In my opinion, what happened in the movie Shattered Glass (which was a true story) was a total irresponsability, because the journalist have an important issue, which they have to have into account, that is to inform to the world what is happening diary, without lies, otherwise the people will live in a fake world. So, like the doctors have the responsability of the person´s health, the same way the journalist have the responsability of the public opinion managment , which have the same importance because the public opinion can destroy or save a person´s reputation.
martes, 11 de noviembre de 2008
Their lives in his hands
1. What is your reaction to Paul McKenna and what he does?
I got surprised, because there are few people that they do those kind of things, also because I never imagined that a persona like Paul would do those kind of things, because he seems to be a very serious person, in contrary that I imagined that the hypnotisians would be people that seems like they were from other world.
2. Have you (or has anyone you know)had any experience of being hypnotized? Give details
I never had any kind of experince of being hypnotized, but I have saw in many TV programs how they do it, and it is very awesome, because the reaction of the people is very real so i think it is not fake.
3. Would you like to be hypnotized? Why or Why not?
Sincerlly, I am very curious about all that stuff of being hypnotized, and if it is real. So, without a doubt I will like to be hypnotized to feel how it is.
4. If you were going to be hypnotized, what would you ask for help with?
I will ask for been fearless to the insects in especial to the cocroach, because they are ugly animals, and the worst thing is that are every were and are almost inmmortal because they can survive 1 week without head, and they die because of hunger.
domingo, 12 de octubre de 2008
White Lion - When The Children Cry
little child
dry your crying eyes
how can I explain
the fear you feel inside
cause you were born
into this evil world
where man is killing man
but no one knows just why
what have we become
just look what we have done
all that we destroyed
you must build again.
when the children cry
let them know we tried
cause when the children sing
then the new world begins
little child
you must show the way
to a better dayfor all the young
cause you were born
for all the world to see
that we all can live
with love and peace
no more presidents
and all the wars will end
one united world
under god
when the children cry
let them know we tried
cause when the children sing
then the new world begins
what "have we" become
just look what we have done
all that we destroyed
you must build again
no more president
sand all the wars will end
one united world
under god
when the children cry
let them know we tried
when the children fight
let them know it ain't right
when the children pray
let them know the way
cause when the children sing
then the new world begins
Opinion
I like this song because is a contemporaneous song, and the theme is very interesting because is contrast the perfect world (the children point of view) with th real world (actual world), and how the wolrd is getting worst day by day.
dry your crying eyes
how can I explain
the fear you feel inside
cause you were born
into this evil world
where man is killing man
but no one knows just why
what have we become
just look what we have done
all that we destroyed
you must build again.
when the children cry
let them know we tried
cause when the children sing
then the new world begins
little child
you must show the way
to a better dayfor all the young
cause you were born
for all the world to see
that we all can live
with love and peace
no more presidents
and all the wars will end
one united world
under god
when the children cry
let them know we tried
cause when the children sing
then the new world begins
what "have we" become
just look what we have done
all that we destroyed
you must build again
no more president
sand all the wars will end
one united world
under god
when the children cry
let them know we tried
when the children fight
let them know it ain't right
when the children pray
let them know the way
cause when the children sing
then the new world begins
Opinion
I like this song because is a contemporaneous song, and the theme is very interesting because is contrast the perfect world (the children point of view) with th real world (actual world), and how the wolrd is getting worst day by day.
Hitlerjunge
a) What did you think of the movie?It is a very interesting movie, in which they think in every single detail, like for example the clothes, the food that they ate, and many others. In addition, the main character was outstanding in his performance and unique because he knew two hard languages, like it is deutch and russian.
b) Would you be willing to deny your beliefs (religious/political, etc) in order to survive like Sully did?
I think that if someone is aiming to me with a gun maybe I would deny my religion, because it doesn’t matter what I said but what I do is the most important, so if they ask me to treason my friends I will never do it, in addition God will know that if a deny him were only words and not what I really think. So, I will never help the deutch army like Sully did.
martes, 30 de septiembre de 2008
Not too pushy parents
Always the extremes are bad, and it can be evidenced in the way that the parents stimulate to their children to learn. If you do not motivate the children to learn, maybe your child will not explode all its potential and it will be wasted. Otherwise, like the article "Pushy parents help children succeed" said, if you stimulate too much a child, the most probably effect that will cause is that the child will be frustrated. So, to synthesize, by stimulating a child’s intelligence until some point it will be very beneficial to the child, but if you exceed that point you will produce the opposite effect; decreasing their self-steem because they see the disappointment of their parents.
