will still have the same effect as if you were driving your own car. If people would just walk or bike to their job or to their school poluting the air would not be a problem just like stated in source 2. In source 2 it talks about how in Paris they would fine the people up to 31 dollars.
There would also be less traffic jams due to the limiting of car usage just like stated in Source 3. In source 3 it talks about how in Bogota, Colombia there is a program that the colombians would ride their bike skate or take the bus and there would be less traffic jams. That is a very good idea because no one likes to be stuck in traffic especially if your in a hurry to get to work or even school. Traffic jams occur because of so many cars on the road. There is a thing called Rush hour and that is when everyone is leaving their work or school and they are going home and that is when everyone is on the road and thats when their is the most traffic. But it would be much easier if you would just bike or walk or take a bus and tried to avoid all of those traffic jams. The program that Bogota, Colombia has created is something that should be done nationwide because it would help so many other countries. Thanks to that programm people would go to the park and do sports and take walks.
Source A talks about the Greenhouse gas and how in Vauban,Germany soccer moms gave up their cars and how the streets were " Car Free". That led to having 70 percent of the families in Vauban to not having cars and 57 percent of the people that moved to Vauban to sell their cars. According to this source a person said they are much happier not owning or having a car because when Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother had a car she said she was more tense. Apperently this movement was called " Smart Planning".
Limiting car usage would be a great benefit to people and a great idea to improve Earth. Pollution like mentioned before is one of the biggest problems we have and in big cities is an evern bigger problem. Traffic jams is something that will be hard to stop because everyone is using cars and will continue to use cars because it seems like thats the fastest way to get to your location but thats not accurate because if people think that way then thats the cause of traffic jams and thats the cause of the Rush hour. The movement in Vauban, Germany is something that people should do. Im not saying sell your car but to reduce the car usage is something that would be very helpful not only to you, but for the environment. | Write an explanatory essay to inform fellow citizens about the advantages of limiting car usage. Your essay must be based on ideas and information that can be found in the passage set. Manage your time carefully so that you can read the passages; plan your response; write your response; and revise and edit your response. Be sure to use evidence from multiple sources; and avoid overly relying on one source. Your response should be in the form of a multiparagraph essay. Write your essay in the space provided. | Car-free cities | null | null | No | Hispanic/Latino | F | In German
Suburb, Life Goes On
Without Cars
by Elisabeth Rosenthal
VAUBAN, Germany—Residents of this upscale community are suburban pioneers, going
where few soccer moms or commuting executives have ever gone before: they have given up
their cars.
Street parking, driveways and home garages are generally forbidden in this experimental
new district on the outskirts of Freiburg, near the French and Swiss borders. Vauban’s streets are
completely “car-free”—except the main thoroughfare, where the tram to downtown Freiburg runs,
and a few streets on one edge of the community. Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two
places to park—large garages at the edge of the development, where a car-owner buys a space,
for $40,000, along with a home.
As a result, 70 percent of Vauban’s families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to
move here. “When I had a car I was always tense. I’m much happier this way,” said Heidrun
Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of
bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor.
Vauban, completed in 2006, is an example of a growing trend in Europe, the United States
and elsewhere to separate suburban life from auto use, as a component of a movement called
“smart planning.”
Automobiles are the linchpin of suburbs, where middle-class families from Chicago to
Shanghai tend to make their homes. And that, experts say, is a huge impediment to current
efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes . . . . Passenger cars are
responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe . . . and up to 50 percent in
some car-intensive areas in the United States.
While there have been efforts in the past two decades to make cities denser, and better for
walking, planners are now taking the concept to the suburbs . . . . Vauban, home to 5,500 residents within a rectangular square mile, may be the most advanced experiment in low-car
suburban life. But its basic precepts are being adopted around the world in attempts to make
suburbs more compact and more accessible to public transportation, with less space for parking.
In this new approach, stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along
some distant highway.
“All of our development since World War II has been centered on the car, and that will have
to change,” said David Goldberg, an official of Transportation for America, a fast-growing coalition
of hundreds of groups in the United States . . . who are promoting new communities that are less
dependent on cars. Mr. Goldberg added: “How much you drive is as important as whether you
have a hybrid.”
Levittown and Scarsdale, New York suburbs with spread-out homes and private garages,
were the dream towns of the 1950s and still exert a strong appeal. But some new suburbs may
well look more Vauban-like, not only in developed countries but also in the developing world,
where emissions from an increasing number of private cars owned by the burgeoning middle
class are choking cities.
In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency is promoting “car reduced”
communities, and legislators are starting to act, if cautiously. Many experts expect public
transport serving suburbs to play a much larger role in a new six-year federal transportation bill
to be approved this year, Mr. Goldberg said. In previous bills, 80 percent of appropriations have by
law gone to highways and only 20 percent to other transport.
Excerpt from “In German Suburb, Life Goes On
Without Cars” by Elisabeth Rosenthal, from the
New York Times. Copyright © 2009 by the New
York Times Company. Reprinted by permission of
the New York Times Company via Copyright
Clearance Center. | Paris bans
driving due to smog
by Robert Duffer
After days of near-record pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the
global city.
On Monday motorists with even-numbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22-euro fine ($31). The same would apply to odd-numbered plates the following
day.
Almost 4,000 drivers were fined, according to Reuters . . . [Twenty-seven] people had their
cars impounded for their reaction to the fine.
That’s easier to imagine than a car-free Champs-Elysees.
Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after five-days of intensifying
smog . . . [The smog] rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in
the world.
Cold nights and warm days caused the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions.
Diesel fuel was blamed, since France has . . . [a] tax policy that favors diesel over gasoline.
Diesels make up 67 percent of vehicles in France, compared to a 53.3 percent average of diesel
engines in the rest of Western Europe, according to Reuters.
Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals . . . [Last] week Paris had 147
micrograms of particulate matter (PM) per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7
in London, Reuters found.
Delivery companies complained of lost revenue, while exceptions were made for plug-in
cars, hybrids, and cars carrying three or more passengers. Public transit was free of charge from
Friday to Monday, according to the BBC.
The smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday.
Reuters: an international news agency
headquartered in London
Champs-Elysees: a famous street in Paris
congestion: car traffic
Excerpt from “Paris bans driving due to smog” by
Robert Duffer, from the Chicago Tribune.
Copyright © 2014 by the Chicago Tribune.
Reprinted by permission of the Chicago Tribune via
Copyright Clearance Center. | Car-free day is
spinning into a big hit in
Bogota
by Andrew Selsky
BOGOTA, Colombia—In a program that’s set to spread to other countries, millions of
Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a car-free day yesterday, leaving
the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams.
It was the third straight year cars have been banned with only buses and taxis permitted for
the Day Without Cars in this capital city of 7 million. The goal is to promote alternative
transportation and reduce smog. Violators faced $25 fines.
The turnout was large, despite gray clouds that dumped occasional rain showers on Bogota.
“The rain hasn’t stopped people from participating,” said Bogota Mayor Antanas Mockus . . .
.
“It’s a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,” said businessman
Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a two-seat bicycle with his wife.
For the first time, two other Colombian cities, Cali and Valledupar, joined the event.
Municipal authorities from other countries came to Bogota to see the event and were
enthusiastic. “These people are generating a revolutionary change, and this is crossing borders,”
said Enrique Riera, the mayor of Asunción, Paraguay. . . .
The day without cars is part of an improvement campaign that began in Bogota in the mid1990s. It has seen the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths, the most of any Latin American
city, according to Mockus, the city’s mayor.
Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city; uneven, pitted sidewalks
have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks; rush-hour restrictions have dramatically cut
traffic; and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up.
Excerpt from “Car-free day is spinning into a big
hit in Bogota” by Andrew Selsky, from the Seattle
Times. Copyright © 2002 by the Seattle Times
Company. Reprinted by permission of the Seattle
Times Company via Copyright Clearance Center. | The End of Car
Culture
by Elisabeth Rosenthal
President Obama’s ambitious goals to curb the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions,
unveiled last week, will get a fortuitous assist from an incipient shift in American behavior:
recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer
licenses as each year goes by.
That has left researchers pondering a fundamental question: Has America passed peak
driving?
The United States, with its broad expanses and suburban ideals, had long been one of the
world’s prime car cultures. It is the birthplace of the Model T; the home of Detroit; the place
where Wilson Pickett immortalized “Mustang Sally” . . . .
But America’s love affair with its vehicles seems to be cooling. When adjusted for population
growth, the number of miles driven in the United States peaked in 2005 and dropped steadily
thereafter, according to an analysis by Doug Short of Advisor Perspectives, an investment
research company. As of April 2013, the number of miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent
below the peak and equal to where the country was in January 1995. Part of the explanation
certainly lies in the recession, because cash-strapped Americans could not afford new cars, and
the unemployed weren’t going to work anyway. But by many measures the decrease in driving
preceded the downturn and appears to be persisting now that recovery is under way. The next
few years will be telling.
“What most intrigues me is that rates of car ownership per household and per person
started to come down two to three years before the downturn,” said Michael Sivak, who studies
the trend and who is a research professor at the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research
Institute. “I think that means something more fundamental is going on.”
If the pattern persists—and many sociologists believe it will—it will have beneficial
implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest
source of America’s emissions, just behind power plants. But it could have negative implications
for the car industry. Indeed, companies like Ford and Mercedes are already rebranding themselves
“mobility” companies with a broader product range beyond the personal vehicle.
“Different things are converging which suggest that we are witnessing a long-term cultural
shift,” said Mimi Sheller, a sociology professor at Drexel University and director of its Mobilities
Research and Policy Center. She cites various factors: the Internet makes telecommuting possible
and allows people to feel more connected without driving to meet friends. The renewal of center
cities has made the suburbs less appealing and has drawn empty nesters back in. Likewise the
rise in cellphones and car-pooling apps has facilitated more flexible commuting arrangements,
including the evolution of shared van services for getting to work.
With all these changes, people who stopped car commuting as a result of the recession may
find less reason to resume the habit. . . .
New York’s new bike-sharing program and its skyrocketing bridge and tunnel tolls reflect
those new priorities, as do a proliferation of car-sharing programs across the nation.
Demographic shifts in the driving population suggest that the trend may accelerate. There
has been a large drop in the percentage of 16- to 39-year-olds getting a license, while older
people are likely to retain their licenses as they age, Mr. Sivak’s research has found.
He and I have similar observations about our children. Mine (19 and 21) have not bothered
to get a driver’s license, even though they both live in places where one could come in handy.
They are interested, but it’s not a priority. They organize their summer jobs and social life around
where they can walk or take public transportation or car-pool with friends.
Mr. Sivak’s son lives in San Francisco and has a car but takes Bay Area Rapid Transit, when
he can, even though that often takes longer than driving. “When I was in my 20s and 30s,” Mr.
Sivak said, “I was curious about what kind of car people drove, but young people don’t really
care. A car is just a means of getting from A to B when BART doesn’t work.”
A study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001
and 2009. . . .
Whether members of the millennial generation will start buying more cars once they have
kids to take to soccer practice and school plays remains an open question. But such projections
have important business implications, even if car buyers are merely older or buying fewer cars in
a lifetime rather than rejecting car culture outright.
At the Mobile World Congress last year in Barcelona, Spain, Bill Ford, executive chairman of
the Ford Motor Company, laid out a business plan for a world in which personal vehicle ownership
is impractical or undesirable. He proposed partnering with the telecommunications industry to
create cities in which “pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation
traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and
improve safety.”
incipient: at an initial stage; beginning to happen
or develop
Excerpt from “The End of Car Culture” by
Elisabeth Rosenthal, from the New York Times.
Copyright © 2013 by the New York Times
Company. Reprinted by permission of the New
York Times Company via Copyright Clearance
Center. |
AAAOPP13416000045059 | 4 | In this article, "Unmasking the Face on Mars". Many people believe that this imprint of a human beings' face was sculpted by aliens. In this essay, I will provide many reasons why this imprint was just a natural landform that looked identical to a human face.
Scientist have discovered that this "Face" on Mars was just a natural landform. Many people are trying to say that the face was created by aliens. There are many ways that we could prove that aliens DID NOT create this fasinating landform. From far away, this imprint looks exactly like a human face. If you focuse hard enough on this sculpture, you could indentify its eyes, mouth, nose and head shape.
One of the many reasons that this artifact was not created by aliens is because, provided in the article, back on April 5th, 1998, Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia for the first time. Scientist studied the artifact from afar, yet, they were still able to see the face. One of the scientist, Michael Malin, and his Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) team took pictures of this marvelous sculpture. As Michael looked closer into each picture, he discovered that the creation was not carved that way in any sort. He discovered that the artifact was just a landform that began to age that way.
Another way to prove this artifact was not created by aliens is, there was no one there at the planet Mars. Scientist looked all over the planet, circled it for a long period of time. There was no foot prints, or any marks on this planet. Many believed that no matter how hard they searched, the solution would come out possitive. No one came and created this impressive land.
In the passage it says on April 8, 2001--a cloudless summer day in Cydonia, Mars Global Surveyor drew close enough for a second look. They had to roll the spacecraft 25 degrees to center the Face in the field of view. Each pixel spanned about 1.56 meters in 2001. The best Viking photo in 1976 was measured out to be 43 meters per pixel. This is when they knew for a fact that this landform was not something anyone else was able to make. This was all just a huge coincedense that there was a face imprinited on our called, "Red Planet".
This is why we should believe that "the Face" was just a natural landform. All facts has proven, that this creation was just part of Mars. There was no clear explaination that an alien would come and create this. If aliens tend to exist, there's no possible way they would know the facial structures of a human face. | You have read the article 'Unmasking the Face on Mars.' Imagine you are a scientist at NASA discussing the Face with someone who thinks it was created by aliens. Using information in the article, write an argumentative essay to convince someone that the Face is just a natural landform.Be sure to include: claims to support your argument that the Face is a natural landform; evidence from the article to support your claims; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | The Face on Mars | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Hispanic/Latino | F | Unmasking the Face on Mars
Side by side: a Viking 1 photo from 1975, a Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) image from 1998, and the latest MGS image from 2001.
New high-resolution images and 3D altimetry from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft reveal the Face on Mars for what it really is: a mesa.
On May 24, 2001—Twenty five years ago, something funny happened around Mars. NASA’s Viking 1 spacecraft was circling the planet, snapping photos of possible landing sites for its sister ship Viking 2, when it spotted the shadowy likeness of a human face. An enormous head nearly two miles from end to end seemed to be staring back at the cameras from a region of the Red Planet called Cydonia.
There must have been a degree of surprise among mission controllers back at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory when the face appeared on their monitors. But the sensation was short-lived. Scientists figured it was just another Martian mesa, common enough around Cydonia, only this one had unusual shadows that made it look like an Egyptian Pharaoh.
A few days later NASA unveiled the image for all to see. The caption noted a “huge rock formation . . . which resembles a human head . . . formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose, and mouth.” The authors reasoned it would be a good way to engage the public and attract attention to Mars.
It certainly did!
The “Face on Mars” has since become a pop icon. It has starred in a Hollywood film, appeared in books, magazines, radio talk shows – even haunted grocery store checkout lines for 25 years! Some people think the Face is bona fide evidence of life on Mars – evidence that NASA would rather hide, say conspiracy theorists. Meanwhile, defenders of the NASA budget wish there was an ancient civilization on Mars.
A 1976 Viking 1 photograph of the Face on Mars
Although few scientists believed the Face was an alien artifact, photographing Cydonia became a priority for NASA when Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) arrived at the Red Planet in Sept. 1997, eighteen long years after the Viking missions ended. “We felt this was important to taxpayers,” explained Jim Garvin, chief scientist for NASA’s mars Exploration Program. “We photographed the Face as soon as we could get a good shot at it.”
And so on April 5, 1998, when Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia for the first time, Michael Malin and his Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) team snapped a picture ten times sharper than the original Viking photos. Thousands of anxious web surfers were waiting when the image first appeared on a JPL web site, revealing . . . a natural landform. There was no alien monument after all.
But not everyone was satisfied. The Face on Mars is located at 41 degrees north martial latitude where it was winter in April ‘98 – a cloudy time of year on the Red Planet. The camera on board MGS had to peer through wispy clouds to see the Face. Perhaps, said skeptics, alien markings were hidden by haze.
Mission controllers prepared to look again. “It’s not easy to target Cydonia,” says Garvin. “In fact, it’s hard work.” Mars Global Surveyor is a mapping spacecraft that normally looks straight down and scans the planet like a fax machine in narrow 2.5 km-wide strips. “We don’t pass over the Face very often,” he noted.
Nevertheless, on April 8, 2001 – a cloudless summer day in Cydonia – Mars Global Surveyor drew close enough for a second look. “We had to roll the spacecraft 25 degrees to center the Face in the field of view,” said Garvin. “Malin’s team captured an extraordinary photo using the camera’s absolute maximum resolution.” Each pixel in the 2001 image spans 1.56 meters, compared to the 43 meters per pixel in the best 1976 Viking photo.
“As a rule of thumb, you can discern things in a digital image 3 times bigger than the pixel size,” he added. “So, if there were objects in this picture like airplanes on the ground or Egyptian-style pyramids or even small shacks, you could see what they were!”
What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa – landforms common around the American West. “It reminds me of most of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho,” says Garvin. “That’s a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars.”
Text and photographs courtsey of NASA, “Unmasking the Face on Mars,” May 24, 2001 (retrieved from science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast24may_1/) | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000022782 | 3 | Imagine: it's 2050, and all around are cars buzzing and swishing through the streets, quickly roundng corners with expert presicion. Then, upon closer look, one can see that every single car has come without a steering column; they're self-driving. This idea may seem far-off, even alien now, but could very much be a realty. Companies like Google have had independently drivng cars since 2009. But before we can introduce waves of driverless cars to the road and every day life, the most important aspect has to first be perfected: safety.
A driverless car has the capability to replace a manual vehicle as the safest cars on the road. But to acheive that, manufacturers need to break down laws that have been set since automobiles have set wheel on the roads. Most states it is illegal to operate a driverless vehicle due to the assumption that the only safe type of car is one driven by a human. Only California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Coulumbia allow use of semi-automatic vehicles, and they are high restricitve about it. To address how to deal with possible failure in driverless cars, new laws must be drafted to cover the case of an accident.
Hopefully these accidents can be avoided, however. Even though the driver themselves is not operating the vehicle the entire time, all manufaturers are implementing warning signals that will alert the driver in the case of a hazard. In 2013, BMW announced the Traffic Jam Assistant, a feature that can handle speeds up to 25 miles per hour by itself, with special touch sensors that make sure the dirver keeps hold of the wheel. Gm developed vibrating drivers seats that warn the driver when they need to take over. Other variables include are flashing lights in the windshield and in possible heads-up displays.
Even despite legal setbacks, maunfacturers are hopeful in their development of self-driving cars. Some, like Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan hope to have these types of vehicles on the road by 2020. Even sooner, Tesla is predicting a car that can drive autonomously 90 percent of the time by 2016. Hopefully, these vehicles will not just be able to drive themselves, but also us the pedestrians into a safe future. | In the article “Driverless Cars are Coming,” the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. Using details from the article, create an argument for or against the development of these cars. Be sure to include: your position on driverless cars; appropriate details from the article that support your position; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | Driverless cars | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | White | M | Driverless Cars Are Coming
Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore? Google cofounder Sergey Brin can. He envisions a future with a public transportation system where fleets of driverless cars form a public-transport taxi system. The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today’s taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus. He believes such cars would fundamentally change the world.
Television and movies have long been fascinated with cars that could drive themselves. In reality, Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash, but so far, Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents. So what roadblocks lie ahead for the autonomous car?
Sensing the World
Let's begin by looking at which companies are making computer-driven cars. Originally, many futurists believed the key to developing self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as smarter roads. For example, in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. The track was embedded with an electrical cable that sent radio signals to a receiver on the front end of the car. Engineers at Berkeley tried something similar, but they used magnets with alternating polarity. The car read the positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code. These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical.
Without the option of smarter roads, manufacturers turned to smarter cars—but how much smarter did the cars need to be? For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors. Google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. The most important bit of technology in this system is the spinning sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR, it uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the car's surroundings. The combination of all this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel.
Sensors are nothing new, of course. In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheels in the creation of antilock brakes. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone. Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own.
Driving or Assisting?
Antilock brakes and driver assistance still seem a long way from the dream of calling a driverless cab to take us wherever we desire, but Sebastian Thrun, founder of the Google Car project, believes that the technology has finally begun to catch up to the dream. “There was no way, before 2000, to make something interesting. The sensors weren't there, the computers weren't there, and the mapping wasn't there. Radar was a device on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack.” So just how driverless will the cars be in the near future?
In 2013, BMW announced the development of “Traffic Jam Assistant.” The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. This necessitates the car being ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs. GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object. The Google car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over. Other options under consideration are flashing lights on the windshield and other heads-up displays. Manufacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver.
Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn’t drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive? “The psychological aspects of automation are really a challenge,” admits Dr. Werner Huber, a BMW project manager driver. “We have to interpret the driving fun in a new way.” Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays. Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over—something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. In this way, the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern.
Waiting on the Law
Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars. California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have led the country in allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars; manufacturers believe that more states will follow as soon as the cars are proved more reliably safe. Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault—the driver or the manufacturer?
Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved. Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. The road to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us, but we grow closer to the destination every day. | null | null | null |
AAATRP14318000799890 | 3 | Using technology to read the emotional expression of students in a classroom is valuable, beacuse if a teacher wantes to see if the students are understanding the subject that the teacher is teaching it is faster and easier to use this technology. And by doing so the teacher can find new ways to teach the class in a more understanding way. This technology can also be used to teach class about the human face for anybody who wants to be a doctor for that. And it can teach students on how to program This is why this type of technology should be in schools all around the country.
Going on with the idea of new teaching meitheds that the teachers can do. Theachers can show their students more about the human emotions than before. Theachers can show students on how to code new emotions and expressions in the already exesting program. Computer programing is hard to do if someone doesn't know anything about programing, and the students might just give up and do something else. But by experenting with the FACS code it might make things more understandable for the students and more exciting. Then that is opening up more corears for the students to pick from.
In conclusion, is having this technology in classrooms good for both the students and the teachers, the answer is yes. The reason is that the teachers can use it to read the faces of the students to see if they are understanding the lessons or not. The technology can also be used as a new way to teach a subject, like for students trying to become doctors that work on human faces. It can also be a gateway to get students excitied about computer programing. | In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile," the author describes how a new technology called the Facial Action Coding System enables computers to identify human emotions. Using details from the article, write an essay arguing whether the use of this technology to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is valuable. | Facial action coding system | Economically disadvantaged | Identified as having disability | No | White | M | Copyright Restricted | null | null | null |
AAATRP14318000232747 | 2 | I feel like this new method of technology can be very helpful in classrooms. Apart of me disagrees that it is. I feel like this method of technology, can be helpful, but it also is an evasion of privacy. It's cool and all to know that your computer can detect if your happy or not, but it's also creepy to know that your being watched. Someone has to be able to know how your feeling. The teachers can use this in classrooms and I feel like it would be affective. Therefore when class is dismissed and there is no reason to use it, who knows what the computers or watchers can do with this material. It can go both ways, it can be helpful and affective in classrooms, but who knows what can happen after that. If the teacher is in the classroom with them, there should be no need for the program to be in school, but if its a diffrent type of enviroment and the teacher can always be there, I feel like this program would work perfect. If the teacher gets notified when the student is dazzing off, or playing around, it can really help the students to be more attentive in class. That being said I think it is all just a matter of the enviroment and the influence in the classroom. | In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile," the author describes how a new technology called the Facial Action Coding System enables computers to identify human emotions. Using details from the article, write an essay arguing whether the use of this technology to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is valuable. | Facial action coding system | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Hispanic/Latino | M | Copyright Restricted | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000111734 | 3 | Change is inevitable. Change is something that we face everyday; it is something that the world has had to deal with for years. It challenges you, it becomes you, it makes you. When faced with the idea of driverless cars, there will be many people who doubt that it could or should happen. That could find every reason in the book to stop driverless from happening. The old adage, "don't re-invent the wheel," no longer stands as true as it once did. In this day and age, this generation, and the one that raised it, is forced to do things bigger, better, greater. And that's what driverless cars are doing. Forcing people to think bolder, to make an invention that has lasted millions of years, better. And driverless cars are up for the challenge.
Driverless cars should by all means continue to be developed. Once upon a time, someone thought that the horse and carriage was just fine. But, along came innovation. The text states that Google cars "have driven more than half a million miles without a crash." This was 2009. Now, seven years later, technology grows keener; while there are many arguments about safety and liability presented in this article, it remains that the potential of driverless cars outweigh the risks. Was it a risk to fly an airplane? Was it a risk to launch a rocket? The answer to both of these questions is yes. Nothing great comes without risk and hard work. The article informs readers that manufacturers are taking every step possible to make these cars smarter. Every piece of technology has had and has its own faults. But driverless cars are a step to, as the author mentioned, a world where "no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore." A better world, economy, and ecosystem.
To conclude, techonology must adavance; furthermore, driverless cars not only will, but should be developed. Technology has emboldened society, helped it to where it is today. And while it is potentially dangerous, the possibility of the benefits reaped will be greater than could ever be imagined. A wise person once said, "courage is the ability to do what fear will not allow you to." | In the article “Driverless Cars are Coming,” the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. Using details from the article, create an argument for or against the development of these cars. Be sure to include: your position on driverless cars; appropriate details from the article that support your position; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | Driverless cars | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Black/African American | F | Driverless Cars Are Coming
Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore? Google cofounder Sergey Brin can. He envisions a future with a public transportation system where fleets of driverless cars form a public-transport taxi system. The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today’s taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus. He believes such cars would fundamentally change the world.
Television and movies have long been fascinated with cars that could drive themselves. In reality, Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash, but so far, Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents. So what roadblocks lie ahead for the autonomous car?
Sensing the World
Let's begin by looking at which companies are making computer-driven cars. Originally, many futurists believed the key to developing self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as smarter roads. For example, in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. The track was embedded with an electrical cable that sent radio signals to a receiver on the front end of the car. Engineers at Berkeley tried something similar, but they used magnets with alternating polarity. The car read the positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code. These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical.
