Remember, folks, if you wish to earn extra credit points for your blog grade, feel free to respond to any of the blog entries you may have missed on --
http://www.comp2issuestues.blogspot.com
http://www.comp2issuestr.blogspot.com
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
Is going green the right thing to do?
“Going Green” is the wave of the future for most major companies. Helping to cut down on the use of fossil fuels and reduce pollution are the major goals of going green. Many of these big companies use a lot on energy, but now they’re changing the way they operate to help prevent the risk of global warming for our future generations. Hewlard Packard, Toyota and many more major companies are changing their operating procedures to help the environment.
Will this actually benefit our world for future generations?
Charles-
One company that stands out for going green is Toyota. Their new Prius hybrid is very fuel efficient -- it gets about 48 miles per gallon, a 40% increase in fuel efficiency over average vehicles. Another benefit is lowered emissions. Emissions can be reduced from 25% to 90%, when comparing hybrid cars to conventional gas-powered vehicles. The good thing about it is that it reduces gas emissions and slows down global warming. This is a great way to help save the environment and improve our overall quality of life.
Johnny-
Who doesn’t like saving money these days? Hewlard Packard, the second largest company based on sales, is going green on almost all of their computers. What does this mean for you? The biggest benefit would be having a computer that would consume about 40% less energy than a non “green” computer, which, in return, would make your electric bill a lot cheaper. If you’re on your computer as much as I am, that would be a big savings for you. The other great reason for buying a green PC would be, it will be manufactured with almost all recycled parts. The more we recycle, the less waste we will use and the better it will be for our environment for not only us, but our future generations as well.
David-
I do not have enough time to explain all the facts that make global warming a giant hoax perpetrated to tax United States companies and individuals through the insidious "Cap and Trade" or carbon tax legislation proposed by Congress. The rest of the world, that represents 77% of the energy consumption, will not participate. Hitler once said "The bigger the lie, and the more often you tell the lie, the more people will believe it". Approximately 3% of the carbon dioxide, 8% of methane, and 5% of nitrous oxide emissions are man made. Carbon dioxide is only a minor greenhouse gas—95% of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor and clouds. The rest occur naturally because they are vital to life on earth. Increased CO2 levels actually benefits nature by increasing photosynthesis in plants, which, in turn, causes more forestation and increased oxygen output.
As any geologist would know, 450 million years ago, when carbon dioxide levels were ten times higher than today, the earth went into an ice age. We have only warmed .6 of one degree C. in the last 100 years, and that was during the industrial revolution. Temperatures in 1938 were the warmest in recorded history. Temperatures all over the planet have been cooling since 1998, and the polar ice caps are growing at a rapid pace.
Don’t forget the same goofballs in the 1970’s were predicting an ice age in 10 years. Global warming is a giant boondoggle perpetrated by the Marxist/Leninist far left Democratic Party, along with biased, sycophantic and complicit media. This is simply a power grab by socialists, and a vehicle for the redistribution of wealth. When all is said and done, it boils down to this: for the bargain price of just $300 trillion of your money, we could theoretically lower global mean temperature by about 1 degree C., and even that 1 degree C is debatable.
Sources-
“Climate and Energy.” Hewlett-Packard Development Company 2009. 11 Mar. 2009.
Will this actually benefit our world for future generations?
Charles-
One company that stands out for going green is Toyota. Their new Prius hybrid is very fuel efficient -- it gets about 48 miles per gallon, a 40% increase in fuel efficiency over average vehicles. Another benefit is lowered emissions. Emissions can be reduced from 25% to 90%, when comparing hybrid cars to conventional gas-powered vehicles. The good thing about it is that it reduces gas emissions and slows down global warming. This is a great way to help save the environment and improve our overall quality of life.
Johnny-
Who doesn’t like saving money these days? Hewlard Packard, the second largest company based on sales, is going green on almost all of their computers. What does this mean for you? The biggest benefit would be having a computer that would consume about 40% less energy than a non “green” computer, which, in return, would make your electric bill a lot cheaper. If you’re on your computer as much as I am, that would be a big savings for you. The other great reason for buying a green PC would be, it will be manufactured with almost all recycled parts. The more we recycle, the less waste we will use and the better it will be for our environment for not only us, but our future generations as well.