Scientific article
Ping
Technology Doesn’t Dumb Us Down. It Frees Our Minds.
by DAMON DARLIN
Published: September 20, 2008
EVERYONE has been talking about an article in The Atlantic magazine called “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Some subset of that group has actually read the 4,175-word article, by Nicholas Carr.To save you some time, I was going to give you a 100-word abridged version. But there are just too many distractions to read that much. So here is the 140-character Twitter version (Twitter is a hyperspeed form of blogging in which you write about your life in bursts of 140 characters or fewer, including spaces and punctuation marks):
Google makes deep reading impossible. Media changes. Our brains’ wiring changes too. Computers think for us, flattening our intelligence.
If you managed to wade through that, maybe you are thinking that Twitter, not Google, is the enemy of human intellectual progress.
With Twitter, people subscribe to your “tweets.” Those who can make life’s mundane details interesting garner a large audience. Several services have been created to compete with Twitter. Others have been started to help people manage the prodigious flow of information from Twitterers.
There is even a version, Yammer, for use inside companies. You follow the word bursts of particular employees. (“In the weekly staff meeting. Good bagels. Why is everyone wearing khakis? All staff must file their T.P.S. reports on time, O.K.?”) As if there weren’t already enough to distract us in the workplace between meetings, phone calls, instant messages, e-mail messages and those Google searches.
If people question the benefit of Google, which has largely liberated us from the time-wasting activities associated with finding information, there is outright hostility to a tool that condenses our lives into haiku. The co-founder of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, was asked by M.I.T.’s Technology Review magazine — in a tweet, of course — why when people who aren’t familiar with Twitter are told about it, they are “uncomprehending or angry.” His response was brief and unsatisfying: “People have to discover value for themselves. Especially w/ something as simple & subtle as Twitter. It’s what you make of it.”
It is hard to think of a technology that wasn’t feared when it was introduced. In his Atlantic article, Mr. Carr says that Socrates feared the impact that writing would have on man’s ability to think. The advent of the printing press summoned similar fears. It wouldn’t be the last time.
When Hewlett-Packard invented the HP-35, the first hand-held scientific calculator, in 1972, the device was banned from some engineering classrooms. Professors feared that engineers would use it as a crutch, that they would no longer understand the relationships that either penciled calculations or a slide rule somehow provided for proficient scientific thought.
But the HP-35 hardly stultified engineering skills. Instead, in the last 36 years those engineers have brought us iPods, cellphones, high-definition TV and, yes, Google and Twitter. It freed engineers from wasting time on mundane tasks so they could spend more time creating.
Many technological advances have that effect. Take tax software, for instance. The tedious job of filing a tax return no longer requires several evenings, but just a few hours. It gives us time for more productive activities.
But for all the new technologies that increase our productivity, there are others that demand more of our time. That is one of the dialectics of our era. With its maps and Internet access, the iPhone saves us time; with its downloadable games, we also carry a game machine in our pocket. The proportion of time-wasters to time-savers may only grow. In a knowledge-based society in which knowledge is free, attention becomes the valued commodity. Companies compete for eyeballs, that great metric born in the dot-com boom, and vie to create media that are sticky, another great term from this era. We are not paid for our attention span, but rewarded for it with yet more distractions and demands on our time.
THE pessimistic assumption that new technologies will somehow make our lives worse may be a function of occupation or training. Paul Saffo, the futurist, says he could divide the technology world into two kinds of people: engineers and natural scientists. He says the world outlook of the engineer is by nature optimistic. Every problem can be solved if you have the right tools and enough time and you pose the correct questions. Other people, who can be just as scientific, see the natural order of the world in terms of entropy, decline and death.
Those people aren’t necessarily wrong. But the engineer’s point of view puts trust in human improvement. Certainly there have been moments when that thinking has gone horribly awry — atonal music or molecular gastronomy. But over the course of human history, writing, printing, computing and Googling have only made it easier to think and communicate.
Summary
Technology Doesn’t Dumb Us Down. It Frees Our Minds.
by DAMON DARLIN
Published: September 20, 2008
EVERYONE has been talking about an article in The Atlantic magazine called “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Some subset of that group has actually read the 4,175-word article, by Nicholas Carr.To save you some time, I was going to give you a 100-word abridged version. But there are just too many distractions to read that much. So here is the 140-character Twitter version (Twitter is a hyperspeed form of blogging in which you write about your life in bursts of 140 characters or fewer, including spaces and punctuation marks):
Google makes deep reading impossible. Media changes. Our brains’ wiring changes too. Computers think for us, flattening our intelligence.
If you managed to wade through that, maybe you are thinking that Twitter, not Google, is the enemy of human intellectual progress.