Without the option of smarter roads, manufacturers turned to smarter cars—but how much smarter did the cars need to be? For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors. Google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. The most important bit of technology in this system is the spinning sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR, it uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the car's surroundings. The combination of all this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel.
Sensors are nothing new, of course. In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheels in the creation of antilock brakes. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone. Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own.
Driving or Assisting?
Antilock brakes and driver assistance still seem a long way from the dream of calling a driverless cab to take us wherever we desire, but Sebastian Thrun, founder of the Google Car project, believes that the technology has finally begun to catch up to the dream. “There was no way, before 2000, to make something interesting. The sensors weren't there, the computers weren't there, and the mapping wasn't there. Radar was a device on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack.” So just how driverless will the cars be in the near future?
In 2013, BMW announced the development of “Traffic Jam Assistant.” The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. This necessitates the car being ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs. GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object. The Google car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over. Other options under consideration are flashing lights on the windshield and other heads-up displays. Manufacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver.
Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn’t drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive? “The psychological aspects of automation are really a challenge,” admits Dr. Werner Huber, a BMW project manager driver. “We have to interpret the driving fun in a new way.” Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays. Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over—something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. In this way, the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern.
Waiting on the Law
Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars. California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have led the country in allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars; manufacturers believe that more states will follow as soon as the cars are proved more reliably safe. Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault—the driver or the manufacturer?
Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved. Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. The road to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us, but we grow closer to the destination every day. | null | null | null |
AAATRP14318000879718 | 5 | A new piece of technology, the Facial Action Coding System, has been developed and is helping with the learning the emotions of others. Some may say that this technology should not be used in classrooms because it invades the students' privacy. However, finding the emotions of students in classrooms could help teachers with what kind of lessons to prepare and finding out potemial problems that students had. The ability to read the emotions of students in classrooms could be extremely valuable.
Some may argue that having the emotions of students read in class would be a bad idea. If the school could find out what their students were feeling with a computer program, the students may be unhappy with the idea that their school was observing their feeling. In paragraph 8 of the article, the author states, "faces don't lie". If teachers used this technology, they could know the emotions of students even if students tried to hide it. In this way, students could feel as though the school is invading their privacy by finding out emotions that they want to keep hidden. Their emotions can be tied to their thoughts. In most cases, people consider their no one else should be able to know their thoughts and emotions without the person's consent. Some argue that reading the emotions of others will be an invasion of privacy.
Teachers using the knowledge of students' emotions could be helpful in a classroom. If teachers know how students are reacting to different assignments, they could alter the worksheets to make the students more interested and understand what they are learning better. Also, if a computer can understand the emotions of children that are using it, the computer can change the material to aid in the learning. The article states, "a classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored" and "it could modify the lesson". Teachers being able to help students better understand what they are being taught is just one of many benefits to using the Facial Action Coding System in classrooms.
The knowledge of students' emotions could be beneficial to schools. If teachers could figure out the emotions of students, they teachers could potentially find and help students that are suffering with problems. The author states, "faces don't lie". Knowing what is truely going on with students by using this program could help the teacher recognize if a student is struggling with anxiety or stress. Students with anxiety and stress could potentially have suicidal thoughts or actions. By identifying this problem, teachers could get help for the student and help prevent the death of an innocent life. The article also states, " moving your facial muscles not only expresses emotions, but also may even help produce them". The teachers could additionally do exercises with students to reduce their stress levels. The technologies like the Facial Action Coding System could help teachers know about students' anxiety and prevent harm to the students.
Though some say there could be several issues with using technology to read emotions in classrooms, there are many more benefits than issues. The system could modify the learning style to one that suits the individual student and could help teachers learn of problems the student has. Using technologies like the Facial Action Coding System to help read students' emotions could be an important asset for schools. | In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile," the author describes how a new technology called the Facial Action Coding System enables computers to identify human emotions. Using details from the article, write an essay arguing whether the use of this technology to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is valuable. | Facial action coding system | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Asian/Pacific Islander | F | Copyright Restricted | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000076818 | 2 | Have you ever seen Seagoing Cowboy Program go to sea? I, Luke, have went to the Seagoing Cowboy Program. It is really run. You get to go to many places. As stated in the article you get to help out people.
Would you want to go on the program? You should really think about it. If you like to explore or help people out you would like it. If you don't like those things you wouldn't be a big fan. If you wouldn't do it you would regret it later.
In the article it says that he was happy to be alive. When I was little my aunt Katie's farm as a boy prepared him for work. It helps to know that helping out taught me to be responsible. I was always busy helping. I aslo had fun on board. I got to help with things on board.
Also stated in the article it says that I had no idea that my life would change soon after my high school graduation. My friend Don Reist innvited me to go to Europe on a cattle boat. After World War II was over in Europe, and many countries were left in ruins.
I hope I've made you want to come to the program. If not try to think more about it. I would not change it for the world. You get to spectate so many places around the world. Would you go to the problem? | You have just read the article, 'A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves.' Luke's participation in the Seagoing Cowboys program allowed him to experience adventures and visit many unique places. Using information from the article, write an argument from Luke's point of view convincing others to participate in the Seagoing Cowboys program. Be sure to include: reasons to join the program; details from the article to support Luke's claims; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your essay. | "A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves" | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | White | F | A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves
by Peggy Reif Miller
Luke Bomberger crossed the Atlantic Ocean 16 times and the Pacific Ocean twice to help people affected by World War II.
Luke Bomberger had no idea that his life would change soon after his high school graduation. He was working two part-time jobs in a grocery store and a bank when his friend Don Reist invited him to go to Europe on a cattle boat. Luke couldn’t say no. He knew it was an opportunity of a lifetime.
It was 1945, World War II was over in Europe, and many countries were left in ruins. To help these countries recover their food supplies, animals, and more, 44 nations joined together to form UNRRA (the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration). UNRRA hired “Seagoing Cowboys” to take care of the horses, young cows, and mules that were shipped overseas. Luke and Don signed up.
Heading Overseas
In August 1945, they received their orders to report to New Orleans. “We arrived August 14,” Luke says, “the day the Pacific war ended.” They got their seaman’s papers and boarded the SS Charles W. Wooster, headed for Greece – with a cargo of 335 horses plus enough hay and oats to feed them.
Luke turned 18 before arriving in Greece, which meant he could be drafted for military service. “When my draft board learned that I was on a cattle-boat trip, they told me to just keep doing that for my service.” By the time he was discharged in 1947, Luke had made nine trips – the most of any Seagoing Cowboy.
“The cattle-boat trips were an unbelievable opportunity for a small-town bow,” he says. “Besides helping people, I had the side benefit of seeing Europe and China. But seeing the Acropolis in Greece was special,” he says. “So was taking a gondola ride in Venice, Italy, a city with streets of water.” Luke also toured an excavated castle in Crete and marveled at the Panama Canal on his way to China.
Traveling the High Seas
It took about two weeks to cross the Atlantic Ocean from the eastern coast of the United States and a month to get to China. Caring for the animals during the crossings kept Luke busy. They had to be fed and watered two or three times a day. Bales of hay and bags of oats had to be pulled up from the lower holds of the ship. Stalls had to be cleaned.
Helping out on his aunt Katie’s farm as a boy had prepared Luke for hard work, but not for the dangers at sea. On his second trip, Luke served at night watchman. His job was to check on all the animals every hour. One rainy night, after making his hourly report to the captain, he slid down a slippery ladder on his backside. Luke’s heart raced as he shot feet first toward an opening on the side of the ship. A small strip of metal along the edge stopped his slide, keeping him from flying overboard into the dark Atlantic. He was happy to be alive. But he couldn’t work for a couple of days because of cracked ribs.
Luke also found time to have fun on board, especially on return trips after the animals had been unloaded. The cowboys played baseball and volleyball games in the empty holds where animals had been housed. Table-tennis tournaments, fencing, boxing, reading, whittling, and games also helped pass the time.
But being a Seagoing Cowboy was much more than an adventure for Luke Bomberger. It opened up the world to him. “I’m grateful for the opportunity,” he says. “It made me more aware of people of other countries and their needs.” And that awareness stayed with him, leading his family to host a number of international students and exchange visitors for many years.
“A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves” by Peggy Reif Miller from Highlights for Children Magazine’s October 2013 issue, copyright 2013 by Highlights for Children, Inc., Colombus, Ohio. Used by permission. | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000039145 | 4 | Scientists should deffinitely keep working with the developement of these cars. These cars could change the lives of drivers all around the world. Imagine the things we could do with these cars.
The developement of these cars could help prevent deadly accidents. These cars could also help make the driving environment more safe. With all the sensors inplanted in these vehicals, a car could automatically stop itself if someone or something were to cross its path. Many people have died getting hit by cars. Imagine if a child were to run aimlessly across the street into on-coming traffic. The sensors on these vehicals would detect the child. The vehical would either stop immediately or swiftly avoid hitting the child.
If the driver would have to take over in places such as construction sites or to go around an accident, the car will get the drivers attention so that the driver can manually complete the task ahead so that the car can continue driving itself. The driver must do this because the car can only see a map of the places it is traveling and the distances and measurements of the roads. The car will not be able to drive if someone changed those characteristics of the road, simply because that is not how it looks on the GPS.
The car seat will vibrate when the car senses danger. This is what will get the drivers attention.
A self-driving car has driven more than half a million miles without crashing, although the car had not fully driven itself. However, the fact that did not wreck even once has risen this vehicals safety rate dramatically. A Google car could drive independently under certain conditions without the need of artificial inteligence since 2009. Each car has to be coded with safety precuations and many maps, video cameras, radar sensors, a GPS reciever, and internal motion sensors to assure that the cars are more safe. This allows the car to drive more smoothly.
With all the given information of this passage it is easy to say that continuing the developement of these cars is deffinitely something we should do and look forward to. | In the article “Driverless Cars are Coming,” the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. Using details from the article, create an argument for or against the development of these cars. Be sure to include: your position on driverless cars; appropriate details from the article that support your position; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | Driverless cars | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | Yes | White | F | Driverless Cars Are Coming
Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore? Google cofounder Sergey Brin can. He envisions a future with a public transportation system where fleets of driverless cars form a public-transport taxi system. The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today’s taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus. He believes such cars would fundamentally change the world.
Television and movies have long been fascinated with cars that could drive themselves. In reality, Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash, but so far, Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents. So what roadblocks lie ahead for the autonomous car?
Sensing the World
Let's begin by looking at which companies are making computer-driven cars. Originally, many futurists believed the key to developing self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as smarter roads. For example, in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. The track was embedded with an electrical cable that sent radio signals to a receiver on the front end of the car. Engineers at Berkeley tried something similar, but they used magnets with alternating polarity. The car read the positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code. These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical.
Without the option of smarter roads, manufacturers turned to smarter cars—but how much smarter did the cars need to be? For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors. Google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. The most important bit of technology in this system is the spinning sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR, it uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the car's surroundings. The combination of all this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel.
Sensors are nothing new, of course. In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheels in the creation of antilock brakes. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone. Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own.
Driving or Assisting?
Antilock brakes and driver assistance still seem a long way from the dream of calling a driverless cab to take us wherever we desire, but Sebastian Thrun, founder of the Google Car project, believes that the technology has finally begun to catch up to the dream. “There was no way, before 2000, to make something interesting. The sensors weren't there, the computers weren't there, and the mapping wasn't there. Radar was a device on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack.” So just how driverless will the cars be in the near future?
In 2013, BMW announced the development of “Traffic Jam Assistant.” The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. This necessitates the car being ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs. GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object. The Google car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over. Other options under consideration are flashing lights on the windshield and other heads-up displays. Manufacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver.
Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn’t drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive? “The psychological aspects of automation are really a challenge,” admits Dr. Werner Huber, a BMW project manager driver. “We have to interpret the driving fun in a new way.” Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays. Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over—something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. In this way, the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern.
Waiting on the Law
Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars. California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have led the country in allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars; manufacturers believe that more states will follow as soon as the cars are proved more reliably safe. Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault—the driver or the manufacturer?
Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved. Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. The road to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us, but we grow closer to the destination every day. | null | null | null |
AAAVUP14319000050031 | 1 | The author suggests that studying Venus is a worthy pursuite the dangers it present.
Venus is colled "Evening Star" Venus is the closes planet to Earth. human studuy Venus but can will dangerous because the human who study Venus no have idiea what are in ti's planet.If someting are ther like other species.The NASA is working to studying venus NASA are make sonting the study Venus
electronics made of silicon carbide.the sientis study benus because they cant to Venus are the next earth and the human cant live in venus. but is dangerous because Venus not have sonthing the Earth have and is heard to do venus will ne a planet the humans cand be live.And Venus is no a planet like the Ehearth becaus in the Earth have oxgyen, plants, food , animals,and others tings the human need to survive but in venus no have so is heard to study all Venus and create all the human need to survived. study Venus is dangerous but is a hope to the human can be live ther. | In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus," the author suggests studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. Using details from the article, write an essay evaluating how well the author supports this idea. Be sure to include: a claim that evaluates how well the author supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers; an explanation of the evidence from the article that supports your claim; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your essay. | Exploring Venus | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | Yes | Hispanic/Latino | F | The Challenge of Exploring Venus
Venus, sometimes called the “Evening Star,” is one of the brightest points of light in the night sky, making it simple for even and amateur stargazer to spot. However, this nickname is misleading since Venus is actually a planet. While Venus is simple to see from the distant but safe vantage point of Earth, it has proved a very challenging place to examine more closely.
Often referred to as Earth's “twin,” Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size, and occasionally the closest in distance too. Earth, Venus, and Mars, our other planetary neighbor, orbit the sun at different speeds. These differences in speed mean that sometimes we are closer to Mars and other times to Venus. Because Venus is sometimes right around the corner - in space terms - humans have spent numerous spacecraft to land on this cloud-draped world. Each previous mission was unmanned, and for good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours. Maybe this issue explains why not a single spaceship has touched down of Venus in more than three decades. Numberous factors contribute to Venus's reputation as a challenging planet for humans to study, despite its proximity to us.
A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere. On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet. These conditions are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth; such an environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans and would liquefy many metals. Also notable, Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system, even though Mercury is closer to our sun. Beyond high presure and heat, Venusian geology and weather present additional impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface.
If our sister is so inhospitable, why are scientists even discussing further visits to its surface? Astronomers are fascinated by Venus beccause it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth. Today, Venus still has some features that are analogous to those on Earth. The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters. Furthermore, recall that Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit, a crucial consideration given the long time frames of space travel. The value of returning to Venus seems indisputable, but what are the options for making such a mission both safe and scientifically productive?
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has one particularly compelling idea for sending humans to study Venus. NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray. Imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape. Just as our jet airplanes travel at a higher altitude to fly over many storms, a vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly ground conditions by staying up and out of their way. At thirty-plus miles above the surface, temperatures would still be toasty at around 170 degrees Farenheit, but the air pressure would be close to that of sea level on Earth. Solar power would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth levels. Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans.
However, peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions rendering standard forms of photography and videography ineffective. More importantly, researchers cannot take samples of rock, gas, or anything else, from a distance. Therefore, scientists seeking to conduct a thorough mission to understand Venus would need to get up close and personal despite the risks. Or maybe we should think of them as challenges. Many researchers are working on innovattions that would allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowledge of Venus.
NASA is working on other approaches to studying Venus. For example, some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simuulating the chaos of Venus's surface and have laster for three weeks in such conditions. Another project is looking back to an old technology called mechanical computers. These devices were first envisioned in the 1800s and played an important role int he 1940s during World War II. The thought of computers existing in those days may sound shocking, but these devices make calculations by using gears and levers and do not require electronics at all. Modern commputers are enormously powerful, flexible, and quick, but tend to be more delicate when it comes to extreme physical conditions. Just imagine exposing a cell phone or tablet to acid or heat capable of melting tin. By comparison, systems that use mechanical parts can be made mroe resistant to pressure, heat, and other forces.
Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also because human curiousity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors. Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation. | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000038353 | 3 | Driverless cars could be the step toward a new world and new gerneration.
The driverless cars are not always a good thing though, because people feel the freedom of driving and love driving.
People also could have driver less taxi cabs, because of that over thousands of people would loose there jobs as a taxi driver.
There are people who agree with driverless cars, because if they are on a long trip and they have been driving all night and they fall asleep, and with the driverless car they are still safely on there way to there destiantion.
driverless cars will change the world, but sometimes that is not a good thing.
As I mentiond before there are tons of taxi and bus drivers across the United States and the world.
Now imagion all of those people who are working to support there family, and now they get fired because the new driverless taxi or driverless bus came out and took them all out of the job.
People would not get to experience the freedom of driving.
Driverless cars are not the worst idea of all.
Think of it like this you are handy capped or just at an old age where you should not be driving with the driverless car it helps them get to there destination saftly, or even if you were driving and you were playing with the radio and there was an accident in front of you and the car took over and started driving.
Think of it as the back up plan incase something happens.
My oppinion on the driverless cars are split I mentioned the good and bad of driverless cars, but if I had to choose I would say I do not want driverless cars.
My reasoning is I love that feel of freedom, and the feel of the open road.
People share a connection with there car weather it be they proposed to someone in it or they had there first kiss in it or it was the first time they went to an amusment park, no mater the case you share a connection with it.
The invention of driverless cars take away that bond because you are not driving a computer is, so a person's bond with a car is as strong as a person's bond with his or here children or husband or wife.
Nothing can beat the connection a person has with there car. | In the article “Driverless Cars are Coming,” the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. Using details from the article, create an argument for or against the development of these cars. Be sure to include: your position on driverless cars; appropriate details from the article that support your position; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | Driverless cars | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | null | White | M | Driverless Cars Are Coming
Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore? Google cofounder Sergey Brin can. He envisions a future with a public transportation system where fleets of driverless cars form a public-transport taxi system. The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today’s taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus. He believes such cars would fundamentally change the world.
Television and movies have long been fascinated with cars that could drive themselves. In reality, Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash, but so far, Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents. So what roadblocks lie ahead for the autonomous car?
Sensing the World
Let's begin by looking at which companies are making computer-driven cars. Originally, many futurists believed the key to developing self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as smarter roads. For example, in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. The track was embedded with an electrical cable that sent radio signals to a receiver on the front end of the car. Engineers at Berkeley tried something similar, but they used magnets with alternating polarity. The car read the positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code. These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical.
Without the option of smarter roads, manufacturers turned to smarter cars—but how much smarter did the cars need to be? For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors. Google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. The most important bit of technology in this system is the spinning sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR, it uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the car's surroundings. The combination of all this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel.
Sensors are nothing new, of course. In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheels in the creation of antilock brakes. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone. Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own.
Driving or Assisting?
Antilock brakes and driver assistance still seem a long way from the dream of calling a driverless cab to take us wherever we desire, but Sebastian Thrun, founder of the Google Car project, believes that the technology has finally begun to catch up to the dream. “There was no way, before 2000, to make something interesting. The sensors weren't there, the computers weren't there, and the mapping wasn't there. Radar was a device on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack.” So just how driverless will the cars be in the near future?
In 2013, BMW announced the development of “Traffic Jam Assistant.” The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. This necessitates the car being ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs. GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object. The Google car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over. Other options under consideration are flashing lights on the windshield and other heads-up displays. Manufacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver.
Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn’t drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive? “The psychological aspects of automation are really a challenge,” admits Dr. Werner Huber, a BMW project manager driver. “We have to interpret the driving fun in a new way.” Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays. Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over—something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. In this way, the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern.
Waiting on the Law
Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars. California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have led the country in allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars; manufacturers believe that more states will follow as soon as the cars are proved more reliably safe. Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault—the driver or the manufacturer?
Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved. Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. The road to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us, but we grow closer to the destination every day. | null | null | null |
AAATRP14318000560703 | 2 | i agree with the article, knowing that a technologly can be use to see how people emotions are is pretty cool for someone to know how you and another person is feeling. the resson why i agree to this passage is because i mean it has all sorts of context. the emotions that people have are very important because thats why we all ask each other when somwthing looks wring we always ask and say "whats wrong" because we can tell by there emotions. some people lie and say there fine but we know deep down there not.
In the picture you can see that Mona Lisa Smile is not real. so many peoole love with stuff amd keep in there back of there head and just leave it alone, but deep down we all know their thinking about it. " movement of one or more miscoes is called an "action unit" Eckman has classified six basic emotions happiness.
surprie, anger , disgust, fear , and sadness. movement of the facial muscles." that how Mone Lisa feels. As you look really close into the picture you have see 83 perecent happy , 9 peecent disgusted, 6 perecent fearful, amd 2 perecent angry. artists can make a picture not look like whats the person is feeling
Mone Lisa as we all know is a very strong independent woman. we all kmow she was going through some tuff times. i feel like everyone asked her if she was okay. and than everyone had went to a conclusion. "lets make a system on peoples emtions." everyone believed that their was gonna be thsi system to figure how peoole were gonna react. And when we tried it in Mona
Lisa we all knew that the technology was gonna work. Mone Lisa was a cery hard working last who never would show her emtion to anyone. until the technology was imvented.
Nicu sebe of the university of amsterdam had memrion feom the text that " expert at deveopling better ways for humans and computers to communicate. people really know now on how people feel and there real feelings are being shown. i think its for the better anyways, reason being is because if we did not know how people felt that mean we would not be able to stop people would harm them selfs.
i think this techology is a good way to start this world into a better way than just asking peoole on how they feel and making them think about it more. people can find all different ways to makes somene else feel better. Mone Lisa never speaked up she would always say she was fine. she wiukd always bave a smile in the back of her head. but she knew no one would ever understand her so she never told anyone and just never spoke like the feeling she always felt. | In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile," the author describes how a new technology called the Facial Action Coding System enables computers to identify human emotions. Using details from the article, write an essay arguing whether the use of this technology to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is valuable. | Facial action coding system | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | Yes | Hispanic/Latino | F | Copyright Restricted | null | null | null |
AAATRP14318000202927 | 2 | The Facial Action Coding System a new technology that helps you to understand human emotions, it can calculate the movement of the major muscles of your face, it can recognize six basic emotions, and it can make a difference beetwen a real and a fake emotion
First, The Facial Action Coding System can calculate the movement of the muscles of your face, the software has a process that begins by making a model of your face in third dimension including 44 the major muscles of your face, after associate the movement of your muscles with a face that has no emotion then it know what was the movement of every muscle from its normal position to the position that has when there is a emotion.
Second, it can recognize six basic emotions, the six basics emotion that the software can recognize is: happines, surprise, anger, disgust, fear, and sadness. how it works? well it recognizes every muscle and analyzes the movement that every muscle makes when you have an emotion, that means that there are predeterminated movements and the software associate the movements of your face and the prederminated movements for every emotion.
Finally, it can make a difference between a real and a fake emotion, it means that the software is capable to recognize natural movements of your face and forced movements, it is a helpful characteristic because the software cannot have a mistake when it is analyzing emotions.
In Summary, the software has enough capacitiy to recognize, the movements of your face, Recognize six emotions, difference between a real and a fake expresion, it means that it just need to add more emotions and improve the analyzing of faces and the software would be helpful. | In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile," the author describes how a new technology called the Facial Action Coding System enables computers to identify human emotions. Using details from the article, write an essay arguing whether the use of this technology to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is valuable. | Facial action coding system | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | Yes | Hispanic/Latino | M | Copyright Restricted | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000011513 | 3 | Driverless cars are not good. Why do we want more lazy people, more accidents or less reponsible people. By 2020 the world will be destroyed by all the unnessasary stuff we've built just to make it "better". Now a car that can drive itself is just going to make it worse for all of us humans.
Lazy people, we already have enough. In the article it said that the driver needs to stay alert when to turn the wheel, but what if somebody just falls asleep or might end up in the wrong location. If the person in back is just not paying attention could crash.
Teens need to learn how to drive and still have the same rules, permit at sixteen and six months later their license. This still follows up to my last paragh of how you get in an accident. A teen not knowing how to drive because the world told him there are cars that could do the driving for him. He needs to take handle of the wheel if not he'll crash but there's another problem he doesn't know how to because of the car that supposably can do everything itself.
Accidents, could happen anywhere but especially if you have a driverless car. Since people will know they could go anywhere they want without exhausting themselfs because they don't have to drive the roads will probably be crowded all the time. People will want to take long trips because they don't have to pay attention to road ahead.
Driverless cars should never come. They are not safe we don't need more lazy people. Teens should be able to know how to drive for safety reasons. Many accidents can happen because people put their lives in a car. I know that those 2020 cars aren't going to be safe so that's why I we don't need cars that can drive themselves because they really can't. | In the article “Driverless Cars are Coming,” the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. Using details from the article, create an argument for or against the development of these cars. Be sure to include: your position on driverless cars; appropriate details from the article that support your position; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | Driverless cars | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Hispanic/Latino | F | Driverless Cars Are Coming
Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore? Google cofounder Sergey Brin can. He envisions a future with a public transportation system where fleets of driverless cars form a public-transport taxi system. The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today’s taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus. He believes such cars would fundamentally change the world.
Television and movies have long been fascinated with cars that could drive themselves. In reality, Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash, but so far, Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents. So what roadblocks lie ahead for the autonomous car?
Sensing the World
Let's begin by looking at which companies are making computer-driven cars. Originally, many futurists believed the key to developing self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as smarter roads. For example, in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. The track was embedded with an electrical cable that sent radio signals to a receiver on the front end of the car. Engineers at Berkeley tried something similar, but they used magnets with alternating polarity. The car read the positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code. These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical.
Without the option of smarter roads, manufacturers turned to smarter cars—but how much smarter did the cars need to be? For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors. Google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. The most important bit of technology in this system is the spinning sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR, it uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the car's surroundings. The combination of all this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel.
Sensors are nothing new, of course. In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheels in the creation of antilock brakes. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone. Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own.
Driving or Assisting?
Antilock brakes and driver assistance still seem a long way from the dream of calling a driverless cab to take us wherever we desire, but Sebastian Thrun, founder of the Google Car project, believes that the technology has finally begun to catch up to the dream. “There was no way, before 2000, to make something interesting. The sensors weren't there, the computers weren't there, and the mapping wasn't there. Radar was a device on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack.” So just how driverless will the cars be in the near future?
