The Movie Antz Compared To Real World Political Systems Free Essays

In the film Antz, the colony’s government was set up with the Queen as the incomparable leader over the whole province. All choices for life in the state were made by the Queen. All ants were required to cooperate for more prominent's benefit of the state. We will compose a custom exposition test on The Movie Antz Compared To Real World Political Systems or then again any comparative point just for you Request Now Ants were not permitted free idea or to be people and settle on decisions for themselves. The Queen’s girl, Princess Balla, was to assume control over the Queen’s position and rule the settlement essentially in light of the fact that she was the Queen’s little girl. She acquired this right. There were three social classes of ants that were resolved during childbirth, Royalty, Soldiers and Workers. They stayed in that class as long as they can remember and are not permitted to blend between the classes or change. Every one of the classes qualified ants for various rights and styles of living, with Royalty being the top residents and laborers the base residents. Inside every one of the classes, all ants were equivalent and expected to adhere to the principles of the province. There was a General named by the Queen that governed over the troopers. The reason for the military was to secure the settlement. The Queen managed the Ant Colony in the entirety of the methods of a Monarchy. The option to manage the Colony is acquired during childbirth. For this situation, the Queen, is the incomparable leader of the Colony. The Queen has the entirety of the abundance of the settlement and decides how it is separated among the state. As in a Monarchy, the Queen will govern the Colony for as long as she can remember and afterward control will be acquired by her family. The Queen settles on every ultimate conclusion for the Colony. She additionally administers with the plan to â€Å"work together for more noteworthy's benefit of the Colony†. The Colony Government additionally takes after a Communist government since they were not permitted any free idea or decision. The entirety of the ants completed life like customized robots. This was valid under both the Queen and General Mandible. Be that as it may, her objectives were for more noteworthy's benefit of the state all in all which is progressively similar to a Monarchy. General Mandible’s objectives were self serving which resembles a Dictatorship. General Mandible lead the warriors with an iron clench hand. His authority style was a lot of like that of a Dictatorship. An autocracy doesn't permit any opportunity or individual idea to the individuals. A considerable lot of General Mandible’s attributes were equivalent to Adolph Hitler’s fascism method of administering. General Mandible felt the best approach to add up to control was to â€Å"cleanse the colony† and make another â€Å"pure colony† as indicated by his thoughts of the ideal class of individuals. Hitler had a similar objective. To accomplish this they required total and all out control of everything. They didn't permit anybody to scrutinize their headings, not even their second in order. To do so would mean demise in a fascism. General Mandible expressed â€Å"do as I state or endure execution†. Both General Mandible and Hitler had administrators under them that were required to uphold and complete their requests. They were both wanting to utilize destruction to dispose of the classes of individuals they felt were sub-par compared to themselves. General Mandible’s dream was for â€Å"the solid to transcend the frail and wash away the past for another day to dawn†. He needed to assemble a settlement with none of the â€Å"worker filth†. Despite the fact that General Mandible advised the warriors it was awful to go about as a person, that is actually how he carried on. Under General Mandible’s rule there would be no private responsibility for and he would decide how the riches was to be separated which is another quality of a Dictatorship. Insectopia is a case of Anarchy on the grounds that there are no pioneers, no standards and no legislature. Every individual does anything they desire constantly. The objective is harmony and agreement. Despite the fact that there is a definitive opportunities with Anarchy, the framework can immediately get tumultuous because of the absence of any administration authority if any one gathering attempts to control another. Z needs to encounter everything to life and not be determined what to do and how to do it. He sees Insectopia as the ideal spot to live as a result of the absolute opportunity. The progressions that happened toward the finish of the film with the General being crushed and sovereignty, troopers and laborers meeting up helped me to remember the progressions that happened in the USSR with the fall of the controlling government and the start of a vote based system. The new Colony perceived the decency that can emerge out of individual opportunities and