With Twitter, people subscribe to your “tweets.” Those who can make life’s mundane details interesting garner a large audience. Several services have been created to compete with Twitter. Others have been started to help people manage the prodigious flow of information from Twitterers.
There is even a version, Yammer, for use inside companies. You follow the word bursts of particular employees. (“In the weekly staff meeting. Good bagels. Why is everyone wearing khakis? All staff must file their T.P.S. reports on time, O.K.?”) As if there weren’t already enough to distract us in the workplace between meetings, phone calls, instant messages, e-mail messages and those Google searches.
If people question the benefit of Google, which has largely liberated us from the time-wasting activities associated with finding information, there is outright hostility to a tool that condenses our lives into haiku. The co-founder of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, was asked by M.I.T.’s Technology Review magazine — in a tweet, of course — why when people who aren’t familiar with Twitter are told about it, they are “uncomprehending or angry.” His response was brief and unsatisfying: “People have to discover value for themselves. Especially w/ something as simple & subtle as Twitter. It’s what you make of it.”
It is hard to think of a technology that wasn’t feared when it was introduced. In his Atlantic article, Mr. Carr says that Socrates feared the impact that writing would have on man’s ability to think. The advent of the printing press summoned similar fears. It wouldn’t be the last time.
When Hewlett-Packard invented the HP-35, the first hand-held scientific calculator, in 1972, the device was banned from some engineering classrooms. Professors feared that engineers would use it as a crutch, that they would no longer understand the relationships that either penciled calculations or a slide rule somehow provided for proficient scientific thought.
But the HP-35 hardly stultified engineering skills. Instead, in the last 36 years those engineers have brought us iPods, cellphones, high-definition TV and, yes, Google and Twitter. It freed engineers from wasting time on mundane tasks so they could spend more time creating.
Many technological advances have that effect. Take tax software, for instance. The tedious job of filing a tax return no longer requires several evenings, but just a few hours. It gives us time for more productive activities.
But for all the new technologies that increase our productivity, there are others that demand more of our time. That is one of the dialectics of our era. With its maps and Internet access, the iPhone saves us time; with its downloadable games, we also carry a game machine in our pocket. The proportion of time-wasters to time-savers may only grow. In a knowledge-based society in which knowledge is free, attention becomes the valued commodity. Companies compete for eyeballs, that great metric born in the dot-com boom, and vie to create media that are sticky, another great term from this era. We are not paid for our attention span, but rewarded for it with yet more distractions and demands on our time.
THE pessimistic assumption that new technologies will somehow make our lives worse may be a function of occupation or training. Paul Saffo, the futurist, says he could divide the technology world into two kinds of people: engineers and natural scientists. He says the world outlook of the engineer is by nature optimistic. Every problem can be solved if you have the right tools and enough time and you pose the correct questions. Other people, who can be just as scientific, see the natural order of the world in terms of entropy, decline and death.
Those people aren’t necessarily wrong. But the engineer’s point of view puts trust in human improvement. Certainly there have been moments when that thinking has gone horribly awry — atonal music or molecular gastronomy. But over the course of human history, writing, printing, computing and Googling have only made it easier to think and communicate.
Summary
Google is a doble-edge weapon like the others engineering tools, because it can be very useful for finding information quckly and leding us some free time for other activities, but it also give us time-waster activities. An analogy with another engineering tool that the people thougth that was awful is the scientific calculator, but in contrast with what all people was thinking, the scientific calculator give the engineers more free time to create and not to do math excercises. In synthesis, the technology had make easier to think and to comunicate between each others.
Essay Correction
Is money necessary for happiness?
If a person asks you which is your purpose in life, what would you answer? Many people would answer that they came to help people, or maybe to get fun, but I will answer to you that all came to this world to be happy, and nowadays with the society that only thinks in consume, the answer will be the money, but is this really truth?
Living in the contemporary society , to be honest, is impossible to live without money, because you need food, a house, clothes, and all of the essential necessities to survive and the only way to get them in a civilization is buying them.
On the other hand, like the Master Card logo says: “ There are some things in life that you can not buy “ and a classical example of those things are the feelings; like love, friendship, family warm-feel, etc. Furthermore, these things give a great meaning to life, and are the ones that have the most influence on each daily-decisions you make.
