Well, this submission is later than it should be, sorry, but here it is:
I propose that, through increased research using the currently accepted techniques of creation and implementation of AI, the forever daunting task of creating AI will finally be made possible.
OLD PARAGRAPH:
This also, has a possible short term disadvantage, as the amount of houses being created will one day come to a halt. However, after installation of the cameras, there is a necessity to monitor and be alert of the material being recorded within the cameras. So, a government funded section must be created within the security department which will monitor these cameras and take notes upon interactions so that the numbers may be matched against the tax reports when filed to the government. Initially, those 1500 workers who are also being taken from the economy's pay roll may also have an initial job as the installations begin.
NEW PARAGRAPH:
However this technique has a shortcoming due to a limit upon the number of households. In argument to this, there will be a necessity to monitor the material. Thus, a government funded program must be created within the security department to monitor these devices. It then goes without saying that a large number will be able to be employed in order to monitor and track the household's skin ship.
In addition to the proposed future job opportunities, a current job market will begin to flourish as the installations begin and management of the system is required. There are currently approximately 1500 workers who will be ousted from their current jobs due to this budget cut, and as such they may find work quickly within this new field.
Jonathan Swift's proposal essay, "A Modest Proposal," is without a doubt one of the most flagrant disregards for human compassion that I've ever laid my eyes on and actually taken the time to read. However, technically speaking, his alternative to feed the populace and create a new job market for an economy seems as if it might actually work.
Structurally he lays out the problem very specifically, giving visuals of the masses of vagabond children following the beggar women. After defining the problem, he continues to give details that will make his proposal seem even more reasonable, by considering the uselessness of children. Afterwards, he "humbly propose[s his] own thoughts" to the audience. He begins by creating a simple paragraph explaining the solution and a small bit of its viability. Afterwards, his elaboration continues into making it seem more viable until you get the idea of the possibility of this being a solution. Afterwards he lists out his main focus points in a very straightforward way as to reiterate much of the viability and logistics of the solution. Finally he wraps up the piece by referring to how severe the problem is and how "obviously" the solution will work to solve the problem.
His evidence manages to highly support the truth of the problem as well as his solution. While the data and numbers outright seem to only point at aiding the solution, giving numbers about families and marketing, it also has a strong second meaning that tells the tale of the state of Ireland at the time. While he mentions the massive amounts of families, it in turn gives rise to the numbers of people who need help and are not receiving it through the government. Without a doubt, satirical data seems as if it would be hard to gather, considering you need something that can tell the numbers to support two things at once, both the inward problem and the outward solution.
His supporting points are laid out to give an excellent viability to enacting the solution. His main points are laid out very straightforwardly at one point, as he lists them in order. His first point takes a hit towards the religion at the time, while also trying to make the reader see the religious success. His second, third, and fourth points all tend to point out the state of the citizens of Ireland and the poor shabby lives they lead that would actually somehow make this solution a viable option. His fifth point is a bit hard to understand, but it seems like it may be taking a crack at the upper class who would enjoy the finer recipes on how to eat the delicacies.
The piece is effective in that it explains a viable solution to fix a severe problem. The piece works because it does its real job by explaining the state of the problem and what the people are feeling. Perhaps they wouldn't feel like eating babies, but that's the point. While it's obvious that they wouldn't eat babies, at least I hope it was..., the real problem is well laid out and explained through the solution. His apparent tone, in which he so matter-of-factly states that they should eat babies, really shows his lack of care for the current solutions being; or maybe better stated, not being; enacted. His tone mocks the government for being unable to find a solution better than his own and expects that the government should enact his plan because apparently they are unable to come up with a viable solution on their own.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/20/pennsylvania.school.testing/index.html?hpt=T2
This article begins as a story concerning a woman in state college who refuses to allow her children to take the PSSA's. The issue concerns that the tests do nothing good for schools and should not exist at all. However, the article also points out the other side of the issue concerning the international plight, when children are being outclasses in every subject worldwide. The article also hints at no child left behind, but it doesn't fortitude itself with that information so I believe it isn't the focus of the piece. Personally, though, I dislike the no child left behind policy as well as the results that the test cause. No child left behind is not a very good policy, concerning schools with a higher special education tend to do poorer on the exams. Thus, those results also limit the funding for the schools that actually need better funding to hire more teachers to help educate the children. However, that isn't the focus of the article. The article takes a turn on the parents who just dislike the test more than anything, which I feel is a bit silly. I truthfully feel more inclined to believe that the tests are a good thing that try to make the children proceed and do better so that they can say they got a good score on it. I feel that the US is slowly falling behind other countries academically and so to try to enhance the education process and, in a sense, force growth may actually be a good thing.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/20/pennsylvania.school.testing/index.html?hpt=T2