decisions that are permitted in a majority rule government. The Colony met up as one entire and picked their new pioneers the manner in which a political decision occurs in a majority rules system. These pioneers would work with the Colony to complete the desires of most of the Colony with nobody class being superior to another. The people would now be allowed to settle on their choices of day by day living dependent on what they needed. There were still some essential standards that would should be set up to guarantee nobody bunch got excessively ground-breaking and attempted to assume control over control. This is the means by which vote based system works in the USA with the individuals choosing their pioneers dependent on the larger part wants for a delegate majority rule government. The most effective method to refer to The Movie Antz Compared To Real World Political Systems, Papers

Tools For Learning Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Instruments For Learning - Essay Example In such manner, it is questionable that any type of positive ascribe to the understudies by all partners is fundamental. As indicated by Blakemore and Frith (2007), inspiration is viewed as the most basic part of discovering that each understudy should be exposed to. In frail territories of understudies, inspiration is viewed as the primary component of guaranteeing student’s achievement. Inspiration is accepted to impact, animate and speed up students’ exertion to achieve results. Instructive analysts contend that spurring understudies in the youth training may require actuation of natural inspiration that targets making learning pleasurable, delight and intriguing. This can be achieved by oppressing understudies in play, investigation just as challenge. All things considered, extraneous inspiration is additionally viewed as perfect in that the understudies are exposed to fortifications, for example, rewards. In any case, this has been invalidated by certain scientists contending that the natural inspiration is increasingly attractive and generally brings about better learning results co ntrasted with extraneous inspiration. Inspiration includes constellating convictions, recognitions, interests and activities (Alfrey, 2003). Instructors can utilize either inspiration that centers around subjective practices like utilization of various methodologies and observing students’ progress or non-intellectual perspective which includes centering and changing students’ observation, convictions and mentalities (Blakemore and Frith, 2007). In certain occasions, instructors can choose to utilize both inspirational systems in the exertion of improving powerful learning. In circumstances where conduct is the point of convergence that right now decides student’s execution, fortifications like those pushed by B.F. Skinner are supported. Encouraging comments, for example, rewards are pushed for understudies with great practices that are viewed as perfect in deciding students’ execution while

We, the people

We, the people As you know, Im a big fan of Indian Bollywood movies, and last night was the premiere of Swades, the latest film from Oscar-nominated director Ashutosh Gowariker (Lagaan), starring Shahrukh Khan (think of him as the Bollywood equivalent to, say, Tom Cruise/Hanks). When we arrived, the theater was packed. The last empty seat in the house went to MIT Professor of Comparative Media Studies Henry Jenkins (also Housemaster of the the Senior House dormitory), who snuck in just as the film began. I didnt get a chance to talk with him, but as he was leaving I heard his one-line summary of the film: It was a geeky, MIT-type of film. In many ways, he was right on. The film centered on Shahrukh Khans character Mohan, who was born and raised in India but for the past decade or so had worked as a project manager for NASA. He goes back to rural India to a village with very spotty electricity, one phone, little emphasis on education. The dramatic climax of the movie, in true MIT style, is Mohans attempt to get a turbine to generate electricity for the village can it get up to the magic number of 230 Volts? The best parts of the film reminded me of MacArthur Genius Grant Fellow Amy Smiths International Development Initiative class called D-Lab (aka SP.721), which, among many other places, goes to India. It is through initiatives like D-Lab or the IDEAS competition that MIT lives out its mission of improving the world through science and technology. One of the biggest reasons I turned down a job on Wall Street to work at MIT is because MITs mission inspires me. We are making a difference. Oh, and by the way, the movie was great. Gowariker again has made a film with real meaning, and stocks it with a more interesting cast of characters than in many films. And composer A. R. Rahman had a pretty good score (as you may know, Bollywood films are usually musicals), as usual. If you live in an area with a large South Asian population, you may be able to see it in your region check it out!