In 2013, BMW announced the development of “Traffic Jam Assistant.” The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. This necessitates the car being ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs. GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object. The Google car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over. Other options under consideration are flashing lights on the windshield and other heads-up displays. Manufacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver.
Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn’t drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive? “The psychological aspects of automation are really a challenge,” admits Dr. Werner Huber, a BMW project manager driver. “We have to interpret the driving fun in a new way.” Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays. Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over—something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. In this way, the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern.
Waiting on the Law
Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars. California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have led the country in allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars; manufacturers believe that more states will follow as soon as the cars are proved more reliably safe. Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault—the driver or the manufacturer?
Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved. Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. The road to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us, but we grow closer to the destination every day. | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000013521 | 2 | If i was a NASA scientist discussing the fase with someone who thinks it was created by aliens i would tell them that the face was not mad by aliens because it could of bin made by dust and wind or a deid person from milions of years ago also it can be a rock formed as a face .
first i think that the face could of ben made up of dust and wind along time ago because we do not know what was in mars for a long period of time untill we invented satelights, rocket ships and space shutls next i say it could of also ben a deid person. one of the resons i say this is because in space a deid bode can not row or reprodus .
last but not lest a rock could of den formed or a medeor crash thes are some of the things why i think it could not be aliens. | You have read the article 'Unmasking the Face on Mars.' Imagine you are a scientist at NASA discussing the Face with someone who thinks it was created by aliens. Using information in the article, write an argumentative essay to convince someone that the Face is just a natural landform.Be sure to include: claims to support your argument that the Face is a natural landform; evidence from the article to support your claims; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | The Face on Mars | Economically disadvantaged | Identified as having disability | No | Hispanic/Latino | M | Unmasking the Face on Mars
Side by side: a Viking 1 photo from 1975, a Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) image from 1998, and the latest MGS image from 2001.
New high-resolution images and 3D altimetry from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft reveal the Face on Mars for what it really is: a mesa.
On May 24, 2001—Twenty five years ago, something funny happened around Mars. NASA’s Viking 1 spacecraft was circling the planet, snapping photos of possible landing sites for its sister ship Viking 2, when it spotted the shadowy likeness of a human face. An enormous head nearly two miles from end to end seemed to be staring back at the cameras from a region of the Red Planet called Cydonia.
There must have been a degree of surprise among mission controllers back at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory when the face appeared on their monitors. But the sensation was short-lived. Scientists figured it was just another Martian mesa, common enough around Cydonia, only this one had unusual shadows that made it look like an Egyptian Pharaoh.
A few days later NASA unveiled the image for all to see. The caption noted a “huge rock formation . . . which resembles a human head . . . formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose, and mouth.” The authors reasoned it would be a good way to engage the public and attract attention to Mars.
It certainly did!
The “Face on Mars” has since become a pop icon. It has starred in a Hollywood film, appeared in books, magazines, radio talk shows – even haunted grocery store checkout lines for 25 years! Some people think the Face is bona fide evidence of life on Mars – evidence that NASA would rather hide, say conspiracy theorists. Meanwhile, defenders of the NASA budget wish there was an ancient civilization on Mars.
A 1976 Viking 1 photograph of the Face on Mars
Although few scientists believed the Face was an alien artifact, photographing Cydonia became a priority for NASA when Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) arrived at the Red Planet in Sept. 1997, eighteen long years after the Viking missions ended. “We felt this was important to taxpayers,” explained Jim Garvin, chief scientist for NASA’s mars Exploration Program. “We photographed the Face as soon as we could get a good shot at it.”
And so on April 5, 1998, when Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia for the first time, Michael Malin and his Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) team snapped a picture ten times sharper than the original Viking photos. Thousands of anxious web surfers were waiting when the image first appeared on a JPL web site, revealing . . . a natural landform. There was no alien monument after all.
But not everyone was satisfied. The Face on Mars is located at 41 degrees north martial latitude where it was winter in April ‘98 – a cloudy time of year on the Red Planet. The camera on board MGS had to peer through wispy clouds to see the Face. Perhaps, said skeptics, alien markings were hidden by haze.
Mission controllers prepared to look again. “It’s not easy to target Cydonia,” says Garvin. “In fact, it’s hard work.” Mars Global Surveyor is a mapping spacecraft that normally looks straight down and scans the planet like a fax machine in narrow 2.5 km-wide strips. “We don’t pass over the Face very often,” he noted.
Nevertheless, on April 8, 2001 – a cloudless summer day in Cydonia – Mars Global Surveyor drew close enough for a second look. “We had to roll the spacecraft 25 degrees to center the Face in the field of view,” said Garvin. “Malin’s team captured an extraordinary photo using the camera’s absolute maximum resolution.” Each pixel in the 2001 image spans 1.56 meters, compared to the 43 meters per pixel in the best 1976 Viking photo.
“As a rule of thumb, you can discern things in a digital image 3 times bigger than the pixel size,” he added. “So, if there were objects in this picture like airplanes on the ground or Egyptian-style pyramids or even small shacks, you could see what they were!”
What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa – landforms common around the American West. “It reminds me of most of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho,” says Garvin. “That’s a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars.”
Text and photographs courtsey of NASA, “Unmasking the Face on Mars,” May 24, 2001 (retrieved from science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast24may_1/) | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000109863 | 2 | In 1976 the face was founf by NASA. the face was casued by a natural landform. NASA's Viking 1 was going around a planet and capturing pictues for a future place to land if they were to go to that planet, as they were going around they spotted a mark they sooned named it the Face on Mars, it reached nearly two miles from end to end it looked as if it was staring up at the ship. Scientits at fist thought it was just a shadow that looked liked a Egyptian Pharaoh. NASA soon let the pictures go public for all to see. Many people thought it was just giving an illusion of the eyes, nose, and mouth. It ingaged the public and attracted attention to Mars.
On April 5, 1998 Mars Global Surveyor went over Cydonia for the very first time. Michael Malin and his MOC team took a photograh that was ten times sharper than the first Vikings photos. On April 8, 2001 Mars Global Surveyor got close enough for another look.
Some people say it was created by aliens, but the people at NASA say it was just created by a natural landform. There have been other spots found similar to the one on Mars, found in the America West. It has reminded some of the people at NASA of the Middle Butte in Snake River Plain of Idho. Which is a lava dome that has formed mesa which is about as tall as the Face on Mars. | You have read the article 'Unmasking the Face on Mars.' Imagine you are a scientist at NASA discussing the Face with someone who thinks it was created by aliens. Using information in the article, write an argumentative essay to convince someone that the Face is just a natural landform.Be sure to include: claims to support your argument that the Face is a natural landform; evidence from the article to support your claims; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | The Face on Mars | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | White | F | Unmasking the Face on Mars
Side by side: a Viking 1 photo from 1975, a Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) image from 1998, and the latest MGS image from 2001.
New high-resolution images and 3D altimetry from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft reveal the Face on Mars for what it really is: a mesa.
On May 24, 2001—Twenty five years ago, something funny happened around Mars. NASA’s Viking 1 spacecraft was circling the planet, snapping photos of possible landing sites for its sister ship Viking 2, when it spotted the shadowy likeness of a human face. An enormous head nearly two miles from end to end seemed to be staring back at the cameras from a region of the Red Planet called Cydonia.
There must have been a degree of surprise among mission controllers back at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory when the face appeared on their monitors. But the sensation was short-lived. Scientists figured it was just another Martian mesa, common enough around Cydonia, only this one had unusual shadows that made it look like an Egyptian Pharaoh.
A few days later NASA unveiled the image for all to see. The caption noted a “huge rock formation . . . which resembles a human head . . . formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose, and mouth.” The authors reasoned it would be a good way to engage the public and attract attention to Mars.
It certainly did!
The “Face on Mars” has since become a pop icon. It has starred in a Hollywood film, appeared in books, magazines, radio talk shows – even haunted grocery store checkout lines for 25 years! Some people think the Face is bona fide evidence of life on Mars – evidence that NASA would rather hide, say conspiracy theorists. Meanwhile, defenders of the NASA budget wish there was an ancient civilization on Mars.
A 1976 Viking 1 photograph of the Face on Mars
Although few scientists believed the Face was an alien artifact, photographing Cydonia became a priority for NASA when Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) arrived at the Red Planet in Sept. 1997, eighteen long years after the Viking missions ended. “We felt this was important to taxpayers,” explained Jim Garvin, chief scientist for NASA’s mars Exploration Program. “We photographed the Face as soon as we could get a good shot at it.”
And so on April 5, 1998, when Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia for the first time, Michael Malin and his Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) team snapped a picture ten times sharper than the original Viking photos. Thousands of anxious web surfers were waiting when the image first appeared on a JPL web site, revealing . . . a natural landform. There was no alien monument after all.
But not everyone was satisfied. The Face on Mars is located at 41 degrees north martial latitude where it was winter in April ‘98 – a cloudy time of year on the Red Planet. The camera on board MGS had to peer through wispy clouds to see the Face. Perhaps, said skeptics, alien markings were hidden by haze.
Mission controllers prepared to look again. “It’s not easy to target Cydonia,” says Garvin. “In fact, it’s hard work.” Mars Global Surveyor is a mapping spacecraft that normally looks straight down and scans the planet like a fax machine in narrow 2.5 km-wide strips. “We don’t pass over the Face very often,” he noted.
Nevertheless, on April 8, 2001 – a cloudless summer day in Cydonia – Mars Global Surveyor drew close enough for a second look. “We had to roll the spacecraft 25 degrees to center the Face in the field of view,” said Garvin. “Malin’s team captured an extraordinary photo using the camera’s absolute maximum resolution.” Each pixel in the 2001 image spans 1.56 meters, compared to the 43 meters per pixel in the best 1976 Viking photo.
“As a rule of thumb, you can discern things in a digital image 3 times bigger than the pixel size,” he added. “So, if there were objects in this picture like airplanes on the ground or Egyptian-style pyramids or even small shacks, you could see what they were!”
What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa – landforms common around the American West. “It reminds me of most of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho,” says Garvin. “That’s a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars.”
Text and photographs courtsey of NASA, “Unmasking the Face on Mars,” May 24, 2001 (retrieved from science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast24may_1/) | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000102221 | 4 | I do not think that there should be driverless cars. Driverless cars still need a driver in them. They also can drive around or know if a road is getting fixed. The cars could also be dangerous. These are reason why i think we should no have driverless cars.
First reason why we should have driverless cars, is because they cars still need to have a driver in them. The car should not be conicered driverless if they still need a driver to take over just in case of an accident ahead. The cars also do not have eyes can not see, how will it work at night. Also during the winter the driverless cars would have a lot of accidents because of snow and ice.
Second reason, is the cars would not know when there is a dead end or the roads are getting fixed. These cars could run off the road if a bridge was not complete. The computer hardware could go down in the middle of driving and people could died. These cars are not humans, and could kill lots of people because of simple mistakes.
My final reason is these cars can be dangerous because how would they know when children are running through the streets. These cars would not be safe around children or eldery people. In the article its says "If the technology fails and someone was injured, who is at fault--the driver or the manufactuer?". How will the law handle situtations like these, who would be at fault they would not know.
I do not think they should be driverless cars for many reasons. There are also, some good reason why we could have them. A couple reason are they dont use as much gas, they do thing that humans can not do, but these cars can be dangerous to the community. i think that there should not be driverless cars, and cars should say how they are. | In the article “Driverless Cars are Coming,” the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. Using details from the article, create an argument for or against the development of these cars. Be sure to include: your position on driverless cars; appropriate details from the article that support your position; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | Driverless cars | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Black/African American | F | Driverless Cars Are Coming
Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore? Google cofounder Sergey Brin can. He envisions a future with a public transportation system where fleets of driverless cars form a public-transport taxi system. The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today’s taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus. He believes such cars would fundamentally change the world.
Television and movies have long been fascinated with cars that could drive themselves. In reality, Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash, but so far, Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents. So what roadblocks lie ahead for the autonomous car?
Sensing the World
Let's begin by looking at which companies are making computer-driven cars. Originally, many futurists believed the key to developing self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as smarter roads. For example, in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. The track was embedded with an electrical cable that sent radio signals to a receiver on the front end of the car. Engineers at Berkeley tried something similar, but they used magnets with alternating polarity. The car read the positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code. These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical.
Without the option of smarter roads, manufacturers turned to smarter cars—but how much smarter did the cars need to be? For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors. Google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. The most important bit of technology in this system is the spinning sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR, it uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the car's surroundings. The combination of all this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel.
Sensors are nothing new, of course. In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheels in the creation of antilock brakes. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone. Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own.
Driving or Assisting?
Antilock brakes and driver assistance still seem a long way from the dream of calling a driverless cab to take us wherever we desire, but Sebastian Thrun, founder of the Google Car project, believes that the technology has finally begun to catch up to the dream. “There was no way, before 2000, to make something interesting. The sensors weren't there, the computers weren't there, and the mapping wasn't there. Radar was a device on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack.” So just how driverless will the cars be in the near future?
In 2013, BMW announced the development of “Traffic Jam Assistant.” The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. This necessitates the car being ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs. GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object. The Google car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over. Other options under consideration are flashing lights on the windshield and other heads-up displays. Manufacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver.
Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn’t drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive? “The psychological aspects of automation are really a challenge,” admits Dr. Werner Huber, a BMW project manager driver. “We have to interpret the driving fun in a new way.” Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays. Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over—something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. In this way, the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern.
Waiting on the Law
Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars. California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have led the country in allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars; manufacturers believe that more states will follow as soon as the cars are proved more reliably safe. Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault—the driver or the manufacturer?
Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved. Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. The road to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us, but we grow closer to the destination every day. | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000038902 | 4 | The development of driverless cars should be allowed.
Driverless cars would probably make driving safer all throughout the nation.
These cars would probably also be easier to handle and make driving more enjoyable.
In these days, there is the technology to help smarter cars prosper.
Driverless cars may have some challenges but like the article states, these cars would change the world.
Driverless cars are much safer than the convential cars that are used today.
There are many reckless drivers out there that cause car accidents and deaths just about every day.
According to the second paragraph of the article, the driverless cars created by Google have driven over half a million miles without a crash.
Driverless cars would operate smoothly and theoretically, they could eliminate the possiblility for human error.
Under specfic conditions, some cars have been able to drive independly since 2009.
This could imply that it might not be that long before driverless cars start to take over.
Driverless cars would make transportation much easier.
Since attention would only be needed in a rare state of emergency, the driver can mostly just sit back and relax.
According to the eighth paragraph of the article, some manufactureres plan to develop in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays.
The displays can aslo be used to alert the driver, if necessary.
Today, most drivers have to be constantly vigilent for harmful threats on the road.
Driverless cars on the other hand, will allow the driver to do something fun and relaxing while being automatically taken to a destination.
Modern techonology has allowed driverless cars to be fully developed with less complications.
According to the fourth paragraph of the article, Google modified a normal car by adding many different sensors to it.
There are also a video camera, automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and motion sensors.
The technology has finally caught up to make driverless cars a possibility.
Driverless cars may still need modifications because there are still faults in dealing with traffic and roadwork.
Despite these challenges, driverless cars are still the best option for transportation in this nation.
Cars have been driven for over a century.
Enhancing cars to be driverless would start a revolution in transportation.
Driverless cars are one of the safest and easiest option for traveling.
In just a few years, with manufacturers making more modifications and states modifying some traffic laws, driverless cars will truly change the world. | In the article “Driverless Cars are Coming,” the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. Using details from the article, create an argument for or against the development of these cars. Be sure to include: your position on driverless cars; appropriate details from the article that support your position; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | Driverless cars | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | null | Asian/Pacific Islander | F | Driverless Cars Are Coming
Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore? Google cofounder Sergey Brin can. He envisions a future with a public transportation system where fleets of driverless cars form a public-transport taxi system. The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today’s taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus. He believes such cars would fundamentally change the world.
Television and movies have long been fascinated with cars that could drive themselves. In reality, Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash, but so far, Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents. So what roadblocks lie ahead for the autonomous car?
Sensing the World
Let's begin by looking at which companies are making computer-driven cars. Originally, many futurists believed the key to developing self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as smarter roads. For example, in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. The track was embedded with an electrical cable that sent radio signals to a receiver on the front end of the car. Engineers at Berkeley tried something similar, but they used magnets with alternating polarity. The car read the positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code. These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical.
Without the option of smarter roads, manufacturers turned to smarter cars—but how much smarter did the cars need to be? For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors. Google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. The most important bit of technology in this system is the spinning sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR, it uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the car's surroundings. The combination of all this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel.
Sensors are nothing new, of course. In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheels in the creation of antilock brakes. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone. Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own.
Driving or Assisting?
Antilock brakes and driver assistance still seem a long way from the dream of calling a driverless cab to take us wherever we desire, but Sebastian Thrun, founder of the Google Car project, believes that the technology has finally begun to catch up to the dream. “There was no way, before 2000, to make something interesting. The sensors weren't there, the computers weren't there, and the mapping wasn't there. Radar was a device on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack.” So just how driverless will the cars be in the near future?
In 2013, BMW announced the development of “Traffic Jam Assistant.” The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. This necessitates the car being ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs. GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object. The Google car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over. Other options under consideration are flashing lights on the windshield and other heads-up displays. Manufacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver.
Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn’t drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive? “The psychological aspects of automation are really a challenge,” admits Dr. Werner Huber, a BMW project manager driver. “We have to interpret the driving fun in a new way.” Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays. Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over—something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. In this way, the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern.
Waiting on the Law
Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars. California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have led the country in allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars; manufacturers believe that more states will follow as soon as the cars are proved more reliably safe. Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault—the driver or the manufacturer?
Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved. Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. The road to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us, but we grow closer to the destination every day. | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000137134 | 4 | In the article "Driverless Cars Are Coming," it talked about cars that are being created now where the driver does not need to be able to drive it, because it would drive on itself. Would this be the future? Many people say that this will become the future, but is it right to invest in them now? Some people say you should invest in driverless cars while others say it is too early to invest. Driverless cars should not be on the roads until the technology in the vehicle is much better then what it is now.
In the article it talked about that the vehicle could drive on its own if there were no traffic incidents, or work zones. This is not the case in this world and because of it, the driver would have to take control of the wheel. This could be a very bad situation because the person behind the wheel could not be paying attention when the car alerts you that the driver has to take over the wheel which could lead to an accident. There is no need to pay extra money to have a car that can drive by itself but it would need a driver to take over in certain situations. Also, the technology itself would be very expensive and if some of the sensors broke, they would need to be replaced which could cost a lot of money for the owner. Another reason would be that most states would not allow these driverless cars because it is illegal. It is stated that traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. The driverless car does not have the driver in full control which is why it is making driverless cars illegal. Lastly if people in the future did not drive their car nearly as much, they would not have much experience driving on the road which could lead to major accidents. Driverless cars might seem safe, but they also could not b safe.
Many people say that Driverless cars are the future, but are they safe? People say they are safe because the sensors on the car can be able to react to different situations a lot quicker then a human being, while others say it is not safe because the senors could be broke, not work correctly, and the driverless cars would need someone to take the wheel if they were in a work zone or backing up out of a driver way or a parking spot. There is a lot of controversy between the manufactureres and individuals. Driverless cars should not be on the roads until the technology within the vehicle dramatically gets better, and the manufactureres have a better understanding as to how to make the car safer, as well as being all together better. | In the article “Driverless Cars are Coming,” the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. Using details from the article, create an argument for or against the development of these cars. Be sure to include: your position on driverless cars; appropriate details from the article that support your position; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | Driverless cars | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Hispanic/Latino | M | Driverless Cars Are Coming
Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore? Google cofounder Sergey Brin can. He envisions a future with a public transportation system where fleets of driverless cars form a public-transport taxi system. The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today’s taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus. He believes such cars would fundamentally change the world.
Television and movies have long been fascinated with cars that could drive themselves. In reality, Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash, but so far, Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents. So what roadblocks lie ahead for the autonomous car?
Sensing the World
Let's begin by looking at which companies are making computer-driven cars. Originally, many futurists believed the key to developing self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as smarter roads. For example, in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. The track was embedded with an electrical cable that sent radio signals to a receiver on the front end of the car. Engineers at Berkeley tried something similar, but they used magnets with alternating polarity. The car read the positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code. These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical.
Without the option of smarter roads, manufacturers turned to smarter cars—but how much smarter did the cars need to be? For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors. Google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. The most important bit of technology in this system is the spinning sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR, it uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the car's surroundings. The combination of all this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel.
Sensors are nothing new, of course. In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheels in the creation of antilock brakes. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone. Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own.
Driving or Assisting?
Antilock brakes and driver assistance still seem a long way from the dream of calling a driverless cab to take us wherever we desire, but Sebastian Thrun, founder of the Google Car project, believes that the technology has finally begun to catch up to the dream. “There was no way, before 2000, to make something interesting. The sensors weren't there, the computers weren't there, and the mapping wasn't there. Radar was a device on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack.” So just how driverless will the cars be in the near future?
In 2013, BMW announced the development of “Traffic Jam Assistant.” The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. This necessitates the car being ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs. GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object. The Google car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over. Other options under consideration are flashing lights on the windshield and other heads-up displays. Manufacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver.
Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn’t drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive? “The psychological aspects of automation are really a challenge,” admits Dr. Werner Huber, a BMW project manager driver. “We have to interpret the driving fun in a new way.” Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays. Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over—something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. In this way, the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern.
Waiting on the Law
Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars. California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have led the country in allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars; manufacturers believe that more states will follow as soon as the cars are proved more reliably safe. Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault—the driver or the manufacturer?
Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved. Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. The road to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us, but we grow closer to the destination every day. | null | null | null |
AAAVUP14319000156297 | 3 | Our Earth is having a huge change by contamination, gloval warm,etc. Scientists are thinking further by searching life in other planets, this project wolud be a great idea, but this take a lt of time of investigations and stuff like that.
The author supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents, because we can have another planet in where in which we can stand and life there, astronomers are facinated by venus, according to the paragraph 4 it says " It may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system... Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth", we can conclude that they were talking about finding space to stay there.
The reasons why we junt can go there and set
a new planet is, because of the conditions right there. In paragraph 3 the autor states one of the most significant reasons, it says "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 to land on its surface", this the dangerous problem in this project. The planet's surface temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than
what experience on our own planet.
Scientists seeking to conduct a thorough mission to understand Venus would need to get up close and personal despite the risk. According to paragraph 6 it says " Many researches are working on innovations that would allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaninfully to our knoledge of Venus" this paragraph let us know that they are working to reach there and looking to survive more time.
Well, this project can change the entire world and our lifes, because if there are life, we must hacve the opportunity to be there or people who want to be in Venus could be. We need more time to improve our experiments and this could be a grat and amazing change. | In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus," the author suggests studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. Using details from the article, write an essay evaluating how well the author supports this idea. Be sure to include: a claim that evaluates how well the author supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers; an explanation of the evidence from the article that supports your claim; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your essay. | Exploring Venus | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | Yes | Hispanic/Latino | M | The Challenge of Exploring Venus
Venus, sometimes called the “Evening Star,” is one of the brightest points of light in the night sky, making it simple for even and amateur stargazer to spot. However, this nickname is misleading since Venus is actually a planet. While Venus is simple to see from the distant but safe vantage point of Earth, it has proved a very challenging place to examine more closely.
Often referred to as Earth's “twin,” Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size, and occasionally the closest in distance too. Earth, Venus, and Mars, our other planetary neighbor, orbit the sun at different speeds. These differences in speed mean that sometimes we are closer to Mars and other times to Venus. Because Venus is sometimes right around the corner - in space terms - humans have spent numerous spacecraft to land on this cloud-draped world. Each previous mission was unmanned, and for good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours. Maybe this issue explains why not a single spaceship has touched down of Venus in more than three decades. Numberous factors contribute to Venus's reputation as a challenging planet for humans to study, despite its proximity to us.
A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere. On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet. These conditions are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth; such an environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans and would liquefy many metals. Also notable, Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system, even though Mercury is closer to our sun. Beyond high presure and heat, Venusian geology and weather present additional impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface.
If our sister is so inhospitable, why are scientists even discussing further visits to its surface? Astronomers are fascinated by Venus beccause it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth. Today, Venus still has some features that are analogous to those on Earth. The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters. Furthermore, recall that Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit, a crucial consideration given the long time frames of space travel. The value of returning to Venus seems indisputable, but what are the options for making such a mission both safe and scientifically productive?
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has one particularly compelling idea for sending humans to study Venus. NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray. Imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape. Just as our jet airplanes travel at a higher altitude to fly over many storms, a vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly ground conditions by staying up and out of their way. At thirty-plus miles above the surface, temperatures would still be toasty at around 170 degrees Farenheit, but the air pressure would be close to that of sea level on Earth. Solar power would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth levels. Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans.
However, peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions rendering standard forms of photography and videography ineffective. More importantly, researchers cannot take samples of rock, gas, or anything else, from a distance. Therefore, scientists seeking to conduct a thorough mission to understand Venus would need to get up close and personal despite the risks. Or maybe we should think of them as challenges. Many researchers are working on innovattions that would allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowledge of Venus.
NASA is working on other approaches to studying Venus. For example, some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simuulating the chaos of Venus's surface and have laster for three weeks in such conditions. Another project is looking back to an old technology called mechanical computers. These devices were first envisioned in the 1800s and played an important role int he 1940s during World War II. The thought of computers existing in those days may sound shocking, but these devices make calculations by using gears and levers and do not require electronics at all. Modern commputers are enormously powerful, flexible, and quick, but tend to be more delicate when it comes to extreme physical conditions. Just imagine exposing a cell phone or tablet to acid or heat capable of melting tin. By comparison, systems that use mechanical parts can be made mroe resistant to pressure, heat, and other forces.
Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also because human curiousity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors. Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation. | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000022602 | 5 | In our society, technology is advancing significantly by the day. What was once a letter that took 10-day trip overseas to its appropriate destination is now just a simple text message that reaches a person within seconds. The automobile is an innovation that has also advanced dramatically, enough to the point where almost every person who can afford to have one does because of its necessity when transportation becomes a factor. The idea of a car becoming "driverless" is simply another boost in the technology available to cars today, as discussed in "Driverless Cars are Coming." Due to its many benefits, driverless cars are a positive additon to our society.