This article references the issues concerning Japan and its nuclear power plant issues and focuses on the repercussions from the problems. Apparently, many countries are severely rethinking their nuclear programs for safety reasons. Also 7 in 10 Americans are even more fretful of a nuclear disaster happening here in the US. As much as this article elaborates, it really tries to point out that safety was always a concern with the nuclear energy, and that much of the fear is unfounded. Let alone Americans being fearful that the radiation would harm them from Japan, considering that Chernobyl was a disaster of much larger proportions and still didn't affect areas of shorter distances than Japan to the US. Personally I believe that there is nothing to fear, disaster can always strike, but the benefits of nuclear energy far outweigh the costs concerning the world and humanity.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/03/09/illinois.death.penalty/index.html
This article is very simply about Illinois and its vote to eliminate the death penalty. It noted in the article that the last death penalty actually occurred in 1999, and was then halted by the current governor at the time. The article is very philosophical, reference many different opinions on the subject, although it seems to be more heavily suited towards being against the death penalty. Personally I don't believe that the death penalty should be legal in any form, but I do see the points for having it. I know a bit of sociology, and that being said prisons are actually a miserably poor excuse for a correction facility. You are basically taught that you have to be tough to get around and get anywhere, which is not present in formal society. Although you have to have a good self-esteem, that doesn't mean that you have to show brute strength to get everything. So, as such, bringing the death penalty allows the state to reduce the funding for the massive amounts of inmates that are likely repeat offenders. The death penalty also limits severe incidents from happening more than once. However, the possibility to actually kill an innocent person is much too great a risk in my opinion to allow it to happen.
As I drink my can of Brisk iced tea, I can't help but compare it to my favorite soda, Dr. Pepper. The designs of both cans, in particular, hold multitudes of differences even though both are just cans.Brisk(Lipton): Lipton takes a very new age approach with their can, using abstraction to make a scene. None of the objects, with the exception of perhaps one tree, have any solid form. The mountains are created with sharp edges while rolling planes cover the ground of the can. All the while the lemon on the logo tends to act strangely as the moon, as opposed to a sun. The can's blue tones are accented by yellow which may be intended to have a mellow effect but still have a flavor.
Dr. Pepper: This can, on the other hand, takes a very solid approach with their design. The can is much less vibrant and almost at a standstill. Their approach is not as complex and even less new age as their design has been around for ages and the can has changed little. The deep pools of red make the can very well known and easily recognized, which is likely a good reason not to change the design. The can's focal point is the logo, perhaps pulling people in to the familiarity of it all and remind them of the 23 different flavors in every can.
The object that I will be reviewing will be the hot new thing known as a light bulb. It merits evaluation for the sheer widespread use that it harbors from the population that needs light, be it day or night. Light bulbs have been around for many years and, yet, they may have lost a bit of their original flair due to being just as widespread as they are now. While it may not be new or exotic, let alone controversial(unless you're Amish), the light bulb is popular, although not in the most obvious of ways. When someone turns on the lights, they may not realize it, or verbalize their pleasure, but they do feel the joy of being bathed in the glow of the artificial sunshine. Categories would be hard, but household utilities might be a good one. Those common things that people tend to take for granted might be a slightly more efficient subcategory within the household as well, to give more meaning to what types of things we are comparing this light bulb with. Its functionality is also a huge category for the light bulb to be placed under, considering it's the majority reason that I chose to go with something so plain and bland. For that very plain and blandness, a certain functionality achievement is vaguely ignored in light(no-pun intended) of whatever else is going on. Yet, more often than not, light bulbs are necessary to keep whatever is going on, going on. That being said, categorically, light-emitting objects would also be a good category to put the light bulb under. The typical incandescent light bulbs are referred to as 'light bulbs,' while others are given more specific names such as LEDs or Halogen Light Bulbs. Every type of light object there is, excluding the sun, has some sort connection to the original light bulb design. The criteria for the light bulb are both quantitative and qualitative, because a good mixture of both helps to build a concrete foundation for a story. Comparing the light bulb to other bulbs, possible criteria include comparing the light bulb's visible light output. Also another criteria, perhaps more suited to the 'now' section of the paper, is the energy efficiency compared to the competition. It's been said that light bulbs are terribly inefficient and, as a result, waste electricity for the same level of output light in public. Another easy comparison in the fiscal requirements for the light bulb, and how it compares to other bulbs. Other light bulbs tend to appear more expensive, but why? I'm truthfully kind of curious myself. It seems like it should be a normal light bulb, but apparently glass is more expensive for them for some reason. Comparing conventional usage though, some qualitative data includes how widespread light bulbs really make it. The demographics of light bulbs(what a weird thing to say...) have much to say about which bulb is more positively reflected in the consumer's eyes. And, last but not least, where the light bulbs are used the most. Recently I saw a picture of the entire world in a silent glow of a thousand beams of light pouring from certain areas more than others. Spilling the light and allowing it to flow into the small countries so that everyone can have the warmth of the light.