Money Is Happiness - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 1 Words: 342 Downloads: 4 Date added: 2017/09/16 Category Advertising Essay Did you like this example? Money can bring happiness, do you agree or disagree? ( within 300 words, at least 250 words; IELTS for GENERAL TRAINING) As the most significant symptom of wealth, possessing a large sum of money has become a unique pursuit of many people, especially young generation, around the world. They are convinced of that happiness can bought by sufficient money. However, they could neglect the fact that happiness is not just determined by one factor but many others such as your friends, relatives, and pleasant experience. In my perspective, happiness does not always increase in direct ratio to the rise of money. Focusing on the illusion that money brings happiness may have an unexpected adverse effect that may lead to a misallocation of time. For instance, when some one reflects on how money would change their sense of well-being, they would probably tempt to think about spending more time in leisurely pursuits such as seeing a three-dimensional movie or traveling abroad. But in reality, they would have to spend a large amount of time working and commuting and less time engaged in experienced happiness. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Money Is Happiness" essay for you Create order On the other hand, it is undeniable that money has a brief effect on life satisfaction, particularly after we have got enough money to satisfy our fundamental need. For example, people who get richer would feel they are better than their peers. Nevertheless, they will soon make richer friends. Therefore, their relative wealth will not be greater than it was before; people quickly get used to all new stuff their money can buy and the amount of money people say they need rises along with their income. Consequently, the endless and vicious cycle in terms of physically and psychologically stress begins again. In conclusion, I believe that money does not always buy happiness, but it is not indicated that money cannot brings happiness. It is of great importance to deal with money more carefully and appropriately. Instead of lavishing money in an ostentatious way, we should be aware of that it is romance, friendships, good health, families that truly bring us happiness.

Using Anamoblic Steroids can be Harmful, Sections of a...

1. Introduction Hypothesis: Anabolic steroids are more harmful than beneficial to teenage boys. Anabolic steroids are a group of synthetic hormones that are used to boost muscle size and strength. Aim: My aim is to discover whether teenage boys consider it more beneficial or harmful to take steroids, by questioning teenage boys in the Pietermaritzburg area who have taken/are taking steroids. I am interested in investigating this hypothesis because I am curious about the effects of steroids and, because steroids and male body building are displayed in the media in the same way that skinny female models are (i.e. portraying an unrealistic body image). I thought that considering I know a few boys who have access to steroids, I could†¦show more content†¦(2013, October). Steroids | Risky Health Issues for Teens. Retrieved 29 November 2013, from Palo Alto Medical Foundation: http://www.pamf.org/teen/risk/drugs/steroids/ This website explains what an anabolic steroid is, and briefly how they work i.e. increase in muscle strength, size, and recovery time. It provides a list of commonly used anabolic steroids, classified into whether they are injected or taken orally. It gives a little information on the benefits of steroids for athletes (improved performance), and the health risks/ side effects in men and women respectively (such as organ damage and hormone imbalances). This information is relevant because it provides information on the side effects and reasoning behind steroid use, information which I used in my project. I trusted this website as it is a medical foundation, and because the article lists its source as The National Institute of Drug Abuse, whose information would definitely be valid. The information is up to date because the article was published recently. The information is reliable because other sources have similar information. A limitation on this website is that the information th at I needed/used was only given in paragraphs of a few lines and was slightly insufficient. Source 2: Unknown. (2012). Steroid Use in Schools a Big Problem in South Africa. Available: http://taylorhooton.org.org/steroid-use-in-schools-a-big-problem-in-south-africa/. Last accessed 19

Research Paper on Limited Speech on College Campuses Free Essays

string(61) " false spoken statement that damages someone’s reputation\." Student Prof. English 1020 Should Colleges Be Limited to Speech? In â€Å"The Freedom to Offend,† Ian Buruma explains how we have the right to speak freely and how we can have the freedom to offend our own being. America is the land of the free and we can say what we want because of the First Amendment. We will write a custom essay sample on Research Paper on Limited Speech on College Campuses or any similar topic only for you Order Now Limiting speech could become an issue on college campuses because some students inevitably choose to follow the hate speech codes and some would choose to disobey the hate speech codes. I am focusing on how campuses are allowing policies to be put into place that limits students on what they can say as well as how hate speech affects students. Limiting speech and hate speech on campuses goes against the First Amendment, it goes against student rights, the use of censorship violates the First Amendment, and limiting speech affects our diverse college campuses more frequently. The First Amendment provides guidelines on how America should work. The First Amendment states that, â€Å"Congress shall make no law†¦abridging the freedom of speech†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Greenup 606). One of the main reasons that the United States of