David-
I do not have enough time to explain all the facts that make global warming a giant hoax perpetrated to tax United States companies and individuals through the insidious "Cap and Trade" or carbon tax legislation proposed by Congress. The rest of the world, that represents 77% of the energy consumption, will not participate. Hitler once said "The bigger the lie, and the more often you tell the lie, the more people will believe it". Approximately 3% of the carbon dioxide, 8% of methane, and 5% of nitrous oxide emissions are man made. Carbon dioxide is only a minor greenhouse gas—95% of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor and clouds. The rest occur naturally because they are vital to life on earth. Increased CO2 levels actually benefits nature by increasing photosynthesis in plants, which, in turn, causes more forestation and increased oxygen output.
As any geologist would know, 450 million years ago, when carbon dioxide levels were ten times higher than today, the earth went into an ice age. We have only warmed .6 of one degree C. in the last 100 years, and that was during the industrial revolution. Temperatures in 1938 were the warmest in recorded history. Temperatures all over the planet have been cooling since 1998, and the polar ice caps are growing at a rapid pace.
Don’t forget the same goofballs in the 1970’s were predicting an ice age in 10 years. Global warming is a giant boondoggle perpetrated by the Marxist/Leninist far left Democratic Party, along with biased, sycophantic and complicit media. This is simply a power grab by socialists, and a vehicle for the redistribution of wealth. When all is said and done, it boils down to this: for the bargain price of just $300 trillion of your money, we could theoretically lower global mean temperature by about 1 degree C., and even that 1 degree C is debatable.
Sources-
“Climate and Energy.” Hewlett-Packard Development Company 2009. 11 Mar. 2009
Friday, March 6, 2009
Raising the driving age?
Annual crashes from car accidents are often caused by reckless young drivers, especially between the ages of 16 and 25. The main reason comes from a lack of experience on the road. Recently, there has been a discussion about raising the licensure age from 16 to 17. Many teenagers have given strong feedback on the issue because of a need for their own transportation other than asking parents for rides. On the other hand, parents are in extreme agreement with this idea because they believe it's better that way for the safety of their children.
What is your opinion about whether we should enforce this idea to become a law?
Check out this article:
http://www3.fertilethoughts.com/forums/showthread.php?t=613653
Mai-Thao Nguyen: I strongly agree with the idea that we should put this into the driving law. There are way too many car accidents caused from teen drivers, especially from those who just got the license and are excited to show off with friends. Why the rush of getting a driver license to drive your own car, but you might cause troubles for other drivers on the road? Even raising it just one year (from 16 to 17) isn't enough. It requires both experience and maturity for young drivers to learn before they can be deemed as being "safe" drivers.
Lance Ferguson: Some car insurance agencies have been pressuring lawmakers to raise the legal driving age to 17. They insist that an extra year before a teen starts to drive will improve the safety on the streets. Although the age has already been raised in New Jersey, I do not think that this is a good idea. Teenagers just starting to drive will have their license revoked, and some would probably continue to drive even without their license.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Mass marketing the President and his family?
As an opportunity for businesses to make a profit, the Obama family image and name has been thrown on anything marketable such as beanie babies, dog jerseys, canvas shoes, bobble head dolls, and even THONGS(and we are not talking about flip flops)!
Some marketers argue that they are portraying the President and his family as role models. Do you think this is true, or are they exploiting the 1st Family for financial gain?
Check out these websites to see some of the items that American consumers are purchasing:
www.zazzle.com/obama+memorabilia+gifts?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/01/22/obama.dolls/
Our responses:
Jessica Burton: I believe the Obama family is being exploited by the marketing world. President Obama's election will forever be known as a historical feat for America. It will be remembered without bobble head dolls, or beanie babies that mimic the President's daughters. The first family deserves a little respect and privacy. Let's stop trying to make another buck and give the Obamas a little space.
Brittany McBryde: It is a great, historic moment having the first African-American President. It is definitely an occasion to celebrate and remember. However, I feel the marketing world and consumers are going to the exteme. Obama and his family are on anything you can think of from coasters, shoes, aprons, ties, to Ty Beanie Babies that resemble the Obama girls. It is a little ridiculous and out of hand. Every President before simply had stickers, shirts, and buttons. The marketing world and consumers are taking advantage of a historic moment in our country.