Driverless cars offer a multitude of benefits for any passengers that might use them for transportation. For one, the necessity to have to buy or pay off a car would essentially cease to exist. If computer-operated vehicles were capable of driving in all areas, then what would the need for having your own car be? Even if the car wasn't "fully automated" and the driver would have to take over at some point, the less work you have to do, the more time you have to work on something else. The article addresses this topic "Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays." The biggest asset that the consumer gains from a driverless car is time, while still being transported in a safe and reliable vehicle. This reinforces the advantages available to consumers who use a driverless car.
Speaking of safety, there is not a vehicle more safe than one that is more or less "automatic." With autmoated cars, drivers will be able to transport themselves without having to add the extra element of driving into a day that might be stressful. However, not all cars are fully capable to driving themselves yet without driver assistance. The good news? This innovation still grants a tremendous amount of safety to the driver in charge. The features previously cited as being used as tiem fillers can also be quickly changed to inform the driver that they need to take over: "Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over." An advantage to this approach is that if all communication and distractions from within the car is shut down, then the driver has no choice but to focus on the road, another argument for the push of driverless cars.
The last topic at hand with these types of vehicles skims along the lines of controversial. Liability is a very integral part of the car industry, accidents will always be an issue, as cited by the article: "If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault-the driver or the manufacturer?" Would smarter cars help this problem? First off, it's important to acknowledge that accidents happen on the open road every day, with the primary cause being mistakes that drivers make. Therefore, manual vechicles are not necessairily dangerous, but are not as reliable as an automatic vehicle. Think about other practical additions that help consumers, such as a lifeguard on a beach. If they weren't there, would we be as safe? Probably not. Therefore, if the addition of driverless cars ensures that a safer option is available, then it only makes sense that the advantage should be taken.
In conclusion, driverless cars have brought about many new benefits in our society. From their ease of access to consumers to the top level of safety features that are sure to be made available in them, they will clearly become the top option of vehicle to use in our society once enough of them are made. This technological innovation is capable of doing many wonders in the automotive industry. | In the article “Driverless Cars are Coming,” the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. Using details from the article, create an argument for or against the development of these cars. Be sure to include: your position on driverless cars; appropriate details from the article that support your position; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | Driverless cars | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | White | M | Driverless Cars Are Coming
Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore? Google cofounder Sergey Brin can. He envisions a future with a public transportation system where fleets of driverless cars form a public-transport taxi system. The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today’s taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus. He believes such cars would fundamentally change the world.
Television and movies have long been fascinated with cars that could drive themselves. In reality, Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash, but so far, Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents. So what roadblocks lie ahead for the autonomous car?
Sensing the World
Let's begin by looking at which companies are making computer-driven cars. Originally, many futurists believed the key to developing self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as smarter roads. For example, in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. The track was embedded with an electrical cable that sent radio signals to a receiver on the front end of the car. Engineers at Berkeley tried something similar, but they used magnets with alternating polarity. The car read the positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code. These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical.
Without the option of smarter roads, manufacturers turned to smarter cars—but how much smarter did the cars need to be? For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors. Google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. The most important bit of technology in this system is the spinning sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR, it uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the car's surroundings. The combination of all this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel.
Sensors are nothing new, of course. In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheels in the creation of antilock brakes. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone. Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own.
Driving or Assisting?
Antilock brakes and driver assistance still seem a long way from the dream of calling a driverless cab to take us wherever we desire, but Sebastian Thrun, founder of the Google Car project, believes that the technology has finally begun to catch up to the dream. “There was no way, before 2000, to make something interesting. The sensors weren't there, the computers weren't there, and the mapping wasn't there. Radar was a device on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack.” So just how driverless will the cars be in the near future?
In 2013, BMW announced the development of “Traffic Jam Assistant.” The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. This necessitates the car being ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs. GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object. The Google car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over. Other options under consideration are flashing lights on the windshield and other heads-up displays. Manufacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver.
Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn’t drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive? “The psychological aspects of automation are really a challenge,” admits Dr. Werner Huber, a BMW project manager driver. “We have to interpret the driving fun in a new way.” Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays. Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over—something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. In this way, the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern.
Waiting on the Law
Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars. California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have led the country in allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars; manufacturers believe that more states will follow as soon as the cars are proved more reliably safe. Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault—the driver or the manufacturer?
Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved. Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. The road to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us, but we grow closer to the destination every day. | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000075828 | 2 | Luke should join the program because. It was a oppurtunity of a lifetime. And it would take care of the hurt or starving animals that were niglected during world war 2. we love animals and it would be a good paying job. It would make a huge impact on the enviorment. we also would travel across the world were they never have been before.
It would keep me busy during the day instead of being graduate and sitting at home doing nothing. It would help luke if I ever had a pet because he would know how to take care of the pet. I will know how to taim animals and know how to be patient.
I would have fun its not like im
just gonna sit there.
I would have to be tough and whatever gets thrown at me ill be ready.
I would be remebererd for what he did to keep these animals alive and protected. And also I would make new friends because there is 44 nations joined together with skills and its a great program. If you dont let me join then your missing out of life i will sacrifice my life for these animals and make sure i can do anything to help.
Now that ive joined the segoing cowboys i get to go sight seein and see amazing places all over the world. Plus i can play games like ping pong and all sorts so im not bored all the time. I sail the dark atlantic and take care of my favorite animals. One time i fell off a ladder landing on my back and next thing i know i was sliding down about to go overboard and only thing that stop that was a peice of metal.
When your apart of the seagoing cowboys you have to be tough. Even if its storming out you still have to stand in the rain and watch the pets. It took 2 weeks to get from the atlantic ocean to the eastern coast of the united states. Helping at my aunts farm made me prepared for the storm it also made me tough. It was much more than a adventure.
It openend up the world for me and made me more aware of other peoples needs. It stayed with me i was leading international students and exchange visitors for many years. | You have just read the article, 'A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves.' Luke's participation in the Seagoing Cowboys program allowed him to experience adventures and visit many unique places. Using information from the article, write an argument from Luke's point of view convincing others to participate in the Seagoing Cowboys program. Be sure to include: reasons to join the program; details from the article to support Luke's claims; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your essay. | "A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves" | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | White | M | A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves
by Peggy Reif Miller
Luke Bomberger crossed the Atlantic Ocean 16 times and the Pacific Ocean twice to help people affected by World War II.
Luke Bomberger had no idea that his life would change soon after his high school graduation. He was working two part-time jobs in a grocery store and a bank when his friend Don Reist invited him to go to Europe on a cattle boat. Luke couldn’t say no. He knew it was an opportunity of a lifetime.
It was 1945, World War II was over in Europe, and many countries were left in ruins. To help these countries recover their food supplies, animals, and more, 44 nations joined together to form UNRRA (the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration). UNRRA hired “Seagoing Cowboys” to take care of the horses, young cows, and mules that were shipped overseas. Luke and Don signed up.
Heading Overseas
In August 1945, they received their orders to report to New Orleans. “We arrived August 14,” Luke says, “the day the Pacific war ended.” They got their seaman’s papers and boarded the SS Charles W. Wooster, headed for Greece – with a cargo of 335 horses plus enough hay and oats to feed them.
Luke turned 18 before arriving in Greece, which meant he could be drafted for military service. “When my draft board learned that I was on a cattle-boat trip, they told me to just keep doing that for my service.” By the time he was discharged in 1947, Luke had made nine trips – the most of any Seagoing Cowboy.
“The cattle-boat trips were an unbelievable opportunity for a small-town bow,” he says. “Besides helping people, I had the side benefit of seeing Europe and China. But seeing the Acropolis in Greece was special,” he says. “So was taking a gondola ride in Venice, Italy, a city with streets of water.” Luke also toured an excavated castle in Crete and marveled at the Panama Canal on his way to China.
Traveling the High Seas
It took about two weeks to cross the Atlantic Ocean from the eastern coast of the United States and a month to get to China. Caring for the animals during the crossings kept Luke busy. They had to be fed and watered two or three times a day. Bales of hay and bags of oats had to be pulled up from the lower holds of the ship. Stalls had to be cleaned.
Helping out on his aunt Katie’s farm as a boy had prepared Luke for hard work, but not for the dangers at sea. On his second trip, Luke served at night watchman. His job was to check on all the animals every hour. One rainy night, after making his hourly report to the captain, he slid down a slippery ladder on his backside. Luke’s heart raced as he shot feet first toward an opening on the side of the ship. A small strip of metal along the edge stopped his slide, keeping him from flying overboard into the dark Atlantic. He was happy to be alive. But he couldn’t work for a couple of days because of cracked ribs.
Luke also found time to have fun on board, especially on return trips after the animals had been unloaded. The cowboys played baseball and volleyball games in the empty holds where animals had been housed. Table-tennis tournaments, fencing, boxing, reading, whittling, and games also helped pass the time.
But being a Seagoing Cowboy was much more than an adventure for Luke Bomberger. It opened up the world to him. “I’m grateful for the opportunity,” he says. “It made me more aware of people of other countries and their needs.” And that awareness stayed with him, leading his family to host a number of international students and exchange visitors for many years.
“A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves” by Peggy Reif Miller from Highlights for Children Magazine’s October 2013 issue, copyright 2013 by Highlights for Children, Inc., Colombus, Ohio. Used by permission. | null | null | null |
AAATRP14318000900233 | 2 | This technology that can read students' emotional expression is good. Because it can read student's behavior. For example if a student is becoming confused or bored,then the teacher will know it, by looking in the technology. Then the teacher will help the student for her or his problem. Student can also use this technology for their family,friends and the people arround them,to know what their emotion or what they gonna do. For example if there's a man in your back and he's trying to hurt you,you can act quickly because the technology will tell you and you can run away from that man.
I support my claim by this evidence from the article in paragraph four,the facial expressions for each emotion are universal observes Dr. huang, even though individuals often show varying degrees of expression (like not smiling as broadly).Using video imagery,the newemotion-recognition software tracks these facial movements.
Yeah, this technology will work really good for student. Also for teachers' and people who needed it. Becaus they can see what their friends expression or emotion if they gonna say somethin on them. If the technology tell you that your friends is sad you can tell them something to make them happy. This technology is really helpful for student and not just student,it can also help teacher and many people. | In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile," the author describes how a new technology called the Facial Action Coding System enables computers to identify human emotions. Using details from the article, write an essay arguing whether the use of this technology to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is valuable. | Facial action coding system | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | Yes | Asian/Pacific Islander | M | Copyright Restricted | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000070308 | 2 | About twenty-five years ago NASA's project Viking 1 took pictures of planet Mars. While taking pictures of Mars the showing of a face, near the Cydonia region on Mars, was found. People thought it was an alien artifact but, it was actually a natural landform. Shadows reflect off the landform to make it look like a face. The shadows makes eyes, a nose, and a mouth.
The media started using this information for movies, books, and radio talk shows. People thought the was bona fide evidence of life on Mars. Evidence that NASA wanted to hide like conspiracy theorists. NASA budget hoped to find an ancient civilization or something on Mars.
People wasn't sure until Michael Malin and his team took pictures, ten times sharper than the pictures Viking 1 took. It revealed a natural rock landform. Not a face or alien artifact. They also took pictures of natural landforms on Earth that reminded them of the face. It showed similarites of a butte or mesa. Common around the American West. | You have read the article 'Unmasking the Face on Mars.' Imagine you are a scientist at NASA discussing the Face with someone who thinks it was created by aliens. Using information in the article, write an argumentative essay to convince someone that the Face is just a natural landform.Be sure to include: claims to support your argument that the Face is a natural landform; evidence from the article to support your claims; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | The Face on Mars | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Black/African American | M | Unmasking the Face on Mars
Side by side: a Viking 1 photo from 1975, a Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) image from 1998, and the latest MGS image from 2001.
New high-resolution images and 3D altimetry from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft reveal the Face on Mars for what it really is: a mesa.
On May 24, 2001—Twenty five years ago, something funny happened around Mars. NASA’s Viking 1 spacecraft was circling the planet, snapping photos of possible landing sites for its sister ship Viking 2, when it spotted the shadowy likeness of a human face. An enormous head nearly two miles from end to end seemed to be staring back at the cameras from a region of the Red Planet called Cydonia.
There must have been a degree of surprise among mission controllers back at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory when the face appeared on their monitors. But the sensation was short-lived. Scientists figured it was just another Martian mesa, common enough around Cydonia, only this one had unusual shadows that made it look like an Egyptian Pharaoh.
A few days later NASA unveiled the image for all to see. The caption noted a “huge rock formation . . . which resembles a human head . . . formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose, and mouth.” The authors reasoned it would be a good way to engage the public and attract attention to Mars.
It certainly did!
The “Face on Mars” has since become a pop icon. It has starred in a Hollywood film, appeared in books, magazines, radio talk shows – even haunted grocery store checkout lines for 25 years! Some people think the Face is bona fide evidence of life on Mars – evidence that NASA would rather hide, say conspiracy theorists. Meanwhile, defenders of the NASA budget wish there was an ancient civilization on Mars.
A 1976 Viking 1 photograph of the Face on Mars
Although few scientists believed the Face was an alien artifact, photographing Cydonia became a priority for NASA when Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) arrived at the Red Planet in Sept. 1997, eighteen long years after the Viking missions ended. “We felt this was important to taxpayers,” explained Jim Garvin, chief scientist for NASA’s mars Exploration Program. “We photographed the Face as soon as we could get a good shot at it.”
And so on April 5, 1998, when Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia for the first time, Michael Malin and his Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) team snapped a picture ten times sharper than the original Viking photos. Thousands of anxious web surfers were waiting when the image first appeared on a JPL web site, revealing . . . a natural landform. There was no alien monument after all.
But not everyone was satisfied. The Face on Mars is located at 41 degrees north martial latitude where it was winter in April ‘98 – a cloudy time of year on the Red Planet. The camera on board MGS had to peer through wispy clouds to see the Face. Perhaps, said skeptics, alien markings were hidden by haze.
Mission controllers prepared to look again. “It’s not easy to target Cydonia,” says Garvin. “In fact, it’s hard work.” Mars Global Surveyor is a mapping spacecraft that normally looks straight down and scans the planet like a fax machine in narrow 2.5 km-wide strips. “We don’t pass over the Face very often,” he noted.
Nevertheless, on April 8, 2001 – a cloudless summer day in Cydonia – Mars Global Surveyor drew close enough for a second look. “We had to roll the spacecraft 25 degrees to center the Face in the field of view,” said Garvin. “Malin’s team captured an extraordinary photo using the camera’s absolute maximum resolution.” Each pixel in the 2001 image spans 1.56 meters, compared to the 43 meters per pixel in the best 1976 Viking photo.
“As a rule of thumb, you can discern things in a digital image 3 times bigger than the pixel size,” he added. “So, if there were objects in this picture like airplanes on the ground or Egyptian-style pyramids or even small shacks, you could see what they were!”
What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa – landforms common around the American West. “It reminds me of most of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho,” says Garvin. “That’s a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars.”
Text and photographs courtsey of NASA, “Unmasking the Face on Mars,” May 24, 2001 (retrieved from science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast24may_1/) | null | null | null |
AAAVUP14319000116341 | 2 | I think the author support the idea Venus is a Challenging Planet very well. He talked about the Venus is a very challenge planet to study. Also the author use the example to show that. Also the talked about how NASA want to study Venus. It tells how hard it would be and how much it is challenging the scientists.
Venus is the brightest star in the night sky, also it is very similar to earth. Like the density, space, also Venus got mountain range and other place similar to the Earth. People call Venus is the Sister planet or Earth's twin. But it is very difficult to learn Venus. Because Venus is so hot , powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strikes. It is very dangerous to send a person on their and even the robots can not survive long time on Venus."Since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours"(Author 1). It is very hard to study the Venus there are no much things can survive on there.
The NASA also making a idea to sending human on the Venus to study. But the temperature is so high, around 170 degrees Fahrenheit. But the Air pressure and solar power in similar to Earth. That means Human can survive in Venus, but the condition in Venus is very difficult to survive.
Venus is a challenging planet to study, author gave several examples to show this. Venus got high temperature, but air pressure is similar to Earth, and Solar Power is plentiful to let human survive. But it is still a very diffecult planet to study. | In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus," the author suggests studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. Using details from the article, write an essay evaluating how well the author supports this idea. Be sure to include: a claim that evaluates how well the author supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers; an explanation of the evidence from the article that supports your claim; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your essay. | Exploring Venus | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | Yes | Asian/Pacific Islander | M | The Challenge of Exploring Venus
Venus, sometimes called the “Evening Star,” is one of the brightest points of light in the night sky, making it simple for even and amateur stargazer to spot. However, this nickname is misleading since Venus is actually a planet. While Venus is simple to see from the distant but safe vantage point of Earth, it has proved a very challenging place to examine more closely.
Often referred to as Earth's “twin,” Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size, and occasionally the closest in distance too. Earth, Venus, and Mars, our other planetary neighbor, orbit the sun at different speeds. These differences in speed mean that sometimes we are closer to Mars and other times to Venus. Because Venus is sometimes right around the corner - in space terms - humans have spent numerous spacecraft to land on this cloud-draped world. Each previous mission was unmanned, and for good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours. Maybe this issue explains why not a single spaceship has touched down of Venus in more than three decades. Numberous factors contribute to Venus's reputation as a challenging planet for humans to study, despite its proximity to us.
A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere. On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet. These conditions are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth; such an environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans and would liquefy many metals. Also notable, Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system, even though Mercury is closer to our sun. Beyond high presure and heat, Venusian geology and weather present additional impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface.
If our sister is so inhospitable, why are scientists even discussing further visits to its surface? Astronomers are fascinated by Venus beccause it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth. Today, Venus still has some features that are analogous to those on Earth. The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters. Furthermore, recall that Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit, a crucial consideration given the long time frames of space travel. The value of returning to Venus seems indisputable, but what are the options for making such a mission both safe and scientifically productive?
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has one particularly compelling idea for sending humans to study Venus. NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray. Imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape. Just as our jet airplanes travel at a higher altitude to fly over many storms, a vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly ground conditions by staying up and out of their way. At thirty-plus miles above the surface, temperatures would still be toasty at around 170 degrees Farenheit, but the air pressure would be close to that of sea level on Earth. Solar power would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth levels. Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans.
However, peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions rendering standard forms of photography and videography ineffective. More importantly, researchers cannot take samples of rock, gas, or anything else, from a distance. Therefore, scientists seeking to conduct a thorough mission to understand Venus would need to get up close and personal despite the risks. Or maybe we should think of them as challenges. Many researchers are working on innovattions that would allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowledge of Venus.
NASA is working on other approaches to studying Venus. For example, some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simuulating the chaos of Venus's surface and have laster for three weeks in such conditions. Another project is looking back to an old technology called mechanical computers. These devices were first envisioned in the 1800s and played an important role int he 1940s during World War II. The thought of computers existing in those days may sound shocking, but these devices make calculations by using gears and levers and do not require electronics at all. Modern commputers are enormously powerful, flexible, and quick, but tend to be more delicate when it comes to extreme physical conditions. Just imagine exposing a cell phone or tablet to acid or heat capable of melting tin. By comparison, systems that use mechanical parts can be made mroe resistant to pressure, heat, and other forces.
Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also because human curiousity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors. Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation. | null | null | null |
AAATRP14318000983464 | 1 | I support this new technology. It can be very useful in the future. With this new technology, we will be able to tell th emotions of some of the oldest painting. Some of history's greatest secrets could be unlocked with this technology. This technology can tell the facial expressions on anyone's face. It can be used in everyday life.
This technology is great in many ways, but it can also have some bad qualities about it too. People may not care for this new technology, they may think it is a waste. Others might think it is the best thing they have ever seen. Some people might say there is no place for it in the world. Other people might say it is the best thing that has ever been invented. It just depends on the person.
This new technology coul be revolutionary, but it also could be unwanted. It might be ahead of its time, but it also could be the invention of the century. Now with this technology we can depict emotions like we were never able to before. | In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile," the author describes how a new technology called the Facial Action Coding System enables computers to identify human emotions. Using details from the article, write an essay arguing whether the use of this technology to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is valuable. | Facial action coding system | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Hispanic/Latino | M | Copyright Restricted | null | null | null |
AAATRP14318000364036 | 4 | Face Action Coding System (FACS) is a system designed to analyze and predict what emotions are being shown on a human face. The software can detect happieness, surprise, anger, fear, disgust, and sadness. In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile", the author describes FACS being used to display ads, change video games, and analyze school children to learn wether they are bored or confused. This however brings up some questions in respect to analyzing school children and some dangers as well. FACS should not be used in a clasroom to analyze school children.
To start off, this software is very challenging for a normal computer to run, as in the article D'Alto states "Your home PC can't handle the complex algorithms..." (D'Alto 7). This statement says that a home PC cannot run FACS which means neither can a school computer as the two are practically identical. If this is the
case, for FACS to beincorporated into the class room, a huge overhall of computers would need to be made. This would require a lot of money from the school system that the school sytem does not have.
Another argument against the incorporation FACS into the classroom is the chance of a breach in security. This FACS system, if used in a school system, could be installed on every computer in the building. This means there would be
constant survailence from the cameras on the computers that would be searching for a student's face to analyze. If these cameras were hacked by an outside person or group, the system would show the hackers everything happening in the school at that time. This breach in secruity could cause catasrtophic occurances ranging from a school shooting where the shooter knows exactly where each person is in the building to a mass heist from theives late at night.
Fianlly, along with the two reasons stated above, FACS could also cause numerous teachers to lose their jobs. As stated in the article, "'A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused ot bored... Then it could modify the lesson, like an effective human instructor.'" (D'Alto 6). This shows that FACS can manipulate and change the work a student is doing to fit that student's needs. Because of that, physical teachers would no longer be needed to make, change, or teach a lesson as the computer software is already doing so. This could cause thousands of teachers to lose their jobs sonce they would no longer be needed.
Overall, FACS is a unique and advanced system that is amazing at analyzing human emotions. However, because of the high processing cost, risk of security breach, and the fact that it would cause thousands of teachers to lose their job, the software should not be incorporated into classroms to read students' emotions. Instead, it should be used in other ways that the article states including Web ads and video games. | In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile," the author describes how a new technology called the Facial Action Coding System enables computers to identify human emotions. Using details from the article, write an essay arguing whether the use of this technology to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is valuable. | Facial action coding system | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | White | M | Copyright Restricted | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000020432 | 2 | The Seagoing Cowboys is mostly about helping other countries. We help them take care of the horses. They give us hay, and seeds to feed the horses.
We had to feed the horses, and cleaned there stables. If you like helping people, and animals than join. You have night watches each night, and you get to check on the horse each hour. We helped other countries such as China, Greece, Crete, and Europe. You also get to ride a boat called the SS Charles W.
You would get some spare time to go sightseeing. You would get to cross the Atlantic Ocean. On the return trips you get to play games. The games are baseball, volleyball, table tennis tournaments, fencing, boxing, reading, and whittling. You get to meet new people. You could make some friends from different countries.
You still have to be careful on the boat. Makes sure you don't slip. If you want to go over seas to help other countries this is the thing to do. | You have just read the article, 'A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves.' Luke's participation in the Seagoing Cowboys program allowed him to experience adventures and visit many unique places. Using information from the article, write an argument from Luke's point of view convincing others to participate in the Seagoing Cowboys program. Be sure to include: reasons to join the program; details from the article to support Luke's claims; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your essay. | "A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves" | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | White | M | A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves
by Peggy Reif Miller
Luke Bomberger crossed the Atlantic Ocean 16 times and the Pacific Ocean twice to help people affected by World War II.
Luke Bomberger had no idea that his life would change soon after his high school graduation. He was working two part-time jobs in a grocery store and a bank when his friend Don Reist invited him to go to Europe on a cattle boat. Luke couldn’t say no. He knew it was an opportunity of a lifetime.
It was 1945, World War II was over in Europe, and many countries were left in ruins. To help these countries recover their food supplies, animals, and more, 44 nations joined together to form UNRRA (the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration). UNRRA hired “Seagoing Cowboys” to take care of the horses, young cows, and mules that were shipped overseas. Luke and Don signed up.
Heading Overseas
In August 1945, they received their orders to report to New Orleans. “We arrived August 14,” Luke says, “the day the Pacific war ended.” They got their seaman’s papers and boarded the SS Charles W. Wooster, headed for Greece – with a cargo of 335 horses plus enough hay and oats to feed them.
Luke turned 18 before arriving in Greece, which meant he could be drafted for military service. “When my draft board learned that I was on a cattle-boat trip, they told me to just keep doing that for my service.” By the time he was discharged in 1947, Luke had made nine trips – the most of any Seagoing Cowboy.
“The cattle-boat trips were an unbelievable opportunity for a small-town bow,” he says. “Besides helping people, I had the side benefit of seeing Europe and China. But seeing the Acropolis in Greece was special,” he says. “So was taking a gondola ride in Venice, Italy, a city with streets of water.” Luke also toured an excavated castle in Crete and marveled at the Panama Canal on his way to China.
Traveling the High Seas
It took about two weeks to cross the Atlantic Ocean from the eastern coast of the United States and a month to get to China. Caring for the animals during the crossings kept Luke busy. They had to be fed and watered two or three times a day. Bales of hay and bags of oats had to be pulled up from the lower holds of the ship. Stalls had to be cleaned.
Helping out on his aunt Katie’s farm as a boy had prepared Luke for hard work, but not for the dangers at sea. On his second trip, Luke served at night watchman. His job was to check on all the animals every hour. One rainy night, after making his hourly report to the captain, he slid down a slippery ladder on his backside. Luke’s heart raced as he shot feet first toward an opening on the side of the ship. A small strip of metal along the edge stopped his slide, keeping him from flying overboard into the dark Atlantic. He was happy to be alive. But he couldn’t work for a couple of days because of cracked ribs.
Luke also found time to have fun on board, especially on return trips after the animals had been unloaded. The cowboys played baseball and volleyball games in the empty holds where animals had been housed. Table-tennis tournaments, fencing, boxing, reading, whittling, and games also helped pass the time.