America was founded was for the right to speak freely. America is unique because of this freedom. It seems that this is no longer the case because the courts have been forced to create a tightrope on how people express themselves through freedom of speech. Greenup states that on college campuses we get the image of â€Å"a place where ideas and theories are analyzed, debated and honored—and where no opinion is shunned† (Greenup 608). Universities should not create any type of policy that renders us from speaking what we want. Universities have begun to limit what students can say and who can give a speech at the university. Universities bring in outside speakers to speak to the student body; however, in some cases speakers can create controversy. For example, Lisa Williamson came to speak at a university located in the Midwest about issues related to diversity. After Ms. Williamson spoke an organization known as the â€Å"Invisible Empire, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan† came into the universities offices of Diversity and Equal Opportunity and asked to speak, but the university denied their request. The university believed that the Ku Klux Klan preached â€Å"faulty information† but still the Ku Klux Klan demanded that they be â€Å"afforded the same opportunity to address the university community as was provided for Ms. Williamson† (Greenup 606). The university still would not give them the right to speak because it did not reflect the tone of Ms. Williamson’s presentations (Greenup 605-606). Now even though most people do not agree with the ways of the Ku Klux Klan I honestly think they have the right to speak to their followers and anyone who wants to listen. I do not agree with their ways, but this is America and many people do not understand the concept that we all have the right to speak freely. If someone says that we cannot speak then that is going against the first amendment. Bradley W. Wendel of the Harvard Journal of Legislation says, â€Å"To put the point bluntly, colleges and universities are in the business of controlling the speech of members of their communities, and trying to affect the beliefs of students† (Wendel 408). What Wendel is stating here is that colleges nowadays are controlling what anyone can say and what we believe. The Ku Klux Klan has the right to speak what they believe and colleges should not tell them that they cannot speak. Colleges cannot control what we say, it is just wrong. To not let anyone speak because of his or her beliefs is just completely wrong. The Ku Klux Klan has a right to speak freely. The university has put in hate a speech code that entitles only a few certain people to be able to speak. Ku Klux Klan goes with these hate speech codes that make them unable to express their opinion. Hate speech codes become useless because laws that have already been placed instead of relying on freedom limiting hate speech codes can solve problems. Hate speech codes go against our fundamental rights as citizens of the United States of America because of our freedom of speech. A second reason why universities should not limit people’s freedom of speech would be because of censorship. Censorship is speech that has been censored because it has been deemed inappropriate or harmful. Also when the government uses censorship it is unconstitutional. An example of censorship would be that according to Sara Hebel of the Chronicle of Higher Education, public-college officials in California would be strictly limited in their ability to censor the content of student-run newspapers under proposed legislation that passed the State Assembly this month (Hebel A28). Hebel explains that college students are worried that the bill will provide campus administrators to infringe new limits on what students say (Hebel A28). Hebel accurately reflects on the issue at hand and I agree with her position because students should not have to limit what they can or cannot say in a newspaper. Citizens need to know the truth and the truth would not be fully explained and contrasted without something like hate speech. The bill states: The bill would write into state law broad protections for the written speech of college journalists, a move that would complement and enhance the free-speech rights to which students are already entitled under the First Amendment. It would also prescribe how campus administrators might oversee student publications that colleges help finance and operate. Under the measure, which now goes to the State Senate, college administrators would retain the ability to discipline students for publishing hate speech. And students would still be required to observe libel and slander laws (Hebel A28). Freedom of speech should not be limited except when freedom of speech is put into harmful situations. Slander is when someone makes a false spoken statement that damages someone’s reputation. You read "Research Paper on Limited Speech on College Campuses" in category "Essay examples" This is an example of when freedom of speech should be limited. It is wrong for someone to initially defame someone. Another example of when speech should be limited is libel. Libel is when someone damages someone else’s reputation expressed through writing. Hate speech can come in many forms and limiting speech would be wrong unless it was put into a harmful situation. Another example of how hate speech codes are affecting students would be at Emory University. Gerald Uelmen is a professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law. Professor Uelmen is renowned for his extensive experience in criminal law. He is most well-known for serving on the defense team for the trial of People v. O. J. Simpson in 1994-1995. Well according to Uelmen hate speech codes follow several formats. Some codes, including Emory’s, prohibit speech or conduct that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational environment. Court rulings have prohibited public (state-run) colleges and universities from enacting codes that restrict the constitutional right to