Yuen Chun Wong: I don’t think that it is wrong for the marketing world to make a profit from the President and his family. It’s a miracle that President Obama won the election. He became an idol as any of his predecessors -- like Presidents Lincoln and Roosevelt. Whether his achievement is greater than theirs or not, the President and his family aren’t the usual public people like some movie stars. They are the people who live in White House. They are the American dream family. President Obama’s image and name belong to the people, belong to the nation and belong to history. This is not the first day that people have worshiped their leader. The market using their name and image to make products is not exploiting them, but it will popularize their family. Besides, in this economic crisis, their products benefit the market and native industry. I think the President and his family are not bothered by the market selling products using their image.
Admatha St Hillaire: In the world of marketing, I believe one man's gain is always at another man's expense. I feel divided on whether the portraying of the Obama family is a positive thing or if it is exploiting their family image. Yes, he is the "first" President of African descent, and his presidency should be commemorated. On the other hand, there should be a limit on how many knick-knacks that can come from this. In my opinion AUTHENTIC t-shirts, hats, even display china are okay, but dolls are redundant. There's always more than one way to make money, but, for the most part, I feel like if it is to have someone's name or face on it, like the Ty beanie babies named Shasha & Malia (president's daughters), when caught in the act, don't lie about it!
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Are you willing to sign a parental prenuptial agreement?
When a blended family comes together, should both parents share authority equally? If not, who should, and what are the limitations?
A blended family consists of multiple variations of family members living together (such as step-parents and half-siblings). Blended families have many issues, some of which include biological parent/child siding, "unfair" disciplining, step-parent/child communication problems, differences in showing affection, and situations involving an outside biological parent. All of these concerns can either be magnified or reduced depending upon the actions taken by the parents of the family.
At this point, there is no such thing as a parental prenuptial agreement. If people can protect their assets, why not protect their children’s well-being? The agreement should consist of the boundaries for authoritative conditions that both parents agree on. If the mutual agreement is broken, consequences will be administered. Parenting/Abuse classes will be assigned depending on the conflict.
Our Responses:
Karli and Brittney J: When you get married, you are agreeing to take care of your spouse through sickness and in health. You are not just marrying your spouse; you are also marrying the family. In taking this vow, both parents should be able to sign the parental prenuptial agreement and have full authority and responsibilty over the children.
Summer and Brittney T: We believe that the agreement should be mutual. However, conditions should be made depending upon age and history of non-compliance. There is a underlying difference between biological and step children that should not be able to be seen. Parents should treat all of their kids with equal affection.
We all are willing to sign the parental agreement as long as both parties are agreed on all factors. Agreements would be made based on the ages of the children as well as consideration for the outside parent envolved.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/step-parenting-problems-sharing-authority.html
Friday, February 13, 2009
A return to the issue of violent video games...
From a recent news story:
After being introduced to a Halo game at a friend’s house, Daniel Petric began playing the game for hours. When his parents banned him from playing the game, he shot both of them in the head, killing his mother:
“A month before the shootings, Daniel, then 16, had sneaked out of his bedroom window to purchase the game against his father's orders. When he arrived back home he was caught and his father took away the game, locking it in a lockbox along with a 9mm handgun.
About a month later, on Oct. 20, 2007, Daniel used his father's key to open the lockbox and remove the gun and the game. The boy shot his parents, killing his mother and gravely wounding his father. As his father lay wounded, Daniel tried to place the gun in his father's hand.
Daniel fled after his sister and her husband arrived at the house, taking only the Halo 3 game with him.”
(“Boy Shoots Parents, Killing Mother, After They Took Away His Halo3 Game”)
Does Game Violence Make Teens More Aggressive, as shown in the case of Daniel Petric? Or is the aggression already present?