But being a Seagoing Cowboy was much more than an adventure for Luke Bomberger. It opened up the world to him. “I’m grateful for the opportunity,” he says. “It made me more aware of people of other countries and their needs.” And that awareness stayed with him, leading his family to host a number of international students and exchange visitors for many years.
“A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves” by Peggy Reif Miller from Highlights for Children Magazine’s October 2013 issue, copyright 2013 by Highlights for Children, Inc., Colombus, Ohio. Used by permission. | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000018179 | 3 | Do you really think the "Face on Mars" was created by aliens? The "Face" is nothing but an ordinary landform of Mars. Pictures, common sense, and science have proved that.
First, there are pictures that show what the "Face" really is. The "Face" is nothing but a common mesa(2). The mesa just looks like a face because of a coincidence.
Second, any person would know that NASA would rather have money than another secret. The discovery of alien life on Mars would be very rewarding in cash, and the defenders of the NASA budget wish there was an ancient civilization on Mars(5). They want there to be an ancient civilization because it would mean tons of money for them.
Finally, science proves that theory to be completely wrong. There have been absolutely no signs of any life whatsoever on Mars(7). If there's no life to build it, how can it be built by life?
As I said, the "Face of Mars" is nothing but a common mesa. All of these reasons have proved that. Now, if you excuse me, I have to get back to my research. | You have read the article 'Unmasking the Face on Mars.' Imagine you are a scientist at NASA discussing the Face with someone who thinks it was created by aliens. Using information in the article, write an argumentative essay to convince someone that the Face is just a natural landform.Be sure to include: claims to support your argument that the Face is a natural landform; evidence from the article to support your claims; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | The Face on Mars | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | White | M | Unmasking the Face on Mars
Side by side: a Viking 1 photo from 1975, a Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) image from 1998, and the latest MGS image from 2001.
New high-resolution images and 3D altimetry from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft reveal the Face on Mars for what it really is: a mesa.
On May 24, 2001—Twenty five years ago, something funny happened around Mars. NASA’s Viking 1 spacecraft was circling the planet, snapping photos of possible landing sites for its sister ship Viking 2, when it spotted the shadowy likeness of a human face. An enormous head nearly two miles from end to end seemed to be staring back at the cameras from a region of the Red Planet called Cydonia.
There must have been a degree of surprise among mission controllers back at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory when the face appeared on their monitors. But the sensation was short-lived. Scientists figured it was just another Martian mesa, common enough around Cydonia, only this one had unusual shadows that made it look like an Egyptian Pharaoh.
A few days later NASA unveiled the image for all to see. The caption noted a “huge rock formation . . . which resembles a human head . . . formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose, and mouth.” The authors reasoned it would be a good way to engage the public and attract attention to Mars.
It certainly did!
The “Face on Mars” has since become a pop icon. It has starred in a Hollywood film, appeared in books, magazines, radio talk shows – even haunted grocery store checkout lines for 25 years! Some people think the Face is bona fide evidence of life on Mars – evidence that NASA would rather hide, say conspiracy theorists. Meanwhile, defenders of the NASA budget wish there was an ancient civilization on Mars.
A 1976 Viking 1 photograph of the Face on Mars
Although few scientists believed the Face was an alien artifact, photographing Cydonia became a priority for NASA when Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) arrived at the Red Planet in Sept. 1997, eighteen long years after the Viking missions ended. “We felt this was important to taxpayers,” explained Jim Garvin, chief scientist for NASA’s mars Exploration Program. “We photographed the Face as soon as we could get a good shot at it.”
And so on April 5, 1998, when Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia for the first time, Michael Malin and his Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) team snapped a picture ten times sharper than the original Viking photos. Thousands of anxious web surfers were waiting when the image first appeared on a JPL web site, revealing . . . a natural landform. There was no alien monument after all.
But not everyone was satisfied. The Face on Mars is located at 41 degrees north martial latitude where it was winter in April ‘98 – a cloudy time of year on the Red Planet. The camera on board MGS had to peer through wispy clouds to see the Face. Perhaps, said skeptics, alien markings were hidden by haze.
Mission controllers prepared to look again. “It’s not easy to target Cydonia,” says Garvin. “In fact, it’s hard work.” Mars Global Surveyor is a mapping spacecraft that normally looks straight down and scans the planet like a fax machine in narrow 2.5 km-wide strips. “We don’t pass over the Face very often,” he noted.
Nevertheless, on April 8, 2001 – a cloudless summer day in Cydonia – Mars Global Surveyor drew close enough for a second look. “We had to roll the spacecraft 25 degrees to center the Face in the field of view,” said Garvin. “Malin’s team captured an extraordinary photo using the camera’s absolute maximum resolution.” Each pixel in the 2001 image spans 1.56 meters, compared to the 43 meters per pixel in the best 1976 Viking photo.
“As a rule of thumb, you can discern things in a digital image 3 times bigger than the pixel size,” he added. “So, if there were objects in this picture like airplanes on the ground or Egyptian-style pyramids or even small shacks, you could see what they were!”
What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa – landforms common around the American West. “It reminds me of most of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho,” says Garvin. “That’s a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars.”
Text and photographs courtsey of NASA, “Unmasking the Face on Mars,” May 24, 2001 (retrieved from science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast24may_1/) | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000038950 | 4 | In a couple of years, cars completely controlled by humans will be outdated. There are positive arguments and negative arguments about driverless cars. I am for positive cars for multiple reasons.
My first reason that driverless cars are a good idea involves drunk driving. If a preson is drunk and trys to drive somewhere but can not concentrate, he will not be able to drive the car. The text states, "In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road requires human skills, such as navigation through work zones and around accidents" (Driverless Cars are Coming 7). If a person is drunk and does not respond to the car's warnings, the car will not navigate through the work zone. This feature will elimate accidents caused by somebody who is drunk and is not able to properly function a car by himself.
Another reason why I am for driverless cars is car awareness. According to the text, "Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone" (Driverless Cars Are Coming 5). These sensors will completely eliminate blind spots. There are sensors all around the car that will warn it of a different car that is close to it. Many accidents are caused because somebody was going to change lanes on a road, but they did could not see the person that was in their blind spot.
My third reason that I am for driverless cars is that they have a gas milage that is twice as good as the cars that people drive today. One example from the text is, "The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today's taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus" (Driverless Cars Are Coming 1). Not only will these cars have a better gas milage, but they will also be able to get to more places than a city bus would be able to go. If driverless cars were used instead of regular cars, the world would use half as much gasoline as it already does. That would mean that the world will be able to us gasoline for twice as long and it will take the world twice as long to run out.
In conclusion, I am for driverless cars. Driverless cars would be much safer on the roads than if humans were controlling cars. Many more lives would be saved if there were driverless cars, and much more gasoline would be saved for the future. Driverless cars will have a positive impact on the whole world. | In the article “Driverless Cars are Coming,” the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. Using details from the article, create an argument for or against the development of these cars. Be sure to include: your position on driverless cars; appropriate details from the article that support your position; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | Driverless cars | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | Yes | White | M | Driverless Cars Are Coming
Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore? Google cofounder Sergey Brin can. He envisions a future with a public transportation system where fleets of driverless cars form a public-transport taxi system. The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today’s taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus. He believes such cars would fundamentally change the world.
Television and movies have long been fascinated with cars that could drive themselves. In reality, Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash, but so far, Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents. So what roadblocks lie ahead for the autonomous car?
Sensing the World
Let's begin by looking at which companies are making computer-driven cars. Originally, many futurists believed the key to developing self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as smarter roads. For example, in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. The track was embedded with an electrical cable that sent radio signals to a receiver on the front end of the car. Engineers at Berkeley tried something similar, but they used magnets with alternating polarity. The car read the positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code. These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical.
Without the option of smarter roads, manufacturers turned to smarter cars—but how much smarter did the cars need to be? For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors. Google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. The most important bit of technology in this system is the spinning sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR, it uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the car's surroundings. The combination of all this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel.
Sensors are nothing new, of course. In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheels in the creation of antilock brakes. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone. Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own.
Driving or Assisting?
Antilock brakes and driver assistance still seem a long way from the dream of calling a driverless cab to take us wherever we desire, but Sebastian Thrun, founder of the Google Car project, believes that the technology has finally begun to catch up to the dream. “There was no way, before 2000, to make something interesting. The sensors weren't there, the computers weren't there, and the mapping wasn't there. Radar was a device on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack.” So just how driverless will the cars be in the near future?
In 2013, BMW announced the development of “Traffic Jam Assistant.” The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. This necessitates the car being ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs. GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object. The Google car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over. Other options under consideration are flashing lights on the windshield and other heads-up displays. Manufacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver.
Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn’t drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive? “The psychological aspects of automation are really a challenge,” admits Dr. Werner Huber, a BMW project manager driver. “We have to interpret the driving fun in a new way.” Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays. Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over—something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. In this way, the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern.
Waiting on the Law
Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars. California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have led the country in allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars; manufacturers believe that more states will follow as soon as the cars are proved more reliably safe. Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault—the driver or the manufacturer?
Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved. Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. The road to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us, but we grow closer to the destination every day. | null | null | null |
AAAVUP14319000092668 | 3 | In this article the author claims that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit, even despite the dangers. The author tells us that Earth's "twin" is Venus and its also called our "planetary neighbor". The author wants us to be able to make a device or maybe
something that can travel to Venus to study and find multiple facts about the hot planet. In the text he states that "no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours" proving that it would be next to imposssible to find anything interesting within just a few hours of being on the planet. Next the author thinks about the scorching hot temperatures and how to survive them.
He thinks of a way to create something that will be able to stand the heat and be be able to walk around (like a computer). Therefore it will be able to access and sustain (hold)
information and bring it back to earth to study. The author tells us that the materials we would need to send to venus to withold and collect data/ information is "simplified electronics made of silicon carbide". The author wants to take risks and be the person to discover Venus one day. He also tells us that " A blimp could travel nearly 30 or so miles above Venus and be completely fine, but be very toasty at levels of 170 degrees Fahrenheit". The blimp could possibly be a way to discover some parts of venus. We could create silicone cameras to go on to the blimp with bigger lens's to close in and capture more on the planet.
The author has very valid points as to how we could travel to venus and collect information, but he hasn't given enough thought into how we could get something there. All we have to think about is a way to not have it blow up due to the temperatures on the planet and other risks of it being in space. At the end the author is very determined that one day we will find the proper technology to visit Venus. "Our travels on Earth should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation" The author says this at the very end because he wants to get the point accross that anyone can do what they set their minds do to they just have to meet the requirements and think it through enough. | In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus," the author suggests studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. Using details from the article, write an essay evaluating how well the author supports this idea. Be sure to include: a claim that evaluates how well the author supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers; an explanation of the evidence from the article that supports your claim; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your essay. | Exploring Venus | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | White | F | The Challenge of Exploring Venus
Venus, sometimes called the “Evening Star,” is one of the brightest points of light in the night sky, making it simple for even and amateur stargazer to spot. However, this nickname is misleading since Venus is actually a planet. While Venus is simple to see from the distant but safe vantage point of Earth, it has proved a very challenging place to examine more closely.
Often referred to as Earth's “twin,” Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size, and occasionally the closest in distance too. Earth, Venus, and Mars, our other planetary neighbor, orbit the sun at different speeds. These differences in speed mean that sometimes we are closer to Mars and other times to Venus. Because Venus is sometimes right around the corner - in space terms - humans have spent numerous spacecraft to land on this cloud-draped world. Each previous mission was unmanned, and for good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours. Maybe this issue explains why not a single spaceship has touched down of Venus in more than three decades. Numberous factors contribute to Venus's reputation as a challenging planet for humans to study, despite its proximity to us.
A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere. On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet. These conditions are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth; such an environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans and would liquefy many metals. Also notable, Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system, even though Mercury is closer to our sun. Beyond high presure and heat, Venusian geology and weather present additional impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface.
If our sister is so inhospitable, why are scientists even discussing further visits to its surface? Astronomers are fascinated by Venus beccause it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth. Today, Venus still has some features that are analogous to those on Earth. The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters. Furthermore, recall that Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit, a crucial consideration given the long time frames of space travel. The value of returning to Venus seems indisputable, but what are the options for making such a mission both safe and scientifically productive?
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has one particularly compelling idea for sending humans to study Venus. NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray. Imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape. Just as our jet airplanes travel at a higher altitude to fly over many storms, a vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly ground conditions by staying up and out of their way. At thirty-plus miles above the surface, temperatures would still be toasty at around 170 degrees Farenheit, but the air pressure would be close to that of sea level on Earth. Solar power would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth levels. Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans.
However, peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions rendering standard forms of photography and videography ineffective. More importantly, researchers cannot take samples of rock, gas, or anything else, from a distance. Therefore, scientists seeking to conduct a thorough mission to understand Venus would need to get up close and personal despite the risks. Or maybe we should think of them as challenges. Many researchers are working on innovattions that would allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowledge of Venus.
NASA is working on other approaches to studying Venus. For example, some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simuulating the chaos of Venus's surface and have laster for three weeks in such conditions. Another project is looking back to an old technology called mechanical computers. These devices were first envisioned in the 1800s and played an important role int he 1940s during World War II. The thought of computers existing in those days may sound shocking, but these devices make calculations by using gears and levers and do not require electronics at all. Modern commputers are enormously powerful, flexible, and quick, but tend to be more delicate when it comes to extreme physical conditions. Just imagine exposing a cell phone or tablet to acid or heat capable of melting tin. By comparison, systems that use mechanical parts can be made mroe resistant to pressure, heat, and other forces.
Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also because human curiousity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors. Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation. | null | null | null |
5073261 | 2 | Us citizens have advantages of limiting car usage. We have advantages because in Freiburg "street parking, driveways and home garages are generally forbidden in this experimental new district on the outskirts of Freiburg." This phrase basically talks about how the people in that district don't have any car/driving privleges. Unlike in the United States the people in that district can only park their automobiles in a large garage at the edge of the development,where the person that buys the space spends $40,000, along with a home. I mean if i lived their i would be carless too. Also Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and a mother of two said "when I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."Not having a car makes the people so much happier because they dont have to spend thousands of dollars to park their car.
In the United States we are lucky to be able to drive because in Paris, after days of near -record pollution they enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. The United States knows that we are polluting the air but they still give us the right ot drive what we pay for."On Monday motorists with even-numbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22-euro fine ($31). The same would apply to odd-numbered plates the following day."In the United States we are lucky to be able to drive our car anyday and everyday. | Write an explanatory essay to inform fellow citizens about the advantages of limiting car usage. Your essay must be based on ideas and information that can be found in the passage set. Manage your time carefully so that you can read the passages; plan your response; write your response; and revise and edit your response. Be sure to use evidence from multiple sources; and avoid overly relying on one source. Your response should be in the form of a multiparagraph essay. Write your essay in the space provided. | Car-free cities | null | null | No | Black/African American | F | In German
Suburb, Life Goes On
Without Cars
by Elisabeth Rosenthal
VAUBAN, Germany—Residents of this upscale community are suburban pioneers, going
where few soccer moms or commuting executives have ever gone before: they have given up
their cars.
Street parking, driveways and home garages are generally forbidden in this experimental
new district on the outskirts of Freiburg, near the French and Swiss borders. Vauban’s streets are
completely “car-free”—except the main thoroughfare, where the tram to downtown Freiburg runs,
and a few streets on one edge of the community. Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two
places to park—large garages at the edge of the development, where a car-owner buys a space,
for $40,000, along with a home.
As a result, 70 percent of Vauban’s families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to
move here. “When I had a car I was always tense. I’m much happier this way,” said Heidrun
Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of
bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor.
Vauban, completed in 2006, is an example of a growing trend in Europe, the United States
and elsewhere to separate suburban life from auto use, as a component of a movement called
“smart planning.”
Automobiles are the linchpin of suburbs, where middle-class families from Chicago to
Shanghai tend to make their homes. And that, experts say, is a huge impediment to current
efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes . . . . Passenger cars are
responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe . . . and up to 50 percent in
some car-intensive areas in the United States.
While there have been efforts in the past two decades to make cities denser, and better for
walking, planners are now taking the concept to the suburbs . . . . Vauban, home to 5,500 residents within a rectangular square mile, may be the most advanced experiment in low-car
suburban life. But its basic precepts are being adopted around the world in attempts to make
suburbs more compact and more accessible to public transportation, with less space for parking.
In this new approach, stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along
some distant highway.
“All of our development since World War II has been centered on the car, and that will have
to change,” said David Goldberg, an official of Transportation for America, a fast-growing coalition
of hundreds of groups in the United States . . . who are promoting new communities that are less
dependent on cars. Mr. Goldberg added: “How much you drive is as important as whether you
have a hybrid.”
Levittown and Scarsdale, New York suburbs with spread-out homes and private garages,
were the dream towns of the 1950s and still exert a strong appeal. But some new suburbs may
well look more Vauban-like, not only in developed countries but also in the developing world,
where emissions from an increasing number of private cars owned by the burgeoning middle
class are choking cities.
In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency is promoting “car reduced”
communities, and legislators are starting to act, if cautiously. Many experts expect public
transport serving suburbs to play a much larger role in a new six-year federal transportation bill
to be approved this year, Mr. Goldberg said. In previous bills, 80 percent of appropriations have by
law gone to highways and only 20 percent to other transport.
Excerpt from “In German Suburb, Life Goes On
Without Cars” by Elisabeth Rosenthal, from the
New York Times. Copyright © 2009 by the New
York Times Company. Reprinted by permission of
the New York Times Company via Copyright
Clearance Center. | Paris bans
driving due to smog
by Robert Duffer
After days of near-record pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the
global city.
On Monday motorists with even-numbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22-euro fine ($31). The same would apply to odd-numbered plates the following
day.
Almost 4,000 drivers were fined, according to Reuters . . . [Twenty-seven] people had their
cars impounded for their reaction to the fine.
That’s easier to imagine than a car-free Champs-Elysees.
Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after five-days of intensifying
smog . . . [The smog] rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in
the world.
Cold nights and warm days caused the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions.
Diesel fuel was blamed, since France has . . . [a] tax policy that favors diesel over gasoline.
Diesels make up 67 percent of vehicles in France, compared to a 53.3 percent average of diesel
engines in the rest of Western Europe, according to Reuters.
Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals . . . [Last] week Paris had 147
micrograms of particulate matter (PM) per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7
in London, Reuters found.
Delivery companies complained of lost revenue, while exceptions were made for plug-in
cars, hybrids, and cars carrying three or more passengers. Public transit was free of charge from
Friday to Monday, according to the BBC.
The smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday.
Reuters: an international news agency
headquartered in London
Champs-Elysees: a famous street in Paris
congestion: car traffic
Excerpt from “Paris bans driving due to smog” by
Robert Duffer, from the Chicago Tribune.
Copyright © 2014 by the Chicago Tribune.
Reprinted by permission of the Chicago Tribune via
Copyright Clearance Center. | Car-free day is
spinning into a big hit in
Bogota
by Andrew Selsky
BOGOTA, Colombia—In a program that’s set to spread to other countries, millions of
Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a car-free day yesterday, leaving
the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams.
It was the third straight year cars have been banned with only buses and taxis permitted for
the Day Without Cars in this capital city of 7 million. The goal is to promote alternative
transportation and reduce smog. Violators faced $25 fines.
The turnout was large, despite gray clouds that dumped occasional rain showers on Bogota.
“The rain hasn’t stopped people from participating,” said Bogota Mayor Antanas Mockus . . .
.
“It’s a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,” said businessman
Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a two-seat bicycle with his wife.
For the first time, two other Colombian cities, Cali and Valledupar, joined the event.
Municipal authorities from other countries came to Bogota to see the event and were
enthusiastic. “These people are generating a revolutionary change, and this is crossing borders,”
said Enrique Riera, the mayor of Asunción, Paraguay. . . .
The day without cars is part of an improvement campaign that began in Bogota in the mid1990s. It has seen the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths, the most of any Latin American
city, according to Mockus, the city’s mayor.
Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city; uneven, pitted sidewalks
have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks; rush-hour restrictions have dramatically cut
traffic; and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up.
Excerpt from “Car-free day is spinning into a big
hit in Bogota” by Andrew Selsky, from the Seattle
Times. Copyright © 2002 by the Seattle Times
Company. Reprinted by permission of the Seattle
Times Company via Copyright Clearance Center. | The End of Car
Culture
by Elisabeth Rosenthal
President Obama’s ambitious goals to curb the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions,
unveiled last week, will get a fortuitous assist from an incipient shift in American behavior:
recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer
licenses as each year goes by.
That has left researchers pondering a fundamental question: Has America passed peak
driving?
The United States, with its broad expanses and suburban ideals, had long been one of the
world’s prime car cultures. It is the birthplace of the Model T; the home of Detroit; the place
where Wilson Pickett immortalized “Mustang Sally” . . . .
But America’s love affair with its vehicles seems to be cooling. When adjusted for population
growth, the number of miles driven in the United States peaked in 2005 and dropped steadily
thereafter, according to an analysis by Doug Short of Advisor Perspectives, an investment
research company. As of April 2013, the number of miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent
below the peak and equal to where the country was in January 1995. Part of the explanation
certainly lies in the recession, because cash-strapped Americans could not afford new cars, and
the unemployed weren’t going to work anyway. But by many measures the decrease in driving
preceded the downturn and appears to be persisting now that recovery is under way. The next
few years will be telling.
“What most intrigues me is that rates of car ownership per household and per person
started to come down two to three years before the downturn,” said Michael Sivak, who studies
the trend and who is a research professor at the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research
Institute. “I think that means something more fundamental is going on.”
If the pattern persists—and many sociologists believe it will—it will have beneficial
implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest
source of America’s emissions, just behind power plants. But it could have negative implications
for the car industry. Indeed, companies like Ford and Mercedes are already rebranding themselves
“mobility” companies with a broader product range beyond the personal vehicle.
“Different things are converging which suggest that we are witnessing a long-term cultural
shift,” said Mimi Sheller, a sociology professor at Drexel University and director of its Mobilities
Research and Policy Center. She cites various factors: the Internet makes telecommuting possible
and allows people to feel more connected without driving to meet friends. The renewal of center
cities has made the suburbs less appealing and has drawn empty nesters back in. Likewise the
rise in cellphones and car-pooling apps has facilitated more flexible commuting arrangements,
including the evolution of shared van services for getting to work.
With all these changes, people who stopped car commuting as a result of the recession may
find less reason to resume the habit. . . .
New York’s new bike-sharing program and its skyrocketing bridge and tunnel tolls reflect
those new priorities, as do a proliferation of car-sharing programs across the nation.
Demographic shifts in the driving population suggest that the trend may accelerate. There
has been a large drop in the percentage of 16- to 39-year-olds getting a license, while older
people are likely to retain their licenses as they age, Mr. Sivak’s research has found.
He and I have similar observations about our children. Mine (19 and 21) have not bothered
to get a driver’s license, even though they both live in places where one could come in handy.
They are interested, but it’s not a priority. They organize their summer jobs and social life around
where they can walk or take public transportation or car-pool with friends.
Mr. Sivak’s son lives in San Francisco and has a car but takes Bay Area Rapid Transit, when
he can, even though that often takes longer than driving. “When I was in my 20s and 30s,” Mr.
Sivak said, “I was curious about what kind of car people drove, but young people don’t really
care. A car is just a means of getting from A to B when BART doesn’t work.”
A study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001
and 2009. . . .
Whether members of the millennial generation will start buying more cars once they have
kids to take to soccer practice and school plays remains an open question. But such projections
have important business implications, even if car buyers are merely older or buying fewer cars in
a lifetime rather than rejecting car culture outright.
At the Mobile World Congress last year in Barcelona, Spain, Bill Ford, executive chairman of
the Ford Motor Company, laid out a business plan for a world in which personal vehicle ownership
is impractical or undesirable. He proposed partnering with the telecommunications industry to
create cities in which “pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation
traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and
improve safety.”
incipient: at an initial stage; beginning to happen
or develop
Excerpt from “The End of Car Culture” by
Elisabeth Rosenthal, from the New York Times.
Copyright © 2013 by the New York Times
Company. Reprinted by permission of the New
York Times Company via Copyright Clearance
Center. |
AAAOPP13416000025089 | 4 | Did you know driverless car coming? Imagine driverless cars no one drives them no more. Sensing the world can read positive and negative back. "Within 10 years. . . sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels." Driving or Assisting? BMW announced the development "Traffic Jam Assistant." "The car can handle driving functions. . . car can steer, accelerate, and break themselves." Waiting on the law. "Driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers. . . traffic laws are writtten with the assumption.
First, Driverless cars are coming. Just "Imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore?" Cars are coming more and more better in the world. "Google has had a car that could drive independently under specfic conditions since 2009." Pulling in and out of driveways. . . has been a promblem." Googgle cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert driver to take over."
Sensing the World! "Looking at witch companies are making computer-driven cars." "For example, in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on special test tracks." "Engineers at Berkeley tried something similar, but they used magnets with alternating polarity." "Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel. . . a videl camera mounted near the rearview mirror." Driverless cars are coming.
Thrid,
Driving or Assisting?
BMW announced the development "Traffic Jam Assistant." "The car can handle driving functions. . . car can steer, accelerate, and break themselves. A car can handle driving functions up to speeds at 25 mph. A car also van steer themselves where the car wants. "GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object."
Finally, Waiting on the law. Waiting on the law. "Driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers. . . traffic laws are writtten with the assumption. "Tesla has a projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time." Audi, Nissan, and Mercedes-Benz plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020.
In the coulstion, dtiverless cars are coming have fun now or dont have fun at all. Go down to Toyota and get a new car. | In the article “Driverless Cars are Coming,” the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. Using details from the article, create an argument for or against the development of these cars. Be sure to include: your position on driverless cars; appropriate details from the article that support your position; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | Driverless cars | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Two or more races/Other | F | Driverless Cars Are Coming
Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore? Google cofounder Sergey Brin can. He envisions a future with a public transportation system where fleets of driverless cars form a public-transport taxi system. The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today’s taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus. He believes such cars would fundamentally change the world.
Television and movies have long been fascinated with cars that could drive themselves. In reality, Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash, but so far, Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents. So what roadblocks lie ahead for the autonomous car?
