online privacy

Online Privacy

Online privacy is a relatively new issue, and something that my parets’ generation did not have to worry about. I am totally in favor of greater restrictions of what companies can do with online data and how they can collect this data. I would definitely like to see this legislation in place and, perhaps more importantly, a mechanism to enforce the law (after all what good is a law that you can’t enforce).I am in favor of these notions for several reasons. 

First of all, privacy is an important aspect of life in America. Without clear boundaries, the internet could turn into a dangerous place with little or no privacy. Literally a free for all with sensitive credit card, social security, employment, etc. data few clicks away for anyone. Without laws policing cyberspace we could all be vicitims of identity theft at nearly any moment. The same way routes of commerce need to be protected from thieves so does the internet. If the internet became less trustworthy than it already is it could b a serious disruption to our way of life and hurt many e-commerce relate businesses. 

Just as we need to protect the internet from thieves and people without ethics, I think that controlling the data-mining practices of companies like Google and Facebook is important because these companies make tremendous profits without really adding anything of value to the economy. Facebook for example sells advertising and collects data based on its users but the users themselves aren’t really made aware of this nor are the compensated in any way. To me, this type of practice seems exploitive and should be at the very least strictly policed.

Earlier this year, companies such as Wikipedia, Google, and Mozilla either suspended or modified their operations for a single day on Jan 12 in order to protest the  Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act. These internet companies felt these pieces of legislation seriously impeded their businesses and took too much power away from them. Obviously, because these companies make their livings off the internet they do want to see it restricted any more than it already is. However, for the reasons I have outline above I would like to see the internet become a more regulated entity where people can exchange even sensitive information safely and be sure they are not becoming part of a data set that will then be sold without their consent.

Global warming

The United States can do a great deal in order to fight global

warming, a phenomenon which most in the scientific community is

legitimate. A large percentage of Global Warming is thought to come

from our carbon footprint, and so reducing our carbon footprint is an

important priority in combating global warming. Carbon emissions as a

result of burning fossil fuels represent a large portion of the

destruction done to our ozone layer. Accordingly, our government must

enact policies that will cut down on carbon emissions by encouraging

cleaner energy sources. This could be achieve a number of ways through

government subsidies, tax credits, or taxing fossil fuels at a higher

rater (the problem with that is that it might hurt the already feeble

economy). This is one of those issues where our government has to take

steps proactively in order to make the future environment is healthy.

While many in America complain that the price of gas is already too

high, taxing gas further could have two positive effects: 1. people

would drive less reducing carbon emissions 2. society would explore

cleaner more renewable energy sources instead of using gas. In

conjunction with this our government could demand that car

manufacturers only make engines with a certain MPG rating that is very

efficient (above 20 MPG on highways or something like that). The less

oil we use the less we contribute to global warming and the less

dependent we are on other countries for our energy.

       Basically, if gas were really expensive people would invest in

developing technologies other energy sources such as electric, natural

gas, wind, ethanol, or biodiesel. The tradeoff seems worth it to me

but would definitely require significant thought. Another thing our

government could to do to fight carbon emissions is to create a better

public transportation system. By implementing better public

transportation systems, people would use cars less and so emissions

would be greatly reduced. Improving our country’s infrastructure and

transportation system is expensive and something that should be a

government undertaking.

       Another thing our government can do is build more energy efficient

buildings and encourage private homeowners to do so through tax

credits etc. For example, New York state offers its residents low cost

loans and credits if the put up solar panels in their houses. Policies

like these will be important in fighting against global warming and

should probably be implemented on the state, local, and federal level.

Our government could also offer low interest rate loans to “green”

businesses who would otherwise find it difficult getting loans from a

bank. While these policies might hurt some industries, like coal for

example, they would definitely help the US fight global warming.

       Fighting global warming is an endeavor for our government because it

might not be profitable for private companies and thus they would be

less likely to invest in such things. All of this can be a very effective way in trying to solve and fix the problem of global warming and the effects it has on earth. 