Read the info at the links provided, and then respond:
Does Game Violence Make Teens More Aggressive? -
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16099971/
Boy Shoots Parents, Killing Mother, After They Took Away His Halo3 Game -
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/12/boy_killed_mom_and_shot_dad_ov.html
Group members' responses:
Jesse: I don’t see this as an act of violence caused by the content of this game. Petric waited nearly a month and then decided to kill his parents, attempting to make it look like a murder/suicide. His aggression goes much deeper than that.
Another article stated that he had suffered a serious accident while skiing, which resulted in a stalf infection and a year of bed rest (refer to “Boy Shoots Parents, Killing Mother, After They Took Away His Halo3 Game”). For this entire period, he was confined to his room to heal, only having video games to fill his schedule. I am not a pro-video game advocate, but I do not blame the video game for this at all.
I think it has more to do with desperation to have “things”. Some people will do anything to aquire more material items, no matter what it takes, or who gets hurt in the process.
Leanne: No, I don't think violent video games make teens more aggressive.. Petric wanted to do something that his parents wouldn't let him do and he took things to the extreme. The game had nothing to do with his actions. Some kids, at one point or another, have wished for their parents to die but they never actually intend on harming them. Daniel, on the other hand, went through with this and should be punished because of HIS actions not the video games.
After being introduced to a Halo game at a friend’s house, Daniel Petric began playing the game for hours. When his parents banned him from playing the game, he shot both of them in the head, killing his mother:
“A month before the shootings, Daniel, then 16, had sneaked out of his bedroom window to purchase the game against his father's orders. When he arrived back home he was caught and his father took away the game, locking it in a lockbox along with a 9mm handgun.
About a month later, on Oct. 20, 2007, Daniel used his father's key to open the lockbox and remove the gun and the game. The boy shot his parents, killing his mother and gravely wounding his father. As his father lay wounded, Daniel tried to place the gun in his father's hand.
Daniel fled after his sister and her husband arrived at the house, taking only the Halo 3 game with him.”
(“Boy Shoots Parents, Killing Mother, After They Took Away His Halo3 Game”)
Does Game Violence Make Teens More Aggressive, as shown in the case of Daniel Petric? Or is the aggression already present?
Read the info at the links provided, and then respond:
Does Game Violence Make Teens More Aggressive? -
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16099971/
Boy Shoots Parents, Killing Mother, After They Took Away His Halo3 Game -
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/12/boy_killed_mom_and_shot_dad_ov.html
Group members' responses:
Jesse: I don’t see this as an act of violence caused by the content of this game. Petric waited nearly a month and then decided to kill his parents, attempting to make it look like a murder/suicide. His aggression goes much deeper than that.
Another article stated that he had suffered a serious accident while skiing, which resulted in a stalf infection and a year of bed rest (refer to “Boy Shoots Parents, Killing Mother, After They Took Away His Halo3 Game”). For this entire period, he was confined to his room to heal, only having video games to fill his schedule. I am not a pro-video game advocate, but I do not blame the video game for this at all.
I think it has more to do with desperation to have “things”. Some people will do anything to aquire more material items, no matter what it takes, or who gets hurt in the process.
Leanne: No, I don't think violent video games make teens more aggressive.. Petric wanted to do something that his parents wouldn't let him do and he took things to the extreme. The game had nothing to do with his actions. Some kids, at one point or another, have wished for their parents to die but they never actually intend on harming them. Daniel, on the other hand, went through with this and should be punished because of HIS actions not the video games.
Friday, February 6, 2009
The Adverse Effects of Violent Video Games?
Do violent video games have aggressive effects on whoever plays them? Is it worse than watching a gory movie?
Halo, Call of Duty, and Mortal Combat are some of the most popular games out right now. All of the people in my group own or have played at least one of them sometime during our life. There has been a lot of research on this topic: laboratory experiments, field experiments, cross-sectional correlation studies, and longitudinal studies. Yet, people still can’t agree on the answer. What do you think?
Zack: I think that violent video games may have an effect on kids, to an extent. It depends on how long you play them and how many hours they play them a week. It also depends on the child's age. There has been some cases in which children tend to be more aggressive and anti-social. Some develop warped perceptions on life and others become psychologically numb to violence, sex, rape, and death, due to crude movies and video games.