Sensing the World
Let's begin by looking at which companies are making computer-driven cars. Originally, many futurists believed the key to developing self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as smarter roads. For example, in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. The track was embedded with an electrical cable that sent radio signals to a receiver on the front end of the car. Engineers at Berkeley tried something similar, but they used magnets with alternating polarity. The car read the positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code. These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical.
Without the option of smarter roads, manufacturers turned to smarter cars—but how much smarter did the cars need to be? For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors. Google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. The most important bit of technology in this system is the spinning sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR, it uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the car's surroundings. The combination of all this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel.
Sensors are nothing new, of course. In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheels in the creation of antilock brakes. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone. Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own.
Driving or Assisting?
Antilock brakes and driver assistance still seem a long way from the dream of calling a driverless cab to take us wherever we desire, but Sebastian Thrun, founder of the Google Car project, believes that the technology has finally begun to catch up to the dream. “There was no way, before 2000, to make something interesting. The sensors weren't there, the computers weren't there, and the mapping wasn't there. Radar was a device on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack.” So just how driverless will the cars be in the near future?
In 2013, BMW announced the development of “Traffic Jam Assistant.” The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. This necessitates the car being ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs. GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object. The Google car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over. Other options under consideration are flashing lights on the windshield and other heads-up displays. Manufacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver.
Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn’t drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive? “The psychological aspects of automation are really a challenge,” admits Dr. Werner Huber, a BMW project manager driver. “We have to interpret the driving fun in a new way.” Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays. Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over—something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. In this way, the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern.
Waiting on the Law
Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars. California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have led the country in allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars; manufacturers believe that more states will follow as soon as the cars are proved more reliably safe. Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault—the driver or the manufacturer?
Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved. Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. The road to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us, but we grow closer to the destination every day. | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000086510 | 2 | Do you know who the Seagoing Cowboys are and what they do? I will be stating reasons to join the Seagoing Cowboys and an explanation of what you would do. This job could be or could not be the program for you.
I think that people should join this because of internatinal travel to help people across the globe. Also if you are a Farmer this job would be perfect because you would know exactly what to do with the animals that are being taken to another country to help the people that had lost a lot to the World War 2. This program could teach you what to do if you would want to be a Farmer.
The cattle-boat trip is an unbelieavable opportunity for a small town boy.
This job can be dangeris because a crew member almost when over board injering his ribs. This job can also be fun because you get to play games in the livestock stalls and tour different cityies.
In councludion this program can be a mix of fun and dangeris to people.
"It made me aware of people and other countries needs" What do you think life as a Seagoing Cowboy was like? | You have just read the article, 'A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves.' Luke's participation in the Seagoing Cowboys program allowed him to experience adventures and visit many unique places. Using information from the article, write an argument from Luke's point of view convincing others to participate in the Seagoing Cowboys program. Be sure to include: reasons to join the program; details from the article to support Luke's claims; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your essay. | "A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves" | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | White | M | A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves
by Peggy Reif Miller
Luke Bomberger crossed the Atlantic Ocean 16 times and the Pacific Ocean twice to help people affected by World War II.
Luke Bomberger had no idea that his life would change soon after his high school graduation. He was working two part-time jobs in a grocery store and a bank when his friend Don Reist invited him to go to Europe on a cattle boat. Luke couldn’t say no. He knew it was an opportunity of a lifetime.
It was 1945, World War II was over in Europe, and many countries were left in ruins. To help these countries recover their food supplies, animals, and more, 44 nations joined together to form UNRRA (the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration). UNRRA hired “Seagoing Cowboys” to take care of the horses, young cows, and mules that were shipped overseas. Luke and Don signed up.
Heading Overseas
In August 1945, they received their orders to report to New Orleans. “We arrived August 14,” Luke says, “the day the Pacific war ended.” They got their seaman’s papers and boarded the SS Charles W. Wooster, headed for Greece – with a cargo of 335 horses plus enough hay and oats to feed them.
Luke turned 18 before arriving in Greece, which meant he could be drafted for military service. “When my draft board learned that I was on a cattle-boat trip, they told me to just keep doing that for my service.” By the time he was discharged in 1947, Luke had made nine trips – the most of any Seagoing Cowboy.
“The cattle-boat trips were an unbelievable opportunity for a small-town bow,” he says. “Besides helping people, I had the side benefit of seeing Europe and China. But seeing the Acropolis in Greece was special,” he says. “So was taking a gondola ride in Venice, Italy, a city with streets of water.” Luke also toured an excavated castle in Crete and marveled at the Panama Canal on his way to China.
Traveling the High Seas
It took about two weeks to cross the Atlantic Ocean from the eastern coast of the United States and a month to get to China. Caring for the animals during the crossings kept Luke busy. They had to be fed and watered two or three times a day. Bales of hay and bags of oats had to be pulled up from the lower holds of the ship. Stalls had to be cleaned.
Helping out on his aunt Katie’s farm as a boy had prepared Luke for hard work, but not for the dangers at sea. On his second trip, Luke served at night watchman. His job was to check on all the animals every hour. One rainy night, after making his hourly report to the captain, he slid down a slippery ladder on his backside. Luke’s heart raced as he shot feet first toward an opening on the side of the ship. A small strip of metal along the edge stopped his slide, keeping him from flying overboard into the dark Atlantic. He was happy to be alive. But he couldn’t work for a couple of days because of cracked ribs.
Luke also found time to have fun on board, especially on return trips after the animals had been unloaded. The cowboys played baseball and volleyball games in the empty holds where animals had been housed. Table-tennis tournaments, fencing, boxing, reading, whittling, and games also helped pass the time.
But being a Seagoing Cowboy was much more than an adventure for Luke Bomberger. It opened up the world to him. “I’m grateful for the opportunity,” he says. “It made me more aware of people of other countries and their needs.” And that awareness stayed with him, leading his family to host a number of international students and exchange visitors for many years.
“A Cowboy Who Rode the Waves” by Peggy Reif Miller from Highlights for Children Magazine’s October 2013 issue, copyright 2013 by Highlights for Children, Inc., Colombus, Ohio. Used by permission. | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000052322 | 2 | Driverless cars are a good invention to have because they can prevent night crashes. Many car crashes occur when a person is tired or drunk. This car will take care of your driving if you're drunk or in a bad situation when you can't drive such as, being pregnant and alone.
First of all, let's say you are on a road trip with your family, its really late at night, your kids are asleep and you're really trying to stay awake. You remember you own a driverless car so you know you can sleep for a bit and if the car needs your assitance, you will be notified in some soart of way. For example, it will shake your seat, or even make a noice and alert you.
Driverless cars will help pregnant women when they have no one else with them and they're going into labor. Since pregnant women can't drive , especially if they are about to have a baby, it is a good help for them to have a driverless car. Mostly because they would not have to assit much on the driving part and they can just tell the car where to go if they have a GPS in them.
These type of cars can be a positive huge help in the future whenever you are drunk driving or pregnant. They will prevent crashes and keep pedestrians safe. | In the article “Driverless Cars are Coming,” the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. Using details from the article, create an argument for or against the development of these cars. Be sure to include: your position on driverless cars; appropriate details from the article that support your position; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | Driverless cars | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Hispanic/Latino | F | Driverless Cars Are Coming
Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore? Google cofounder Sergey Brin can. He envisions a future with a public transportation system where fleets of driverless cars form a public-transport taxi system. The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today’s taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus. He believes such cars would fundamentally change the world.
Television and movies have long been fascinated with cars that could drive themselves. In reality, Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash, but so far, Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents. So what roadblocks lie ahead for the autonomous car?
Sensing the World
Let's begin by looking at which companies are making computer-driven cars. Originally, many futurists believed the key to developing self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as smarter roads. For example, in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. The track was embedded with an electrical cable that sent radio signals to a receiver on the front end of the car. Engineers at Berkeley tried something similar, but they used magnets with alternating polarity. The car read the positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code. These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical.
Without the option of smarter roads, manufacturers turned to smarter cars—but how much smarter did the cars need to be? For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors. Google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. The most important bit of technology in this system is the spinning sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR, it uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the car's surroundings. The combination of all this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel.
Sensors are nothing new, of course. In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheels in the creation of antilock brakes. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone. Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own.
Driving or Assisting?
Antilock brakes and driver assistance still seem a long way from the dream of calling a driverless cab to take us wherever we desire, but Sebastian Thrun, founder of the Google Car project, believes that the technology has finally begun to catch up to the dream. “There was no way, before 2000, to make something interesting. The sensors weren't there, the computers weren't there, and the mapping wasn't there. Radar was a device on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack.” So just how driverless will the cars be in the near future?
In 2013, BMW announced the development of “Traffic Jam Assistant.” The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. This necessitates the car being ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs. GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object. The Google car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over. Other options under consideration are flashing lights on the windshield and other heads-up displays. Manufacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver.
Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn’t drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive? “The psychological aspects of automation are really a challenge,” admits Dr. Werner Huber, a BMW project manager driver. “We have to interpret the driving fun in a new way.” Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays. Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over—something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. In this way, the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern.
Waiting on the Law
Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars. California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have led the country in allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars; manufacturers believe that more states will follow as soon as the cars are proved more reliably safe. Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault—the driver or the manufacturer?
Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved. Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. The road to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us, but we grow closer to the destination every day. | null | null | null |
5188751 | 4 | Electoral College is the way American people get to chose who they want to represent their state or country. Why get rid of a system that has few flaws and gives people a since of picking their people? Electoral College should be kept because gives candiates a fair chance and lets everyone pick a representator.
To begin, electoral college gives candiates a fair chance. In source 3 it states " The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have trans-regional appeal. No region has enough electroal votes to elect a president. This is a desirable result because a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful president." This expalins that even if only a candidate only represent one region of the country electoral college can still give them a chance to win presidency. In source 1 it states " Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors." This means electoral college gives a candidate a group of supporters to help him or her win a election.
Futhermore, electoral college gives the people a right to pick a representator. In source 1 it states " The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens". Everyone who is a United States citizen has the right to vote for who they want for representation for each state. In source 3 it states " Voters in toss-up states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign to really listen to the competing candidates knowing that they are going to decide the election. They are likely to be the most thoughtful voters, on average, and the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election". Thoughtful votes or people who just vote because everyone else is doing it doesnt matter. Everyone could vote for anyone with electoral college.
"Its official: The electroal college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The best arguements in favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality. And the arguements against direct elections are spurious at best. It's hard to say this, but Bob Dole was right: Abolish the electoral college". I disagree with this statement because the electoral college gives candiates a fair chance to win electons and the people get to pick who they want to represent their states.
In conclusion, electoral college should be kept because it gives candidates a fair chance and allows the people to pick who they want to represent them. | Write a letter to your state senator in which you argue in favor of keeping the Electoral College or changing to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. Use the information from the texts in your essay. Manage your time carefully so that you can read the passages; plan your response; write your response; and revise and edit your response. Be sure to include a claim; address counterclaims; use evidence from multiple sources; and avoid overly relying on one source. Your response should be in the form of a multiparagraph essay. Write your response in the space provided. | Does the electoral college work? | null | null | No | Black/African American | F | What Is the
Electoral College?
by the Office of the Federal Register
The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the
Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and
election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.
The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the
electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes
by Congress.
The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required
to elect the President. Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in
its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for
your Senators. . . .
Under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution, the District of Columbia is allocated 3
electors and treated like a state for purposes of the Electoral College. For this reason, in the
following discussion, the word “state” also refers to the District of Columbia.
Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. The
electors are generally chosen by the candidate’s political party, but state laws vary on how the
electors are selected and what their responsibilities are. . . .
The presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in
November. You help choose your state’s electors when you vote for President because when you
vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate’s electors.
Most states have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors to the winning
presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of “proportional representation.” . . .
After the presidential election, your governor prepares a “Certificate of Ascertainment”
listing all of the candidates who ran for President in your state along with the names of their
respective electors. The Certificate of Ascertainment also declares the winning presidential
candidate in your state and shows which electors will represent your state at the meeting of the
electors in December of the election year. Your state’s Certificates of Ascertainments are sent to
the Congress and the National Archives as part of the official records of the presidential election.
Excerpt from “What Is the Electoral College?” by
the Office of the Federal Register, from
www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoralcollege/about.html. In the public domain. | The Indefensible
Electoral College: Why even
the best-laid defenses of
the system are wrong
by Bradford Plumer
What have Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the
AFL-CIO all, in their time, agreed on? Answer: Abolishing the electoral college! They’re not alone;
according to a Gallup poll in 2000, taken shortly after Al Gore—thanks to the quirks of the
electoral college—won the popular vote but lost the presidency, over 60 percent of voters would
prefer a direct election to the kind we have now. This year voters can expect another close
election in which the popular vote winner could again lose the presidency. And yet, the electoral
college still has its defenders. What gives? . . .
What’s wrong with the electoral college
Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of
electors, who in turn elect the president. If you lived in Texas, for instance, and wanted to vote
for [John] Kerry, you’d vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors pledged to Kerry. On the offchance that those electors won the statewide election, they would go to Congress and Kerry
would get 34 electoral votes. Who are the electors? They can be anyone not holding public office.
Who picks the electors in the first place? It depends on the state. Sometimes state conventions,
sometimes the state party’s central committee, sometimes the presidential candidates
themselves. Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always. Do voters sometimes
get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate? Sometimes.
The single best argument against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster
factor. The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the
biggest election crisis in a century; the system allows for much worse. Consider that state
legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always
defy the will of the people. Back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly
succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F.
Kennedy. (So that a popular vote for Kennedy would not have actually gone to Kennedy.) In the
same vein, “faithless” electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party’s candidate and
cast a deciding vote for whomever they please. . . . Oh, and what if a state sends two slates of
electors to Congress? It happened in Hawaii in 1960. Luckily, Vice President Richard Nixon, who
was presiding over the Senate, validated only his opponent’s electors, but he made sure to do so
“without establishing a precedent.” What if it happened again?
Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. In that case, the
election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the
president. (The Senate would choose the vice-president.) Because each state casts only one vote,
the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say
as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters. Given that many
voters vote one party for president and another for Congress, the House’s selection can hardly be
expected to reflect the will of the people. And if an electoral tie seems unlikely, consider this: In
1968, a shift of just 41,971 votes would have deadlocked the election; In 1976, a tie would have
occurred if a mere 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted the other way. The
election is only a few swing voters away from catastrophe.
At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winner-takeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of
winning, focusing only on the tight races in the “swing” states. 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 anyone has a
good argument for putting the fate of the presidency in the hands of a few swing voters in Ohio,
they have yet to make it. . . .
It’s official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The best arguments in
favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality. And the arguments against direct
elections are spurious at best. It’s hard to say this, but Bob Dole was right: Abolish the electoral
college!
lost the presidency: In the 2000 U.S. presidential
race, Al Gore received more individual votes than
George W. Bush nationwide, but Bush won the
election, receiving 271 electoral votes to Gore’s
266.
John Kerry: Kerry ran for President against George
W. Bush (43rd president of the United States),
representing the Democratic Party in 2004.
segregationists: people who favored separation
based on race
Excerpt from “The Indefensible Electoral College:
Why even the best-laid defenses are wrong” from
Mother Jones by Bradford Plumer. Copyright ©
2004 by Mother Jones and the Foundation for
National Progress. All Rights Reserved. | In Defense of the
Electoral College: Five
reasons to keep our
despised method of
choosing the President
by Judge Richard A. Posner
The Electoral College is widely regarded as an anachronism, a non-democratic method of
selecting a president that ought to be [overruled] by declaring the candidate who receives the
most popular votes the winner. The advocates of this position are correct in arguing that 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 presidential candidate you’re actually voting for a
slate of electors.
But each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party’s nominee (and that
trust is rarely betrayed) . . . [; however,] it is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral
vote will not win the national popular vote. Yet that has happened very rarely. It happened in
2000, when Gore had more popular votes than Bush yet fewer electoral votes, but that was the
first time since 1888.
There are five reasons for retaining the Electoral College despite its lack of democratic
pedigree; all are practical reasons, not liberal or conservative reasons.
1) Certainty of Outcome
A dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote is possible—it happened in 2000
—but it’s less likely than a dispute over the popular vote. The reason is that the winning
candidate’s share of the Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote. In
[2012’s] election, for example, Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to
only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and Romney. . . . Because almost all states
award electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis, even a very slight plurality in a state creates a
landslide electoral-vote victory in that state. A tie in the nationwide electoral vote is possible
because the total number of votes—538—is an even number, but it is highly unlikely. . . .
2) Everyone’s President
The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have trans-regional appeal. No
region (South, Northeast, etc.) has enough electoral votes to elect a president. So a solid regional
favorite, such as Romney was in the South, has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states,
for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his plurality in states that he knows he will win. This
is a desirable result because a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful
president. The residents of the other regions are likely to feel disenfranchised—to feel that their
votes do not count, that the new president will have no regard for their interests, that he really
isn’t their president.
3) Swing States
The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes induces the candidates—as we saw
in [2012’s] election—to focus their campaign efforts on the toss-up states . . . . Voters in toss-up
states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign—to really listen to the competing
candidates—knowing that they are going to decide the election. They are likely to be the most
thoughtful voters, on average (and for the further reason that they will have received the most
information and attention from the candidates), and the most thoughtful voters should be the
ones to decide the election.
4) Big States
The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states
(by population) lose by virtue of the mal-apportionment of the Senate decreed in the
Constitution. . . . The popular vote was very close in Florida [in 2012]; nevertheless Obama, who
won that vote, got 29 electoral votes. A victory by the same margin in Wyoming would net the
winner only 3 electoral votes. So, other things being equal, a large state gets more attention from
presidential candidates in a campaign than a small state does. . . .
5) Avoid Run-Off Elections
The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a
majority of the votes cast. For example, Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had only a 43
percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the Electoral College (301 and
370 electoral votes, respectively). There is pressure for run-off elections when no candidate wins
a majority of the votes cast; that pressure, which would greatly complicate the presidential
election process, is reduced by the Electoral College, which invariably produces a clear winner. . . .
It can be argued that the Electoral College method of selecting the president may turn off
potential voters for a candidate who has no hope of carrying their state—Democrats in Texas, for
example, or Republicans in California. Knowing their vote will have no effect, they have less
incentive to pay attention to the campaign than they would have if the president were picked by
popular vote . . . . But of course no voter’s vote swings a national election, and in spite of that,
about one-half the eligible American population did vote in [2012’s] election. Voters in
presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people
who think that a single vote may decide an election. . . .
anachronism: a person or a thing that seems to
belong to the past and not to fit in the present
pedigree: the origin and history of something,
especially when it is good or impressive
liberal or conservative: political philosophies
commonly seen as opposite each other
Obama: Barack Obama, 44th president of the
United States
Romney: Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee for
President in 2012
plurality: when a candidate receives more votes
than other candidates while not receiving a clear
majority of votes
Excerpt from “In Defense of the Electoral College:
Five reasons to keep our despised method of
choosing the President” from Slate Magazine by
Judge Richard A. Posner. Copyright © 2012. | null |
AAAOPP13416000075685 | 3 | The Face, is it a natural landform or actual life on the planet Mars? In this argument I believe that the Face on the planet Mars is not alien life, but is a natural landform that has formed over periods of time.
I believe that the Face is a natural landform because of the information from the text.
Starting of on May 24, 2001 when the Viking 1 space craft found the face when it was searching for an area for its sister Viking 2 to land.
In 1976, the Face was not that clear at the time until 1998 when it started to take more shape.
I believe that if it was not a natural landform, NASA would have probably kept quite about it until they offically knew that it was or was not a natural landform.
Just because when it came, people are statring to think that the Face is "bone fide evidence of life on Mars."
If there was life on Mars, people all around the world would know about the it, and possibly would try to travel to Mars to see such life forms.
Yet know has tried, we humans have only sent robots to do the work on Mars for us.
On April 8, 2001 when they took the picture the second time, they have recievced a photo that they could compare to the picture that the Viking 1 took in 1976.
I believe that it is just a landform because the qoute from Garvin when he said "It reminds me nost of Middle Butte in thr Snake River Plin of Idaho" so it must just be a landform creation when it can remind some on of an experience the already seen.
In closing, from the facts from the story I believe that the Face is not alien life, but it is a natural landform that has been created over time. | You have read the article 'Unmasking the Face on Mars.' Imagine you are a scientist at NASA discussing the Face with someone who thinks it was created by aliens. Using information in the article, write an argumentative essay to convince someone that the Face is just a natural landform.Be sure to include: claims to support your argument that the Face is a natural landform; evidence from the article to support your claims; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | The Face on Mars | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Black/African American | M | Unmasking the Face on Mars
Side by side: a Viking 1 photo from 1975, a Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) image from 1998, and the latest MGS image from 2001.
New high-resolution images and 3D altimetry from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft reveal the Face on Mars for what it really is: a mesa.
On May 24, 2001—Twenty five years ago, something funny happened around Mars. NASA’s Viking 1 spacecraft was circling the planet, snapping photos of possible landing sites for its sister ship Viking 2, when it spotted the shadowy likeness of a human face. An enormous head nearly two miles from end to end seemed to be staring back at the cameras from a region of the Red Planet called Cydonia.
There must have been a degree of surprise among mission controllers back at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory when the face appeared on their monitors. But the sensation was short-lived. Scientists figured it was just another Martian mesa, common enough around Cydonia, only this one had unusual shadows that made it look like an Egyptian Pharaoh.
A few days later NASA unveiled the image for all to see. The caption noted a “huge rock formation . . . which resembles a human head . . . formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose, and mouth.” The authors reasoned it would be a good way to engage the public and attract attention to Mars.
It certainly did!
The “Face on Mars” has since become a pop icon. It has starred in a Hollywood film, appeared in books, magazines, radio talk shows – even haunted grocery store checkout lines for 25 years! Some people think the Face is bona fide evidence of life on Mars – evidence that NASA would rather hide, say conspiracy theorists. Meanwhile, defenders of the NASA budget wish there was an ancient civilization on Mars.
A 1976 Viking 1 photograph of the Face on Mars
Although few scientists believed the Face was an alien artifact, photographing Cydonia became a priority for NASA when Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) arrived at the Red Planet in Sept. 1997, eighteen long years after the Viking missions ended. “We felt this was important to taxpayers,” explained Jim Garvin, chief scientist for NASA’s mars Exploration Program. “We photographed the Face as soon as we could get a good shot at it.”
And so on April 5, 1998, when Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia for the first time, Michael Malin and his Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) team snapped a picture ten times sharper than the original Viking photos. Thousands of anxious web surfers were waiting when the image first appeared on a JPL web site, revealing . . . a natural landform. There was no alien monument after all.
But not everyone was satisfied. The Face on Mars is located at 41 degrees north martial latitude where it was winter in April ‘98 – a cloudy time of year on the Red Planet. The camera on board MGS had to peer through wispy clouds to see the Face. Perhaps, said skeptics, alien markings were hidden by haze.
Mission controllers prepared to look again. “It’s not easy to target Cydonia,” says Garvin. “In fact, it’s hard work.” Mars Global Surveyor is a mapping spacecraft that normally looks straight down and scans the planet like a fax machine in narrow 2.5 km-wide strips. “We don’t pass over the Face very often,” he noted.
Nevertheless, on April 8, 2001 – a cloudless summer day in Cydonia – Mars Global Surveyor drew close enough for a second look. “We had to roll the spacecraft 25 degrees to center the Face in the field of view,” said Garvin. “Malin’s team captured an extraordinary photo using the camera’s absolute maximum resolution.” Each pixel in the 2001 image spans 1.56 meters, compared to the 43 meters per pixel in the best 1976 Viking photo.
“As a rule of thumb, you can discern things in a digital image 3 times bigger than the pixel size,” he added. “So, if there were objects in this picture like airplanes on the ground or Egyptian-style pyramids or even small shacks, you could see what they were!”
What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa – landforms common around the American West. “It reminds me of most of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho,” says Garvin. “That’s a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars.”
Text and photographs courtsey of NASA, “Unmasking the Face on Mars,” May 24, 2001 (retrieved from science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast24may_1/) | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000003775 | 3 | Driverless Cars
For this day, and age technogoly is a big part of our generation. Everyday a genious comes up with an idea that'll forever change the way we do things. Driveless cars are coming in the near future and, it doesn't sound very safe. Will individuals really put there trust in a car? Make sure you ask yourself this question many times and go with your response. How dangerous could this whole Driverless cars thing be?
Throughout this whole article I find many things on the dangerous side of Driveless cars. Are you seriously willing to put your trust into a car that operates from a computer system? For example the article says the driver will still have to be caution at all times such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. Accidents happen around us all the time but, most of all in cars itself. Your giving a computer controll of your life, and safe being putting your life in jeoporady. Your constantly asking yourself what if this happens and so on.
What if I fall asleep at the wheel can I
trust the driverless car with my safety? What if I'm looking at my phone non stop can I trust the driverless car to guide me in the right direction?
If you find yourself asking these questions over, and over do you really find it safe? Ask others around your community how they feel about the driverless cars,and state your opinions as well.
Give yourself the best information you possibly can on the Driverless cars idea.
In reality use your knowledge on what you know about cars now. We individuals can't control a car now so how can a computer system do so? Accidents waiting to happen while driving now are dangerous, really think about it if we get
Driverless cars. Accidents may increase gradually around the world, and even more deaths due to car crashes the risk of these type of things are dramtically high. My life in jeoparody already is scary enough let alone thinking about. Another individual not worrying about there safety is even more scary.
Driverless cars are extremely dangerous and not safe. They can lead to many more accidents around the world, fatal injuries, even death. I risk myself driving let alone another human being not caring for theres. Depending on some computer system to take care of them sounds insane. Are companies truly worried about your safety, or whether you'll buy their new Driverless car? Can your life become threatened or, taken away from a operating computer system you trusted.No Driverless cars will cause more and more accidents throughout the world. | In the article “Driverless Cars are Coming,” the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. Using details from the article, create an argument for or against the development of these cars. Be sure to include: your position on driverless cars; appropriate details from the article that support your position; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | Driverless cars | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Two or more races/Other | M | Driverless Cars Are Coming
Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore? Google cofounder Sergey Brin can. He envisions a future with a public transportation system where fleets of driverless cars form a public-transport taxi system. The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today’s taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus. He believes such cars would fundamentally change the world.