In conclusion, the money will give you many things that will make your life more comfortable, but, never will give you happiness, because the vital things you can not buy them with money, you con only get themby interacting with other people.
lunes, 22 de septiembre de 2008
Dr. Mercola, Colin Roses and game assigment
- What are the seven ways to increase your brain power according to Dr. Mercola?
a. Exercise (Increasing oxygen and blood flow to your brain)
b. Going outside in daytime (Fresh air and more information for the brain)
c. Good night sleep between 6-8hrs. ( increase insulin)
d. Stay away from process food (it increase cerebral diseases)
e. Improve the fat intake (Most of the brain is fat)
f. Maintain the brain active (Memory games)
g. Implement visualization techniques (Improve memory and improvisation) - What are Colin Roses Accelerated Learning techniques?
a.Mind set to positive
b.Acquired the knowledge
c.Search out the meaning
d.Trigger your memory
e.Exhibit what you know
f.Reflect on your learning - Open the following page, and play one of the games. Include in your blog the name of the game, and what your result is. What do you think of your results? Did you like the game? Math Game: 9 points I think that I could do more but its is not a bad result, and is a very simple game
sábado, 13 de septiembre de 2008
Human Genetics
Authors:
- Ignacio Briceño
- Nancy Patricia Jara
- Julio Cesar Martinez
The medical disease called lip cleft is a genetic disease
The lip cleft can not be cured, with medicines, it can only be fixed be aa complex plastic surgery.
lunes, 25 de agosto de 2008
The medical decision
Walking through the silent aisle of the hospitals you hear a person suffering while is going to a surgery room, where he entrust his life to a total stranger that are usually called doctors, whose objective is to save the life of that person, by using any existent method. These doctors are in charge of keeping the person biological alive, with the help of modern technology such as the medical machines while the patient frequently suffers, but these upsurges a ethic problem which is called Euthanasia that is when the doctor and the family decides to end with the patient life in a painless way.
To begin this discussion it is necessary to define the mayor consequence of an euthanasian action, that is the death; for some doctors death meant the termination of breathing. But for several physicians death is defined as a total stoppage of the circulation of blood. This definition served well until recent technology made it possible to sustain respiration and heartbeat indefinitely, even when there is no brain activity. So there is total death when in a living being don’t function the lungs, heart and brain.
Having already stated a definition of death, now we can establish some reasons why euthanasia must be made, and basically the most important is that each individual have the right to decide about their own lives and deaths, because denying a terminally ill patient the right to die with dignity is unfair and cruel, given that the only one that can state the suffering resistance point, is the patient, and because also nobody is forced to stay alive.
On the other hand there are some arguments against this issue, like the fact that the human considers himself a God and judge who can live and who can’t. In addition, no one can ensure that the decision of dying was totally voluntary, that’s why it can probably lead to abuses. Finally there is always the possibility of mistaken diagnosis, a new cure, or spontaneous remission.
In conclusion, like the right of live has to be respect, there most be a right of dying (that also must be respected) whenever the person wanted to, because no one is oblige to live, but there always be a hope that in the future there will be a cure for that illness, or natural recovery, or maybe a erroneous diagnosis, so the dicision of another life cant be in human hands.
To begin this discussion it is necessary to define the mayor consequence of an euthanasian action, that is the death; for some doctors death meant the termination of breathing. But for several physicians death is defined as a total stoppage of the circulation of blood. This definition served well until recent technology made it possible to sustain respiration and heartbeat indefinitely, even when there is no brain activity. So there is total death when in a living being don’t function the lungs, heart and brain.
Having already stated a definition of death, now we can establish some reasons why euthanasia must be made, and basically the most important is that each individual have the right to decide about their own lives and deaths, because denying a terminally ill patient the right to die with dignity is unfair and cruel, given that the only one that can state the suffering resistance point, is the patient, and because also nobody is forced to stay alive.
On the other hand there are some arguments against this issue, like the fact that the human considers himself a God and judge who can live and who can’t. In addition, no one can ensure that the decision of dying was totally voluntary, that’s why it can probably lead to abuses. Finally there is always the possibility of mistaken diagnosis, a new cure, or spontaneous remission.
In conclusion, like the right of live has to be respect, there most be a right of dying (that also must be respected) whenever the person wanted to, because no one is oblige to live, but there always be a hope that in the future there will be a cure for that illness, or natural recovery, or maybe a erroneous diagnosis, so the dicision of another life cant be in human hands.
miércoles, 20 de agosto de 2008
Interview Script
Many people of different ages, universities, social status, etc. are going to be interviewed with the following questions about globalization:
- When someone mention the word GLOBALIZATION, what comes to your mind?
- You think that the globalization is a benefit or a problem for the human race?
- The proyect "esperanto"could be the idiom for this global civilization? or another language and why.
- Which could be the advantages of the globalization?
- Which could be the disadvantages of the globalization?
- You think that the mass media have anything to do with the topic?
jueves, 14 de agosto de 2008
Synapsis
The main topic of the video could be the interest and the importance that people give to the problem of globalization, and see if the people are informed about the topic, or simply if they do not care. And maybe showing them a argumentative video and see if it can change their opinion.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