I personally think that kids should not start playing or watching this type of material until they are at a mature age. Kids are not psychologically stable enough to handle this sort of content and cannot distinguish fantasy from reality. Parents should pay more attention to their children and what they see on TV, and they should monitor what they do on the Internet until a certain age. I believe that the parents are at fault for what their kids see and hear because usually they are the only ones who can control that factor. But that is another arguement...
Kristen: I don’t think video games are responsible for the aggressive behaviors in whoever plays them. My little brother owns all 3 of those games and he’s perfectly normal. I play them every now and then with my friends and have never just had the urge to shoot somebody or hurt them in anyway just for fun. I think it’s mostly pscyhological when people have violent behaviors. I’m undecided on whether or not it’s worse than watching a gory movie. In a way, you're participating in the violent stuff instead of just being exposed to it during a movie. However, it comes down to the person's pscyhological state of mind when it comes to harming a person or even taking a life.
Rony Arnold: Psychological research shows us that people learn by habits and experiences. Today, video games are some of the most common leisure toys for children, even for some adults. Over the past couple of decades, this issue has become particularly problematic. Some commentators think that video games even stimulate today’s violence. I do agree that they have negative effects on today’s lifestyles -- as well as television, the internet and others. I believe the problem is not about playing video games; it is about the individual who plays and how accessible he or she is to the influence of violence? Especially for children, I think parents should attentively control their children’s behavior after playing. Once again, I want to mention that everyone has a different character, which is important when determining a player’s behavior.
So, parents, let’s go to work!
Michael Flores: I think playing violent video games affects kids more than watching gory movies. When kids play video games, they are involved in it. They are the ones making the decisions to kill or steal in a game and follow through with it. Some kids may get so consumed with the games that they may not draw the line between real world and virtual world. I do think gory movies pose a negative effect, just not as considerable as the games.
Halo, Call of Duty, and Mortal Combat are some of the most popular games out right now. All of the people in my group own or have played at least one of them sometime during our life. There has been a lot of research on this topic: laboratory experiments, field experiments, cross-sectional correlation studies, and longitudinal studies. Yet, people still can’t agree on the answer. What do you think?
Zack: I think that violent video games may have an effect on kids, to an extent. It depends on how long you play them and how many hours they play them a week. It also depends on the child's age. There has been some cases in which children tend to be more aggressive and anti-social. Some develop warped perceptions on life and others become psychologically numb to violence, sex, rape, and death, due to crude movies and video games.
I personally think that kids should not start playing or watching this type of material until they are at a mature age. Kids are not psychologically stable enough to handle this sort of content and cannot distinguish fantasy from reality. Parents should pay more attention to their children and what they see on TV, and they should monitor what they do on the Internet until a certain age. I believe that the parents are at fault for what their kids see and hear because usually they are the only ones who can control that factor. But that is another arguement...
Kristen: I don’t think video games are responsible for the aggressive behaviors in whoever plays them. My little brother owns all 3 of those games and he’s perfectly normal. I play them every now and then with my friends and have never just had the urge to shoot somebody or hurt them in anyway just for fun. I think it’s mostly pscyhological when people have violent behaviors. I’m undecided on whether or not it’s worse than watching a gory movie. In a way, you're participating in the violent stuff instead of just being exposed to it during a movie. However, it comes down to the person's pscyhological state of mind when it comes to harming a person or even taking a life.
Rony Arnold: Psychological research shows us that people learn by habits and experiences. Today, video games are some of the most common leisure toys for children, even for some adults. Over the past couple of decades, this issue has become particularly problematic. Some commentators think that video games even stimulate today’s violence. I do agree that they have negative effects on today’s lifestyles -- as well as television, the internet and others. I believe the problem is not about playing video games; it is about the individual who plays and how accessible he or she is to the influence of violence? Especially for children, I think parents should attentively control their children’s behavior after playing. Once again, I want to mention that everyone has a different character, which is important when determining a player’s behavior.
So, parents, let’s go to work!
Michael Flores: I think playing violent video games affects kids more than watching gory movies. When kids play video games, they are involved in it. They are the ones making the decisions to kill or steal in a game and follow through with it. Some kids may get so consumed with the games that they may not draw the line between real world and virtual world. I do think gory movies pose a negative effect, just not as considerable as the games.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)