Television and movies have long been fascinated with cars that could drive themselves. In reality, Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash, but so far, Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents. So what roadblocks lie ahead for the autonomous car?
Sensing the World
Let's begin by looking at which companies are making computer-driven cars. Originally, many futurists believed the key to developing self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as smarter roads. For example, in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. The track was embedded with an electrical cable that sent radio signals to a receiver on the front end of the car. Engineers at Berkeley tried something similar, but they used magnets with alternating polarity. The car read the positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code. These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical.
Without the option of smarter roads, manufacturers turned to smarter cars—but how much smarter did the cars need to be? For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors. Google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. The most important bit of technology in this system is the spinning sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR, it uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the car's surroundings. The combination of all this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel.
Sensors are nothing new, of course. In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheels in the creation of antilock brakes. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone. Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own.
Driving or Assisting?
Antilock brakes and driver assistance still seem a long way from the dream of calling a driverless cab to take us wherever we desire, but Sebastian Thrun, founder of the Google Car project, believes that the technology has finally begun to catch up to the dream. “There was no way, before 2000, to make something interesting. The sensors weren't there, the computers weren't there, and the mapping wasn't there. Radar was a device on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack.” So just how driverless will the cars be in the near future?
In 2013, BMW announced the development of “Traffic Jam Assistant.” The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. This necessitates the car being ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs. GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object. The Google car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over. Other options under consideration are flashing lights on the windshield and other heads-up displays. Manufacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver.
Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn’t drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive? “The psychological aspects of automation are really a challenge,” admits Dr. Werner Huber, a BMW project manager driver. “We have to interpret the driving fun in a new way.” Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays. Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over—something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. In this way, the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern.
Waiting on the Law
Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars. California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have led the country in allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars; manufacturers believe that more states will follow as soon as the cars are proved more reliably safe. Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault—the driver or the manufacturer?
Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved. Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. The road to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us, but we grow closer to the destination every day. | null | null | null |
AAATRP14318000728448 | 3 | It would be wonderful if some computer could read a humans emotion. Sometimes when we feel like we need help we tend not to ask for it. If a person might ask you whats wrong and you feel like lying a computer could help you out in that problem. So many people could be help emotionally.
Reading a students emotion when you are teaching a class is important. You want to make sure that the students are understanding. Sometimes as a teacher we don't know if our students are confused because they don't speak up. It would be a helpful soruce for our student struggling in school.I'm a student and sometimes I don't understand the teacher but im afraid to ask.
If we could read emotions we would be able to help more students. Maybe by reading the mind could prevent less students failing classes. According to the passage "A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored. This would be a classroom valuable with you. Schools could really benefit from this expecially student who sttrugle in school.
Overall I feel like that technology is very useful
source in relations. Gathering up to see what wrong would be easier with the Facial Actiom Coding system.Let's help students learn everything they can hold on to and we will be celerbrating the victories . teachers could show more and leanr more of what makes a student feel the need to learn without getting bored. let's give it a try. | In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile," the author describes how a new technology called the Facial Action Coding System enables computers to identify human emotions. Using details from the article, write an essay arguing whether the use of this technology to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is valuable. | Facial action coding system | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Hispanic/Latino | F | Copyright Restricted | null | null | null |
AAATRP14318000414119 | 3 | We all have emotions and how we express them can be different than how other people express them. In the article "making Mona Lisa Smile" it talks about a new software called 'Facial Action Coding System'. the facial coding system can help kids in school to learn the lesson better and the teachers adapt to the kids and how they want to be taught to suceed.
The 'Facial Action Coding System' can help kids to learn the lesson and for the teachers to adapt to how the kids want to be taught and what is the best way to teach the students so they learn the material better and undertsand it. This system can give you percentages on their exact emotions for example it tests a total of 6 emotions- happiness, surprise, anger, disgust, fear, and sadness. This could help the teachers to change their teaching techniques to improve the childs sucess rate. But some might say "oh its an invasion of privacy to tell how we are really feel about people". in that case than anythings an invasion of privacy because the technology is used to help the kids become more sucessful as students and help the teachers understand their students better. " most communication is nonverbal, including emotional communication" said by Dr. Haung in the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile" this shows that we learn from peoples actions more than what we learn from them when they speak.
The facial action coding system can improve peoples learning so they can be more sucessful in the long run. So teachers now don't have sit there thinking for an hour on how to help that one kid in the class that is mysterious to them and cant figure out a way to get through to them. | In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile," the author describes how a new technology called the Facial Action Coding System enables computers to identify human emotions. Using details from the article, write an essay arguing whether the use of this technology to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is valuable. | Facial action coding system | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | White | M | Copyright Restricted | null | null | null |
AAAOPP13416000007088 | 4 | In my opinion, driverless cars might be a good idea especially for some people that likes to travel alot. Driverless cars does not sound bad but to others,
they might say things like the car will malfunction and hit another car. There will always be an argument about driverless cars, saying that they are to dangerous to the environment and it's a risk that others do not want to take.
Some states right now are not to big on driverless cars because of the safety to others. Questions would be asked like what would happen if one of the cars malfuntion and crash into another car; what would happen if some nearby cars was programmed wrong or was not built properly. Many car companies has added more safe ways to drive, like cameras on the car to see better or auto park/drive; the human still has to control the car 98 percent of the time.
If the states wanted to have driverless cars, some laws will be changed and some added because of how the car is made and how it funtions. Laws like car accidents and certain things that the car is allowed to have and what the car is allowed to do. Having a driverless car, there are lots of things that can be added to the car's funtions. Some people might even try to add or change some features of the car.
The manufacters would have to test the vehicles many of times before sold to check for safety. Problems with the car like gps problems and people not liking the idea of cars that can drive themself. There are more accidents likely to happen with humans behind the wheel because of the actions others are often to make. Drinking while driving, texting and driving, and even sleeping while driving. Elders would not have to drive everywhere they go anymore, same as injured people.
I would like to see driverless cars come into action, the whole idea just sounds great in my opinion. Everything just takes time and no matter what anyone says, there will be driverless cars in the future. New rules/laws will be made and slowly more states maybe the whole country will have driverless cars. Google is also known to own and make many things that has turned out to be good and a smart idea. In the future there will be driverless cars everywhere, all they need is time. | In the article “Driverless Cars are Coming,” the author presents both positive and negative aspects of driverless cars. Using details from the article, create an argument for or against the development of these cars. Be sure to include: your position on driverless cars; appropriate details from the article that support your position; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | Driverless cars | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | Black/African American | M | Driverless Cars Are Coming
Can you imagine a time in the future when no one buys cars because no one needs them anymore? Google cofounder Sergey Brin can. He envisions a future with a public transportation system where fleets of driverless cars form a public-transport taxi system. The cars he foresees would use half the fuel of today’s taxis and offer far more flexibility than a bus. He believes such cars would fundamentally change the world.
Television and movies have long been fascinated with cars that could drive themselves. In reality, Google has had cars that could drive independently under specific conditions since 2009. Their cars have driven more than half a million miles without a crash, but so far, Google cars aren't truly driverless; they still alert the driver to take over when pulling in and out of driveways or dealing with complicated traffic issues, such as navigating through roadwork or accidents. So what roadblocks lie ahead for the autonomous car?
Sensing the World
Let's begin by looking at which companies are making computer-driven cars. Originally, many futurists believed the key to developing self-driving cars someday wasn't so much smarter cars as smarter roads. For example, in the late 1950s, General Motors created a concept car that could run on a special test track. The track was embedded with an electrical cable that sent radio signals to a receiver on the front end of the car. Engineers at Berkeley tried something similar, but they used magnets with alternating polarity. The car read the positive and negative polarity as messages in binary code. These smart-road systems worked surprisingly well, but they required massive upgrades to existing roads, something that was simply too expensive to be practical.
Without the option of smarter roads, manufacturers turned to smarter cars—but how much smarter did the cars need to be? For starters, they needed a whole lot of sensors. Google's modified Toyota Prius uses position-estimating sensors on the left rear wheel, a rotating sensor on the roof, a video camera mounted near the rearview mirror, four automotive radar sensors, a GPS receiver, and an inertial motion sensor. The most important bit of technology in this system is the spinning sensor on the roof. Dubbed LIDAR, it uses laser beams to form a constantly updating 3-D model of the car's surroundings. The combination of all this input is necessary for the driverless car to mimic the skill of a human at the wheel.
Sensors are nothing new, of course. In the 1980s, automakers used speed sensors at the wheels in the creation of antilock brakes. Within 10 years, those sensors had become more advanced to detect and respond to the danger of out-of-control skids or rollovers. The information from the sensors can cause the car to apply brakes on individual wheels and reduce power from the engine, allowing far better response and control than a human driver could manage alone. Further improvements in sensors and computer hardware and software to make driving safer are also leading to cars that can handle more and more driving tasks on their own.
Driving or Assisting?
Antilock brakes and driver assistance still seem a long way from the dream of calling a driverless cab to take us wherever we desire, but Sebastian Thrun, founder of the Google Car project, believes that the technology has finally begun to catch up to the dream. “There was no way, before 2000, to make something interesting. The sensors weren't there, the computers weren't there, and the mapping wasn't there. Radar was a device on a hilltop that cost two hundred million dollars. It wasn't something you could buy at Radio Shack.” So just how driverless will the cars be in the near future?
In 2013, BMW announced the development of “Traffic Jam Assistant.” The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires. This necessitates the car being ready to quickly get the driver's attention whenever a problem occurs. GM has developed driver's seats that vibrate when the vehicle is in danger of backing into an object. The Google car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over. Other options under consideration are flashing lights on the windshield and other heads-up displays. Manufacturers are also considering using cameras to watch that drivers are remaining focused on the road. While the driver watches the road, the car watches the driver.
Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver? Wouldn’t drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive? “The psychological aspects of automation are really a challenge,” admits Dr. Werner Huber, a BMW project manager driver. “We have to interpret the driving fun in a new way.” Some manufacturers hope to do that by bringing in-car entertainment and information systems that use heads-up displays. Such displays can be turned off instantly when the driver needs to take over—something not available to drivers trying to text with a cell phone. In this way, the in-car system is actually a safety feature, and safety is a big concern.
Waiting on the Law
Most driving laws focus on keeping drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safe, and lawmakers know that safety is best achieved with alert drivers. Presently, traffic laws are written with the assumption that the only safe car has a human driver in control at all times. As a result, in most states it is illegal even to test computer-driven cars. California, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia have led the country in allowing limited use of semi-autonomous cars; manufacturers believe that more states will follow as soon as the cars are proved more reliably safe. Still, even if traffic laws change, new laws will be needed in order to cover liability in the case of an accident. If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault—the driver or the manufacturer?
Automakers are continuing their work on the assumption that the problems ahead will be solved. Tesla has projected a 2016 release for a car capable of driving on autopilot 90 percent of the time. Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020. The road to the truly autonomous car stretches on ahead of us, but we grow closer to the destination every day. | null | null | null |
5214678 | 2 | THE ADVANTAGES IN LIMITING CAR USAGE ARE VERY DRASTIC. IN THIS NEW APPOROACH STORES ARE PLACED A WALK AWAY, ON A MAIN STREET, RATHER THAN IN MALLS ALONG SOME DISTANT HIGHWAY. ANOTHER POSITIVE ON PUTTING LESS TIME IN YOUR CARS IS THAT THE POLLUTION LEVELS WILL DECLINE VERY MUCH SO. CONGESTION ON THE STREETS WENT DOWN BY 60% IN FRANCE AFTER 5 DAYS OF TESTIFYING IN SMOG. "THE SMOG" WHICH IS BEJING,CHINA WHICH IS KNOWN AS THE MOST POLLUTED CITIES IN THE WORLD. WITH LESS PEOPLE AND COMMOTION IT LEFT THE ROADS CAR-FREE AND DEVOID OF TRAFFIC JAMS. THE MAIN GOAL ON PEOPLE USING LESS OF THERE CARS IS TOO PROMOTE ANOTHER WAY OF TRANSPORTATION INSTEAD OF SOMEBODY USING THIER CAR.
IF PEOPLE WERE TOO USE LESS CARS THAN IT WOULD BE A GOOD OPPURTUNITY TO TAKE AWAY STRESS AND LOWER AIR POLLUTION. IF PEOPLE USED THERE CARS LESS THAN THE COMMUNITY WOULD HAVE TO CREATE A PLACE FOR THE PEOPLE TO BE SAFE ON WHICH MEANS MORE SIDEWALKS FOR THE KIDS AND ADULTS THAT WOULD BE USING THEM. RUSH HOUR WOULD BE NO PROBLEM BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE LESS PEOPLE ON THE ROADS BESIDES ALL THE TAXIS AND BUSES. RESTURANTS WOULD BE INPACTED GREATLY BECAUSE ALOT MORE PEOPLE WOULD STOP ON THERE WAY HOME FROM THE JOB TO GET A BITE TO EAT. IF THE POPULATION KEEPS GROWING THAN THAT MEANS THE POLLUTION WILL TOO AND SO WE HAVE TO MAKE A STOP AND BETTER THIS EARTH BEACUSE BEFORE WE KNOW IT WE WILL BE BREATHING IN TOXIC GASES AND DYING! SO HELP SAVE THE EARTH AND DRIVE LESS IN YOUR CARS PLEASE FOR THE SAKE OF US ALL! | Write an explanatory essay to inform fellow citizens about the advantages of limiting car usage. Your essay must be based on ideas and information that can be found in the passage set. Manage your time carefully so that you can read the passages; plan your response; write your response; and revise and edit your response. Be sure to use evidence from multiple sources; and avoid overly relying on one source. Your response should be in the form of a multiparagraph essay. Write your essay in the space provided. | Car-free cities | null | null | No | White | M | In German
Suburb, Life Goes On
Without Cars
by Elisabeth Rosenthal
VAUBAN, Germany—Residents of this upscale community are suburban pioneers, going
where few soccer moms or commuting executives have ever gone before: they have given up
their cars.
Street parking, driveways and home garages are generally forbidden in this experimental
new district on the outskirts of Freiburg, near the French and Swiss borders. Vauban’s streets are
completely “car-free”—except the main thoroughfare, where the tram to downtown Freiburg runs,
and a few streets on one edge of the community. Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two
places to park—large garages at the edge of the development, where a car-owner buys a space,
for $40,000, along with a home.
As a result, 70 percent of Vauban’s families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to
move here. “When I had a car I was always tense. I’m much happier this way,” said Heidrun
Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of
bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor.
Vauban, completed in 2006, is an example of a growing trend in Europe, the United States
and elsewhere to separate suburban life from auto use, as a component of a movement called
“smart planning.”
Automobiles are the linchpin of suburbs, where middle-class families from Chicago to
Shanghai tend to make their homes. And that, experts say, is a huge impediment to current
efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes . . . . Passenger cars are
responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe . . . and up to 50 percent in
some car-intensive areas in the United States.
While there have been efforts in the past two decades to make cities denser, and better for
walking, planners are now taking the concept to the suburbs . . . . Vauban, home to 5,500 residents within a rectangular square mile, may be the most advanced experiment in low-car
suburban life. But its basic precepts are being adopted around the world in attempts to make
suburbs more compact and more accessible to public transportation, with less space for parking.
In this new approach, stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along
some distant highway.
“All of our development since World War II has been centered on the car, and that will have
to change,” said David Goldberg, an official of Transportation for America, a fast-growing coalition
of hundreds of groups in the United States . . . who are promoting new communities that are less
dependent on cars. Mr. Goldberg added: “How much you drive is as important as whether you
have a hybrid.”
Levittown and Scarsdale, New York suburbs with spread-out homes and private garages,
were the dream towns of the 1950s and still exert a strong appeal. But some new suburbs may
well look more Vauban-like, not only in developed countries but also in the developing world,
where emissions from an increasing number of private cars owned by the burgeoning middle
class are choking cities.
In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency is promoting “car reduced”
communities, and legislators are starting to act, if cautiously. Many experts expect public
transport serving suburbs to play a much larger role in a new six-year federal transportation bill
to be approved this year, Mr. Goldberg said. In previous bills, 80 percent of appropriations have by
law gone to highways and only 20 percent to other transport.
Excerpt from “In German Suburb, Life Goes On
Without Cars” by Elisabeth Rosenthal, from the
New York Times. Copyright © 2009 by the New
York Times Company. Reprinted by permission of
the New York Times Company via Copyright
Clearance Center. | Paris bans
driving due to smog
by Robert Duffer
After days of near-record pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the
global city.
On Monday motorists with even-numbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22-euro fine ($31). The same would apply to odd-numbered plates the following
day.
Almost 4,000 drivers were fined, according to Reuters . . . [Twenty-seven] people had their
cars impounded for their reaction to the fine.
That’s easier to imagine than a car-free Champs-Elysees.
Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after five-days of intensifying
smog . . . [The smog] rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in
the world.
Cold nights and warm days caused the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions.
Diesel fuel was blamed, since France has . . . [a] tax policy that favors diesel over gasoline.
Diesels make up 67 percent of vehicles in France, compared to a 53.3 percent average of diesel
engines in the rest of Western Europe, according to Reuters.
Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals . . . [Last] week Paris had 147
micrograms of particulate matter (PM) per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7
in London, Reuters found.
Delivery companies complained of lost revenue, while exceptions were made for plug-in
cars, hybrids, and cars carrying three or more passengers. Public transit was free of charge from
Friday to Monday, according to the BBC.
The smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday.
Reuters: an international news agency
headquartered in London
Champs-Elysees: a famous street in Paris
congestion: car traffic
Excerpt from “Paris bans driving due to smog” by
Robert Duffer, from the Chicago Tribune.
Copyright © 2014 by the Chicago Tribune.
Reprinted by permission of the Chicago Tribune via
Copyright Clearance Center. | Car-free day is
spinning into a big hit in
Bogota
by Andrew Selsky
BOGOTA, Colombia—In a program that’s set to spread to other countries, millions of
Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a car-free day yesterday, leaving
the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams.
It was the third straight year cars have been banned with only buses and taxis permitted for
the Day Without Cars in this capital city of 7 million. The goal is to promote alternative
transportation and reduce smog. Violators faced $25 fines.
The turnout was large, despite gray clouds that dumped occasional rain showers on Bogota.
“The rain hasn’t stopped people from participating,” said Bogota Mayor Antanas Mockus . . .
.
“It’s a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,” said businessman
Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a two-seat bicycle with his wife.
For the first time, two other Colombian cities, Cali and Valledupar, joined the event.
Municipal authorities from other countries came to Bogota to see the event and were
enthusiastic. “These people are generating a revolutionary change, and this is crossing borders,”
said Enrique Riera, the mayor of Asunción, Paraguay. . . .
The day without cars is part of an improvement campaign that began in Bogota in the mid1990s. It has seen the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths, the most of any Latin American
city, according to Mockus, the city’s mayor.
Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city; uneven, pitted sidewalks
have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks; rush-hour restrictions have dramatically cut
traffic; and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up.
Excerpt from “Car-free day is spinning into a big
hit in Bogota” by Andrew Selsky, from the Seattle
Times. Copyright © 2002 by the Seattle Times
Company. Reprinted by permission of the Seattle
Times Company via Copyright Clearance Center. | The End of Car
Culture
by Elisabeth Rosenthal
President Obama’s ambitious goals to curb the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions,
unveiled last week, will get a fortuitous assist from an incipient shift in American behavior:
recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer
licenses as each year goes by.
That has left researchers pondering a fundamental question: Has America passed peak
driving?
The United States, with its broad expanses and suburban ideals, had long been one of the
world’s prime car cultures. It is the birthplace of the Model T; the home of Detroit; the place
where Wilson Pickett immortalized “Mustang Sally” . . . .
But America’s love affair with its vehicles seems to be cooling. When adjusted for population
growth, the number of miles driven in the United States peaked in 2005 and dropped steadily
thereafter, according to an analysis by Doug Short of Advisor Perspectives, an investment
research company. As of April 2013, the number of miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent
below the peak and equal to where the country was in January 1995. Part of the explanation
certainly lies in the recession, because cash-strapped Americans could not afford new cars, and
the unemployed weren’t going to work anyway. But by many measures the decrease in driving
preceded the downturn and appears to be persisting now that recovery is under way. The next
few years will be telling.
“What most intrigues me is that rates of car ownership per household and per person
started to come down two to three years before the downturn,” said Michael Sivak, who studies
the trend and who is a research professor at the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research
Institute. “I think that means something more fundamental is going on.”
If the pattern persists—and many sociologists believe it will—it will have beneficial
implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest
source of America’s emissions, just behind power plants. But it could have negative implications
for the car industry. Indeed, companies like Ford and Mercedes are already rebranding themselves
“mobility” companies with a broader product range beyond the personal vehicle.
“Different things are converging which suggest that we are witnessing a long-term cultural
shift,” said Mimi Sheller, a sociology professor at Drexel University and director of its Mobilities
Research and Policy Center. She cites various factors: the Internet makes telecommuting possible
and allows people to feel more connected without driving to meet friends. The renewal of center
cities has made the suburbs less appealing and has drawn empty nesters back in. Likewise the
rise in cellphones and car-pooling apps has facilitated more flexible commuting arrangements,
including the evolution of shared van services for getting to work.
With all these changes, people who stopped car commuting as a result of the recession may
find less reason to resume the habit. . . .
New York’s new bike-sharing program and its skyrocketing bridge and tunnel tolls reflect
those new priorities, as do a proliferation of car-sharing programs across the nation.
Demographic shifts in the driving population suggest that the trend may accelerate. There
has been a large drop in the percentage of 16- to 39-year-olds getting a license, while older
people are likely to retain their licenses as they age, Mr. Sivak’s research has found.
He and I have similar observations about our children. Mine (19 and 21) have not bothered
to get a driver’s license, even though they both live in places where one could come in handy.
They are interested, but it’s not a priority. They organize their summer jobs and social life around
where they can walk or take public transportation or car-pool with friends.
Mr. Sivak’s son lives in San Francisco and has a car but takes Bay Area Rapid Transit, when
he can, even though that often takes longer than driving. “When I was in my 20s and 30s,” Mr.
Sivak said, “I was curious about what kind of car people drove, but young people don’t really
care. A car is just a means of getting from A to B when BART doesn’t work.”
A study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001
and 2009. . . .
Whether members of the millennial generation will start buying more cars once they have
kids to take to soccer practice and school plays remains an open question. But such projections
have important business implications, even if car buyers are merely older or buying fewer cars in
a lifetime rather than rejecting car culture outright.
At the Mobile World Congress last year in Barcelona, Spain, Bill Ford, executive chairman of
the Ford Motor Company, laid out a business plan for a world in which personal vehicle ownership
is impractical or undesirable. He proposed partnering with the telecommunications industry to
create cities in which “pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation
traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and
improve safety.”
incipient: at an initial stage; beginning to happen
or develop
Excerpt from “The End of Car Culture” by
Elisabeth Rosenthal, from the New York Times.
Copyright © 2013 by the New York Times
Company. Reprinted by permission of the New
York Times Company via Copyright Clearance
Center. |
AAAOPP13416000145753 | 4 | The Face isn't made by aliens becuase it is just a natural land form, and if we look at pictures taken be our spacecraft is will show us it is not a face. Also the Face was proven to be just a land form by Global Surveyor when it took a new picture in 2001.
The face is also not alian made becuase if it was there would be more then just a face to prove that they were there. Also scientists can discern things in a digital image 3 times bigger than the pixel size to see if the picture was right and that it's not a face. Also another thing is the picture actually shows that it is the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa that are landforms common around the American West.
Another reason it could have looked like a face is the took a picture of the Face on Mars and its located at 41 degrees north martian latitude where it was winter in April 1998. Witch means the camera on board MGS had to peer through wispy clouds to see the Face. Witch could have messed up the picture. The new picture was taken on Nevertheless April 8, 2001a cloudless summer day in CydoniaMars Global Surveyor drew close enough for a second look at the face. They had to roll the spacecraft 25 degrees to center the Face in the field of view. Malins team captured an extraordinary photo using the cameras absolute maximum resolution. Each pixel in the 2001 image spans 1.56 meters, compared to 43 meters per pixel in the best 1976 Viking photo. Before they got that picture they had to do alot of hard work.
Heres what the did, Mission controllers prepared to look again. they said Its not easy to target Cydonia. In fact, its hard work. Mars Global Surveyor is a mapping spacecraft that normally looks straight down and scans the planet like a fax machine in narrow 2.5 km-wide strips. They just dont pass over the Face very often. The first time they took the pickture it wasnt that good of a picture. This is what happened before they got the good photo. On April 5, 1998, when Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia for the first time, Michael Malin and his Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) team snapped a picture ten times sharper than the original Viking photos. Thousands of anxious web surfers were waiting when the image first appeared on a JPL web site, revealing. a natural landform. There was no alien monument after all. It was a better photo then the first one taken by the viking but it had a glare and wasn't as good as the second one.
This is why the face isn't an alien artifact, and it is also why it is not being looked at alot and observed. The Face is just a natural landform on mars that is sorta like a butte or mesalandform found around the American West. It alo kinda looks like the Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho. The Middle Butte a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars. Thats why Its not Alien it is just a natural land form. | You have read the article 'Unmasking the Face on Mars.' Imagine you are a scientist at NASA discussing the Face with someone who thinks it was created by aliens. Using information in the article, write an argumentative essay to convince someone that the Face is just a natural landform.Be sure to include: claims to support your argument that the Face is a natural landform; evidence from the article to support your claims; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your argumentative essay. | The Face on Mars | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | White | M | Unmasking the Face on Mars
Side by side: a Viking 1 photo from 1975, a Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) image from 1998, and the latest MGS image from 2001.
New high-resolution images and 3D altimetry from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft reveal the Face on Mars for what it really is: a mesa.
On May 24, 2001—Twenty five years ago, something funny happened around Mars. NASA’s Viking 1 spacecraft was circling the planet, snapping photos of possible landing sites for its sister ship Viking 2, when it spotted the shadowy likeness of a human face. An enormous head nearly two miles from end to end seemed to be staring back at the cameras from a region of the Red Planet called Cydonia.