Linsanity

If I were conducting a study on confirming the presence of racism amongst college students then I would try to conduct as unbiased and effective a study as possible. Accordingly, the first step I would take is to randomize and “blind” the sample population. Essentially, in my study/poll/investigation I would try to take a random but representative cross-section of the the population. In order to "blind" them, I would not le them know what the study was about which would probably make their answers more truthful as no one wants to be labeled biased. I would also be sure not to nterview only middle class white males or upper class hispanic females (any particular set of people) but instead draw from a diverse group with different demographic characteristics. Taking a poll of one specific ethnic/demographic group doesn’t imply much about the broader population of “college students” who range in age, sex, social economic status, background, etc. So after I had taken the necessary steps to control for the variation in the sample, I would probably use a questionnaire or interview the students possibly using pictures. If I showed hundreds of random and "blinded"college students pictures of an asian man and asked the simple question “Could this person play in the NBA?" their responses could hint at the presence of racism. If an abnormally high proportion answered no across all demographic stratifications then I could probably conclude that some racism exists. The same could be concluded if achieved that result with a questionnaire or poll. I do agree with the results from this paper for many different reasons. But some of the bigger ones are that colleges these days want to be as diverse as possible but still having the same standards as before. That is why they have to choose the top Asian Americans to be accepted in their colleges because if they weren’t trying to be diverse then a lot more colleges would have an over populated school of Asian Americans which would look poorly on the colleges. This is one of the main reasons why Asian Americans have to prove themselves more than other nationalities

In our current situation, is natural gas a good investment or no

In our current situation natural gas is not a good long-term investment for many different reasons. But the main one is the dangers and risks it brings to the environment. The amount of harm that it could bring to earth isn’t worth the risk.  Although there are some upsides to natural gases there are a lot more negatives that come with it. For example, when the reading says, “Under the best conditions, we may enjoy those benefits, but under more adverse conditions, gas can be worse generator of greenhouse gas than coal, can wreak massive local environmental destruction and ca undermine energy efficiency and renewable energy. And without a strong set of policies to guide natural gas development, the worst case is far more likely.” This just shows that we would have to have the best conditions and resources to have natural gases become a beneficial resource and all of that work will be very expansive. Also if anything leaks from the gas it will cause a big effect like the article says, “ Estimates range from 1.5 percent to as high as 8 percent. Even near the low wend of that range; gas can be as bad as coal. And whatever the leaks in the U.S. system. It is likely to be far worse in, say, Russia.” As I was saying before the risk to extreme to take the risk and the effects of that risk would damage the earth a lot. Another reason is the damage of the wells as said in the article, “ Then there is the damage that wells can do to the gas site, Many wells extract brackish water and other nasty by products, like benzene and toluene from deep underground, and spill the mixture onto nearby farmlands- literally salting the earth.” This just shows more harm that natural gas can bring to the environment that would have to be fixed with the money that was probably saved using natural gas as a resource so in the end it isn’t worth it. This is why I believe that we shouldn’t invest in a long term-plan with natural gases. There is to much risks and negatives involved and not enough positives. 

90 days

If i didn't have electronic devices for more than 90 days it would be a big change in my life. However sometimes i would like to everything on my own and without the help of electronics. It would also give me a lot of free time to do more activities that i have been trying to do. To take up the time i would play a lot of sports and workout for the most part because it is my biggest interest. Then i would spend time with my family and play board games, reading and have a good time. This would also connect me closer to my friends and find out who my true ones are. Not having electronics for 90 days would really interest me and something that i would consider doing.

Dmitri Mendeleev

An overall understanding of how the elements are similar to each other and why they exhibit their particular chemical and physical properties was slow in coming. Between 1868 and 1870, in the process of writing his book, The Principles of Chemistry, Mendeleev made a table or chart that listed the known elements due to the increasing order of atomic weights. When Mendeleev organized the table into horizontal rows, a pattern became visible.  However, only if he left blanks in the table. If he did so, elements with similar chemical properties showed at regular intervals. Ever so often in vertical columns on the table. Mendeleev suggested that new elements not yet discovered would be discovered to fill in the blank places. He even went so far as to predict the properties of the missing elements. Although many scientists greeted Mendeleev's first table with disbelief, its predictive value soon became clear. The discovery of gallium in 1875, of scandium in 1879, and of germanium in 1886 supported the original idea of Mendeleev's table. Each of the new elements displayed properties that accorded with those Mendeleev had predicted, based on his realization that elements in the same column have similar chemical properties. Claiming a new element now meant not only identifying its one of a kind chemical properties, but discovering the atom's atomic weight so the element could be fitted into the right place in the periodic table. For radioactive atoms that was a difficult challenge. At first these atoms were isolated only in microscopic quantities. The straightforward way to identify them wasn’t by their chemical properties at all, but by their radiations. Until the radioactive atoms could be sorted out with conventional chemistry. However, some scientists were unwilling to call them new elements.

Atoms?

Neutrons

Neutrons can be thought of short for negative 

This it explains there 0 actions

Neutrons have no charge

They cant make anything large

Thats why it has no charge

Neutrons may have no purpose

but they make everything less rumpus

Neutrons Neutrons Neutron

What would an atom be without you?