There must have been a degree of surprise among mission controllers back at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory when the face appeared on their monitors. But the sensation was short-lived. Scientists figured it was just another Martian mesa, common enough around Cydonia, only this one had unusual shadows that made it look like an Egyptian Pharaoh.
A few days later NASA unveiled the image for all to see. The caption noted a “huge rock formation . . . which resembles a human head . . . formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose, and mouth.” The authors reasoned it would be a good way to engage the public and attract attention to Mars.
It certainly did!
The “Face on Mars” has since become a pop icon. It has starred in a Hollywood film, appeared in books, magazines, radio talk shows – even haunted grocery store checkout lines for 25 years! Some people think the Face is bona fide evidence of life on Mars – evidence that NASA would rather hide, say conspiracy theorists. Meanwhile, defenders of the NASA budget wish there was an ancient civilization on Mars.
A 1976 Viking 1 photograph of the Face on Mars
Although few scientists believed the Face was an alien artifact, photographing Cydonia became a priority for NASA when Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) arrived at the Red Planet in Sept. 1997, eighteen long years after the Viking missions ended. “We felt this was important to taxpayers,” explained Jim Garvin, chief scientist for NASA’s mars Exploration Program. “We photographed the Face as soon as we could get a good shot at it.”
And so on April 5, 1998, when Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia for the first time, Michael Malin and his Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) team snapped a picture ten times sharper than the original Viking photos. Thousands of anxious web surfers were waiting when the image first appeared on a JPL web site, revealing . . . a natural landform. There was no alien monument after all.
But not everyone was satisfied. The Face on Mars is located at 41 degrees north martial latitude where it was winter in April ‘98 – a cloudy time of year on the Red Planet. The camera on board MGS had to peer through wispy clouds to see the Face. Perhaps, said skeptics, alien markings were hidden by haze.
Mission controllers prepared to look again. “It’s not easy to target Cydonia,” says Garvin. “In fact, it’s hard work.” Mars Global Surveyor is a mapping spacecraft that normally looks straight down and scans the planet like a fax machine in narrow 2.5 km-wide strips. “We don’t pass over the Face very often,” he noted.
Nevertheless, on April 8, 2001 – a cloudless summer day in Cydonia – Mars Global Surveyor drew close enough for a second look. “We had to roll the spacecraft 25 degrees to center the Face in the field of view,” said Garvin. “Malin’s team captured an extraordinary photo using the camera’s absolute maximum resolution.” Each pixel in the 2001 image spans 1.56 meters, compared to the 43 meters per pixel in the best 1976 Viking photo.
“As a rule of thumb, you can discern things in a digital image 3 times bigger than the pixel size,” he added. “So, if there were objects in this picture like airplanes on the ground or Egyptian-style pyramids or even small shacks, you could see what they were!”
What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa – landforms common around the American West. “It reminds me of most of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho,” says Garvin. “That’s a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars.”
Text and photographs courtsey of NASA, “Unmasking the Face on Mars,” May 24, 2001 (retrieved from science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast24may_1/) | null | null | null |
AAAVUP14319000029724 | 3 | "The Challenge of Expoloring venus" the author suggests that studing Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. The article states that
"Venus is the closest plant
to
Earth
in terms
of density, and size, and occasionally
the clostest in distance."
Scientsits what to study Venus becasue
of it being so close to Earth.The article also states that " Venus is aroudn the cornor in-spance terms
- humans sent numerous spacecrafts." That
scincetist
want to study Venus that theysent spacecrafts
their to gather information for them so that the can learn more about Venus.
The texts states that " Venus is a challageing plnat for humans to study, despirt of it's proximity to us." That even throught they want to study Venus it's hard for them to do becasue of Venus have so many problems were
people can't study. THe article states "
On plants sufacace, tempature averages 800 degrees fahrenheirt, and the atmospheric pressure is 90
time greater than
what we experiantice on our own plant." That we can't
got to Venus becasue of how hot it is. even if we did we wont be able to survive that time of heat there.
That they are trying to find different
safer was for them to study Venus. The text states " NACA'S possible
solution
to the hotiles
conditions on the surface of Venus
would allow scienitsts
to float above the fray. imaigne
a blimp- like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roling Venusian landscape." NACA's caem up with a plain
to make it safer and easier for people to study Venus withtout getting
hurt in the process.
That type of project that NACA is coming up witha has been around i since the 1800s that article states that" These devices wre first envisioned in the 1800s anmd played an important role in the 1940s in worls war 2." So, not only is it going to be helpful, safer, and easier for them to study Venus. It was also helpful, easier,
for people in world war 2.
"The challenge fo Exploring Venus" is still a working progress
in find and seeing if
it's going to wrok and be helpful for them to study and learn more about Venus and how it's the closest plant to Earth. | In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus," the author suggests studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. Using details from the article, write an essay evaluating how well the author supports this idea. Be sure to include: a claim that evaluates how well the author supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers; an explanation of the evidence from the article that supports your claim; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your essay. | Exploring Venus | Not economically disadvantaged | Identified as having disability | No | White | F | The Challenge of Exploring Venus
Venus, sometimes called the “Evening Star,” is one of the brightest points of light in the night sky, making it simple for even and amateur stargazer to spot. However, this nickname is misleading since Venus is actually a planet. While Venus is simple to see from the distant but safe vantage point of Earth, it has proved a very challenging place to examine more closely.
Often referred to as Earth's “twin,” Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size, and occasionally the closest in distance too. Earth, Venus, and Mars, our other planetary neighbor, orbit the sun at different speeds. These differences in speed mean that sometimes we are closer to Mars and other times to Venus. Because Venus is sometimes right around the corner - in space terms - humans have spent numerous spacecraft to land on this cloud-draped world. Each previous mission was unmanned, and for good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours. Maybe this issue explains why not a single spaceship has touched down of Venus in more than three decades. Numberous factors contribute to Venus's reputation as a challenging planet for humans to study, despite its proximity to us.
A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere. On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet. These conditions are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth; such an environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans and would liquefy many metals. Also notable, Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system, even though Mercury is closer to our sun. Beyond high presure and heat, Venusian geology and weather present additional impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface.
If our sister is so inhospitable, why are scientists even discussing further visits to its surface? Astronomers are fascinated by Venus beccause it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth. Today, Venus still has some features that are analogous to those on Earth. The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters. Furthermore, recall that Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit, a crucial consideration given the long time frames of space travel. The value of returning to Venus seems indisputable, but what are the options for making such a mission both safe and scientifically productive?
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has one particularly compelling idea for sending humans to study Venus. NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray. Imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape. Just as our jet airplanes travel at a higher altitude to fly over many storms, a vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly ground conditions by staying up and out of their way. At thirty-plus miles above the surface, temperatures would still be toasty at around 170 degrees Farenheit, but the air pressure would be close to that of sea level on Earth. Solar power would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth levels. Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans.
However, peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions rendering standard forms of photography and videography ineffective. More importantly, researchers cannot take samples of rock, gas, or anything else, from a distance. Therefore, scientists seeking to conduct a thorough mission to understand Venus would need to get up close and personal despite the risks. Or maybe we should think of them as challenges. Many researchers are working on innovattions that would allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowledge of Venus.
NASA is working on other approaches to studying Venus. For example, some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simuulating the chaos of Venus's surface and have laster for three weeks in such conditions. Another project is looking back to an old technology called mechanical computers. These devices were first envisioned in the 1800s and played an important role int he 1940s during World War II. The thought of computers existing in those days may sound shocking, but these devices make calculations by using gears and levers and do not require electronics at all. Modern commputers are enormously powerful, flexible, and quick, but tend to be more delicate when it comes to extreme physical conditions. Just imagine exposing a cell phone or tablet to acid or heat capable of melting tin. By comparison, systems that use mechanical parts can be made mroe resistant to pressure, heat, and other forces.
Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also because human curiousity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors. Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation. | null | null | null |
AAAVUP14319000053510 | 4 | In "The Challenge of Expliring Venus," the author supports the idea that Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. He does this by showing us the challenges Venus withholds, then gives us solutions to the problems and tells us why we should even explore Venus.
First, he provides problems the reader might have with exploring Venus.The main problem presented is Venus' weather conditions. It is stated that " A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challening are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric ascid in Venus's atmosphere. On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Farenhite, and the atmospheric pressure is over 90 time greater than what we experience on our own planet".
With all these problems, it would seem quite unlikely to the reader that humans would be able to effectivly explore Venus. However, the author does provide solutions to these problems. The first solution is " a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape". Then , the author provides more ideas like "simplified electronics made of silicon carbide" or "old technology called mechanical computers".
Now that the author has answered questions the reader might have about exploring a place like Venus, he shows why we should explore Venus. The main reason why we should explore Venus is that it will prepare humans for even greater and tougher challenges. The author states, "Striving to meet the challeng presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight gained on the planet itself, but also because human curiostity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors".
In conclusion, I belive the author does a good job of convincing the audience that Venus is worth exploring. By answering doubts the reader might have, the author is able to easily show that we most likely are able to explore places like Venus. Then the author gives a very strong reason as to why we should explore Venus at the end of his writing. | In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus," the author suggests studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. Using details from the article, write an essay evaluating how well the author supports this idea. Be sure to include: a claim that evaluates how well the author supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers; an explanation of the evidence from the article that supports your claim; an introduction, a body, and a conclusion to your essay. | Exploring Venus | Economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | White | M | The Challenge of Exploring Venus
Venus, sometimes called the “Evening Star,” is one of the brightest points of light in the night sky, making it simple for even and amateur stargazer to spot. However, this nickname is misleading since Venus is actually a planet. While Venus is simple to see from the distant but safe vantage point of Earth, it has proved a very challenging place to examine more closely.
Often referred to as Earth's “twin,” Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size, and occasionally the closest in distance too. Earth, Venus, and Mars, our other planetary neighbor, orbit the sun at different speeds. These differences in speed mean that sometimes we are closer to Mars and other times to Venus. Because Venus is sometimes right around the corner - in space terms - humans have spent numerous spacecraft to land on this cloud-draped world. Each previous mission was unmanned, and for good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours. Maybe this issue explains why not a single spaceship has touched down of Venus in more than three decades. Numberous factors contribute to Venus's reputation as a challenging planet for humans to study, despite its proximity to us.
A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere. On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet. These conditions are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth; such an environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans and would liquefy many metals. Also notable, Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system, even though Mercury is closer to our sun. Beyond high presure and heat, Venusian geology and weather present additional impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface.
If our sister is so inhospitable, why are scientists even discussing further visits to its surface? Astronomers are fascinated by Venus beccause it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth. Today, Venus still has some features that are analogous to those on Earth. The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters. Furthermore, recall that Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit, a crucial consideration given the long time frames of space travel. The value of returning to Venus seems indisputable, but what are the options for making such a mission both safe and scientifically productive?
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has one particularly compelling idea for sending humans to study Venus. NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray. Imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape. Just as our jet airplanes travel at a higher altitude to fly over many storms, a vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly ground conditions by staying up and out of their way. At thirty-plus miles above the surface, temperatures would still be toasty at around 170 degrees Farenheit, but the air pressure would be close to that of sea level on Earth. Solar power would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth levels. Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans.
However, peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions rendering standard forms of photography and videography ineffective. More importantly, researchers cannot take samples of rock, gas, or anything else, from a distance. Therefore, scientists seeking to conduct a thorough mission to understand Venus would need to get up close and personal despite the risks. Or maybe we should think of them as challenges. Many researchers are working on innovattions that would allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowledge of Venus.
NASA is working on other approaches to studying Venus. For example, some simplified electronics made of silicon carbide have been tested in a chamber simuulating the chaos of Venus's surface and have laster for three weeks in such conditions. Another project is looking back to an old technology called mechanical computers. These devices were first envisioned in the 1800s and played an important role int he 1940s during World War II. The thought of computers existing in those days may sound shocking, but these devices make calculations by using gears and levers and do not require electronics at all. Modern commputers are enormously powerful, flexible, and quick, but tend to be more delicate when it comes to extreme physical conditions. Just imagine exposing a cell phone or tablet to acid or heat capable of melting tin. By comparison, systems that use mechanical parts can be made mroe resistant to pressure, heat, and other forces.
Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also because human curiousity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors. Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation. | null | null | null |
5164142 | 3 | When we vote for our next president, do you have a voice? When you vote, you pick an "ellectoral college" to do the real vote. Our founding fathers decided to establish it, It's a weird system to follow though. No matter who has the popular vote, over fifty percent of the votes, will not win because of this system. I believe the people should truely decide on who becomes president, not a system.
When we vote, were just picking someone to vote for us again. If thats true then whats the point of voting? Over 60 percent of voters now would perfer a direct election because the ones who get over fifty percent of the "peoples" votes seem to lose just because of this system. John F. Kennedy won from a popular vote but if the electoral system was applied then, if that happend all the great things he did would be gone. The electoral college is outdated and irrational and needs to be changed.
Even if we argue about the system it'll probably never change, the unfairness. Lots of people decide not to vote because of this. People are realizing that votes aren't what they seem they are anymore, people in California and Texas stopped voting because they believed their vote had no effect which is close to the truth. More and more people are not voting, the main reason is this system.
If you think the electoral college is fair, think again. People might say "oh, it's made because people who vote aren't educated enough to decide". Are they calling the voters stupid? The only people who care to vote are the ones who mosy liekly did the research on the person before voting to make sure that person is making the right decision for our future. Oh, wait votes won't matter because the electoral college is doing it for us. The people's votes are just fake ones and dont really matter so why vote?
Does the popular vote matter? Why do we still vote? The electoral college does all the work, no matter what we do. We could have over half the votes on one president and have the other one win instead. The system we have to vote is flawed and should be removed so "we the people" can decide who to be president. We should decide on who leads out country to success. | Write a letter to your state senator in which you argue in favor of keeping the Electoral College or changing to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. Use the information from the texts in your essay. Manage your time carefully so that you can read the passages; plan your response; write your response; and revise and edit your response. Be sure to include a claim; address counterclaims; use evidence from multiple sources; and avoid overly relying on one source. Your response should be in the form of a multiparagraph essay. Write your response in the space provided. | Does the electoral college work? | null | null | No | White | M | What Is the
Electoral College?
by the Office of the Federal Register
The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the
Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and
election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.
The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the
electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes
by Congress.
The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required
to elect the President. Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in
its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for
your Senators. . . .
Under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution, the District of Columbia is allocated 3
electors and treated like a state for purposes of the Electoral College. For this reason, in the
following discussion, the word “state” also refers to the District of Columbia.
Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. The
electors are generally chosen by the candidate’s political party, but state laws vary on how the
electors are selected and what their responsibilities are. . . .
The presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in
November. You help choose your state’s electors when you vote for President because when you
vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate’s electors.
Most states have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors to the winning
presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of “proportional representation.” . . .
After the presidential election, your governor prepares a “Certificate of Ascertainment”
listing all of the candidates who ran for President in your state along with the names of their
respective electors. The Certificate of Ascertainment also declares the winning presidential
candidate in your state and shows which electors will represent your state at the meeting of the
electors in December of the election year. Your state’s Certificates of Ascertainments are sent to
the Congress and the National Archives as part of the official records of the presidential election.
Excerpt from “What Is the Electoral College?” by
the Office of the Federal Register, from
www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoralcollege/about.html. In the public domain. | The Indefensible
Electoral College: Why even
the best-laid defenses of
the system are wrong
by Bradford Plumer
What have Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the
AFL-CIO all, in their time, agreed on? Answer: Abolishing the electoral college! They’re not alone;
according to a Gallup poll in 2000, taken shortly after Al Gore—thanks to the quirks of the
electoral college—won the popular vote but lost the presidency, over 60 percent of voters would
prefer a direct election to the kind we have now. This year voters can expect another close
election in which the popular vote winner could again lose the presidency. And yet, the electoral
college still has its defenders. What gives? . . .
What’s wrong with the electoral college
Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of
electors, who in turn elect the president. If you lived in Texas, for instance, and wanted to vote
for [John] Kerry, you’d vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors pledged to Kerry. On the offchance that those electors won the statewide election, they would go to Congress and Kerry
would get 34 electoral votes. Who are the electors? They can be anyone not holding public office.
Who picks the electors in the first place? It depends on the state. Sometimes state conventions,
sometimes the state party’s central committee, sometimes the presidential candidates
themselves. Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always. Do voters sometimes
get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate? Sometimes.
The single best argument against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster
factor. The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the
biggest election crisis in a century; the system allows for much worse. Consider that state
legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always
defy the will of the people. Back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly
succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F.
Kennedy. (So that a popular vote for Kennedy would not have actually gone to Kennedy.) In the
same vein, “faithless” electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party’s candidate and
cast a deciding vote for whomever they please. . . . Oh, and what if a state sends two slates of
electors to Congress? It happened in Hawaii in 1960. Luckily, Vice President Richard Nixon, who
was presiding over the Senate, validated only his opponent’s electors, but he made sure to do so
“without establishing a precedent.” What if it happened again?
Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. In that case, the
election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the
president. (The Senate would choose the vice-president.) Because each state casts only one vote,
the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say
as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters. Given that many
voters vote one party for president and another for Congress, the House’s selection can hardly be
expected to reflect the will of the people. And if an electoral tie seems unlikely, consider this: In
1968, a shift of just 41,971 votes would have deadlocked the election; In 1976, a tie would have
occurred if a mere 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted the other way. The
election is only a few swing voters away from catastrophe.
At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winner-takeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of
winning, focusing only on the tight races in the “swing” states. 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 anyone has a
good argument for putting the fate of the presidency in the hands of a few swing voters in Ohio,
they have yet to make it. . . .
It’s official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The best arguments in
favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality. And the arguments against direct
elections are spurious at best. It’s hard to say this, but Bob Dole was right: Abolish the electoral
college!
lost the presidency: In the 2000 U.S. presidential
race, Al Gore received more individual votes than
George W. Bush nationwide, but Bush won the
election, receiving 271 electoral votes to Gore’s
266.
John Kerry: Kerry ran for President against George
W. Bush (43rd president of the United States),
representing the Democratic Party in 2004.
segregationists: people who favored separation
based on race
Excerpt from “The Indefensible Electoral College:
Why even the best-laid defenses are wrong” from
Mother Jones by Bradford Plumer. Copyright ©
2004 by Mother Jones and the Foundation for
National Progress. All Rights Reserved. | In Defense of the
Electoral College: Five
reasons to keep our
despised method of
choosing the President
by Judge Richard A. Posner
The Electoral College is widely regarded as an anachronism, a non-democratic method of
selecting a president that ought to be [overruled] by declaring the candidate who receives the
most popular votes the winner. The advocates of this position are correct in arguing that 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 presidential candidate you’re actually voting for a
slate of electors.
But each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party’s nominee (and that
trust is rarely betrayed) . . . [; however,] it is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral
vote will not win the national popular vote. Yet that has happened very rarely. It happened in
2000, when Gore had more popular votes than Bush yet fewer electoral votes, but that was the
first time since 1888.
There are five reasons for retaining the Electoral College despite its lack of democratic
pedigree; all are practical reasons, not liberal or conservative reasons.
1) Certainty of Outcome
A dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote is possible—it happened in 2000
—but it’s less likely than a dispute over the popular vote. The reason is that the winning
candidate’s share of the Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote. In
[2012’s] election, for example, Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to
only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and Romney. . . . Because almost all states
award electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis, even a very slight plurality in a state creates a
landslide electoral-vote victory in that state. A tie in the nationwide electoral vote is possible
because the total number of votes—538—is an even number, but it is highly unlikely. . . .
2) Everyone’s President
The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have trans-regional appeal. No
region (South, Northeast, etc.) has enough electoral votes to elect a president. So a solid regional
favorite, such as Romney was in the South, has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states,
for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his plurality in states that he knows he will win. This
is a desirable result because a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful
president. The residents of the other regions are likely to feel disenfranchised—to feel that their
votes do not count, that the new president will have no regard for their interests, that he really
isn’t their president.
3) Swing States
The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes induces the candidates—as we saw
in [2012’s] election—to focus their campaign efforts on the toss-up states . . . . Voters in toss-up
states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign—to really listen to the competing
candidates—knowing that they are going to decide the election. They are likely to be the most
thoughtful voters, on average (and for the further reason that they will have received the most
information and attention from the candidates), and the most thoughtful voters should be the
ones to decide the election.
4) Big States
The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states
(by population) lose by virtue of the mal-apportionment of the Senate decreed in the
Constitution. . . . The popular vote was very close in Florida [in 2012]; nevertheless Obama, who
won that vote, got 29 electoral votes. A victory by the same margin in Wyoming would net the
winner only 3 electoral votes. So, other things being equal, a large state gets more attention from
presidential candidates in a campaign than a small state does. . . .
5) Avoid Run-Off Elections
The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a
majority of the votes cast. For example, Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had only a 43
percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the Electoral College (301 and
370 electoral votes, respectively). There is pressure for run-off elections when no candidate wins
a majority of the votes cast; that pressure, which would greatly complicate the presidential
election process, is reduced by the Electoral College, which invariably produces a clear winner. . . .
It can be argued that the Electoral College method of selecting the president may turn off
potential voters for a candidate who has no hope of carrying their state—Democrats in Texas, for
example, or Republicans in California. Knowing their vote will have no effect, they have less
incentive to pay attention to the campaign than they would have if the president were picked by
popular vote . . . . But of course no voter’s vote swings a national election, and in spite of that,
about one-half the eligible American population did vote in [2012’s] election. Voters in
presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people
who think that a single vote may decide an election. . . .
anachronism: a person or a thing that seems to
belong to the past and not to fit in the present
pedigree: the origin and history of something,
especially when it is good or impressive
liberal or conservative: political philosophies
commonly seen as opposite each other
Obama: Barack Obama, 44th president of the
United States
Romney: Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee for
President in 2012
plurality: when a candidate receives more votes
than other candidates while not receiving a clear
majority of votes
Excerpt from “In Defense of the Electoral College:
Five reasons to keep our despised method of
choosing the President” from Slate Magazine by
Judge Richard A. Posner. Copyright © 2012. | null |
AAATRP14318000407847 | 3 | There is great value in the use of having the Facial Action Coding System in a classroom of students. Many teachers could really benefit from using technology that reads emotions by knowing the kids better and helping them. If teachers were to use the Facial Action Coding System in their classroom, they could help the students stay on track during class and be notified by the technology if the lesson does or doesn't help the students learn better.
The use of this emotion recognition technology could potentially help the teacher know if the students are paying attention during the lesson. For example, if a student has fallen asleep during a lesson then the technology would pick up that the student's facial expression has changed to bored or sleepy. Then the teacher could remind that student that they need to be paying attention. This would add value to the classroom by helping the student actually gain knowledge and do well. The teacher would also be able to help the class focus without having anyone that he/she did not know was a distraction by using the new technology. For example, if a student is talking or laughing while the teacher is teaching then the software could send a notification to the teacher letting them know about the inattentiveness in the class room. This would help the classroom by allowing more kids to learn in a better environment.
The facial expression recognition software could also allow the teacher to see if the kids are actually learning or not from the lesson. This could help by showing the teacher if they need to switch up their teaching method for some kids or not. It could also allow the teacher to see those who are struggling. The technology would allow the students to learn better based off of what the computer tells the teacher to change in their performance.
In conclusion, The Facial Action Coding System does add value when in use in a classroom full of students. The software would help the teacher teach better as well as help the students learn and stay focused better. I think that having this software would change the future of classrooms around the world for the good. | In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile," the author describes how a new technology called the Facial Action Coding System enables computers to identify human emotions. Using details from the article, write an essay arguing whether the use of this technology to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is valuable. | Facial action coding system | Not economically disadvantaged | Not identified as having disability | No | White | M | Copyright Restricted | null | null | null |
AAATRP14318000944089 | 3 | I think that the new technology, FACS
which stands for facial action coding system is valuable. Because knowing how others are feeling can help develop stronger relationships and bonds with friends and family. And can also help a person console another person if they are feeling sad, lonely, and angry, even if the other person doesn't show their true emotions/ feelings.
And the technology FACS
can recognize different human emotions such as sadness or happiness even if the person's face doesn't have any emotion or expressions on it.
And we could also learn more on how our emotions change from time to time and why they change.
And could help develop better ways for humans and computers to communicate.
And it would help people that have trouble describing each facial trait that conveys happy, worried, and other emotions like that.
And it may help with teaching students. Like, say if a person is bored they probably won't learn as much as someone who isn't bored. Or that if someone is confused they don't really learn anything and it doesn't really help them focus either. But someone who isn't confused or isn't bored will likely learn better than those who are confused or bored.
If it is something that the student likes or is intersted it they will likely listen and probably won't be confused nor bored. But if it is something that they don't really like or it isn't interesting to them then they may not pay attention to it and may get bored and/or get confused.
And may help people learn and grow well.
And also if the person learning doesn't really like the lesson or is not interested or is bored or confused then the computer can change the lesson to something that the student will probably like and not be bored or confused with anything on or in the lesson. Or the computer can suggest something else or another lesson for the student to do to see if they do better in the lesson and enjoy it more and focus more.
It can improve education and how well students know everything and can encourage good attitudes and positive things in the present and the future.
Also, it can help encourage people to talk more often and make friends and to also encourage people to help others and things like that.
And maybe advise teachers in a way to make the lesson their teaching more enjoyable and helpful by playing games or letting students have a group of partners to help them and such.
And may help students have better grades/ do better in school and maybe even do better in extra- curricular activities such as sports.
And help student focus on the things they need to do. And help the teachers to make lessons where it will help the students learn better and be more fun for them.
May also inspire people to work harder or more and do different things and come up with new or different ideas and such. And may even motivate the person to do something that they want to do or accomplish.
Possibly even to pursue goals and/ or dreams . And technology can help us with a lot of different things like understanding how things work and other things like that. | In the article "Making Mona Lisa Smile," the author describes how a new technology called the Facial Action Coding System enables computers to identify human emotions. Using details from the article, write an essay arguing whether the use of this technology to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is valuable. | Facial action coding system | Economically disadvantaged | Identified as having disability | No | White | M | Copyright Restricted | null | null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.