free speech based on content (Uelmen). I like the fact that hate speech codes make sure that students are safe within the university. I also like that universities are not suppose to put in codes that will go against the First Amendment. I also think that universities probably do not follow these laws all the time especially earlier when I mentioned the new newspaper bill. It is not right for students to have to know these policies for hate speech codes; it just is not fair towards the students. In society these days people should not have to worry about other people talking about them behind their back. Everyone works together in this world and I do not understand why we cannot just get along. According to Jeremy Waldron, a professor that taught law and philosophy at New York University Law School, was a professor of social and political theory at Oxford, and was an adjunct professor at Victoria University in New Zealand, believes that â€Å"we are diverse in our ethnicity, our race, our appearance, and our religions, and we are embarked on a grand experiment of living and working together despite these sorts of differences† (Waldron) just like colleges. He believes that everyone should not live in fear and just to live life day by day. Hate speech on college campuses are more diverse and the experiences of hate speech occurring is more likely to happen. I believe that no one should have to live in fear on college campuses because of hate speech. White people are not superior, I mean look at President Barrack Obama, he is black and the leader of our country, and so he must be doing something right. But since people have to live in fear, according to Waldron the older generations of the black and Muslim families have to explain to their children why slanderous, libelous, and hateful statements are made towards them. Waldron says, â€Å"Can their lives be led, can their children be brought up, can their hopes be maintained and their worst fears dispelled, in a social environment polluted by these materials† (Waldron). This quote explains what people of different minorities have to endure for their children. Can their children be brought up different than they were? Hate speech is an awful thing to succumb to and people of different diversities especially on college campuses should not have to go through that pain. Waldron also says, â€Å"Diversity† and â€Å"inclusiveness† are so wonderful but fragile that maintaining the â€Å"dignity† of â€Å"vulnerable minorities† (Professor Waldron loves this expression) is a positive obligation not only for government but also for individuals. The law should therefore require us to â€Å"refrain from acting in a way that is calculated to undermine the dignity of other people† (Waldron). This quote by Professor Waldron tells us that diversity is a good thing, but it is also a fragile thing. Waldron says that the law should require us to refrain from undermining the dignity of the â€Å"vulnerable minorities. As citizens of the United States of America we need to quit hating people and let them have a say in how they feel. America is suppose to be the melting pot of the world and the land of the free and no body needs to be limited to it. In conclusion, limiting freedom of speech and allowing hate speech codes to be inv olved in our college campuses is unconstitutional. Limiting freedom of speech and allowing hate speech into our college campuses is wrong. University students are one of the main focus points in our society that are affected by limiting speech. They do not have the right to speak what they want because of hate speech codes and because university officials have a policy on what they can say or do. I honestly think there is something we can do about this, but everyone would have to work together. Unfortunately, I do not see that happening any time soon. Sooner or later this is how America is going to become. If we do not act soon we will no longer have the right to say what we want and the First Amendment will slowly disappear. We will not have the right to what we want to say anymore. Being able to say what we want in this country is a privilege. Most people in other countries do not get to say what they want because their country will not allow them to do so. No one should be able to take our right away from us because it ay hurt people. This is America, many important officials wrote the Constitution of the United States of America in 1787 for a purpose. They wanted us to have freedom and the right to do many things people could not do. The Constitution has been in place and used since 1789. This piece must be important if we are still using it today in our government systems. So in conclusion, college students should not be limited to speech and hate speech codes should not come into effect within Americas college systems. Works Cited Buruma, Ian, â€Å"The Freedom to Offend. † The Best American Essays 2007. Ed. David Foster Wallace and? Robert Atwan. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2007. 22-27. Print Greenup, John S. â€Å"The First Amendment And The Right To Hate. † Journal Of Law ; Education 34. 4 (2005): 605-613. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Hebel, Sara. â€Å"California Bill Would Curb Official Censorship Of Student Newspapers. Chronicle Of Higher Education (2006): A28. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 11 Nov. 2012. Uelmen, Gerald. â€Å"The Price of Free Speech: Campus Hate Speech Codes. † Santa Clara University, 1990. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Waldron, Jeremy. The Harm in Hate Speech, Harvard University Press, 2012, 292 pp. , 26. 95. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Wendel, W. Bradley. â€Å"A Moderate Defense Of Hate Speech Regulations On University Campuses. † Harvard Journal On Legislation 41. 2 (2004): 407-420. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 13 Nov. 2012. How to cite Research Paper on Limited Speech on College Campuses, Essays Research Paper on Limited Speech on College Campuses Free Essays string(61) " false spoken statement that damages someone’s reputation\." Student Prof. English 1020 Should Colleges Be Limited to Speech? In â€Å"The Freedom to Offend,† Ian Buruma explains how we have the right to speak freely and how we can have the freedom to offend our own being. America is the land of the free and we can say what we want because of the First Amendment. We will write a custom essay sample on Research Paper on Limited Speech on College Campuses or any similar topic only for you Order Now Limiting speech could become an issue on college campuses because some students inevitably choose to follow the hate speech codes and some would choose to disobey the hate speech codes. I am focusing on how campuses are allowing policies to be put into place that limits students on what they can say as well as how hate speech affects students. Limiting speech and hate speech on campuses goes against the First Amendment, it goes against student rights, the use of censorship violates the First Amendment, and limiting speech affects our diverse college campuses more frequently. The First Amendment provides guidelines on how America should work. The First Amendment states that, â€Å"Congress shall make no law†¦abridging the freedom of speech†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Greenup 606). One of the main reasons that the United States of America was founded was for the right to speak freely. America is unique because of this freedom. It seems that this is no longer the case because the courts have been forced to create a tightrope on how people express themselves through freedom of speech. Greenup states that on college campuses we get the image of â€Å"a place where ideas and theories are analyzed, debated and honored—and where no opinion is shunned† (Greenup 608). Universities should not create any type of policy that renders us from speaking what we want. Universities have begun to limit what students can say and who can give a speech at the university. Universities bring in outside speakers to speak to the student body; however, in some cases speakers can create controversy. For example, Lisa Williamson came to speak at a university located in the Midwest about issues related to diversity. After Ms. Williamson spoke an organization known as the â€Å"Invisible Empire, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan† came into the universities offices of Diversity and Equal Opportunity and asked to speak, but the university denied their request. The university believed that the Ku Klux Klan preached â€Å"faulty information† but still the Ku Klux Klan demanded that they be â€Å"afforded the same opportunity to address the university community as was provided for Ms. Williamson† (Greenup 606). The university still would not give them the right to speak because it did not reflect the tone of Ms. Williamson’s presentations (Greenup 605-606). Now even though most people do not agree with the ways of the Ku Klux Klan I honestly think they have the right to speak to their followers and anyone who wants to listen. I do not agree with their ways, but this is America and many people do not understand the concept that we all have the right to speak freely. If someone says that we cannot speak then that is going against the first amendment. Bradley W. Wendel of the Harvard Journal of Legislation says, â€Å"To put the point bluntly, colleges and universities are in the business of controlling the speech of members of their communities, and trying to affect the beliefs of students† (Wendel 408). What Wendel is stating here is that colleges nowadays are controlling what anyone can say and what we believe. The Ku Klux Klan has the right to speak what they believe and colleges should not tell them that they cannot speak. Colleges cannot control what we say, it is just wrong. To not let anyone speak because of his or her beliefs is just completely wrong. The Ku Klux Klan has a right to speak freely. The university has put in hate a speech code that entitles only a few certain people to be able to speak. Ku Klux Klan goes with these hate speech codes that make them unable to express their opinion. Hate speech codes become useless because laws that have already been placed instead of relying on freedom limiting hate speech codes can solve problems. Hate speech codes go against our fundamental rights as citizens of the United States of America because of our freedom of speech. A second reason why universities should not limit people’s freedom of speech would be because of censorship. Censorship is speech that has been censored because it has been deemed inappropriate or harmful. Also when the government uses censorship it is unconstitutional. An example of censorship would be that according to Sara Hebel of the Chronicle of Higher Education, public-college officials in California would be strictly limited in their ability to censor the content of student-run newspapers under proposed legislation that passed the State Assembly this month (Hebel A28). Hebel explains that college students are worried that the bill will provide campus administrators to infringe new limits on what students say (Hebel A28). Hebel accurately reflects on the issue at hand and I agree with her position because students should not have to limit what they can or cannot say in a newspaper. Citizens need to know the truth and the truth would not be fully explained and contrasted without something like hate speech. The bill states: The bill would write into state law broad protections for the written speech of college journalists, a move that would complement and enhance the free-speech rights to which students are already entitled under the First Amendment. It would also prescribe how campus administrators might oversee student publications that colleges help finance and operate. Under the measure, which now goes to the State Senate, college administrators would retain the ability to discipline students for publishing hate speech. And students would still be required to observe libel and slander laws (Hebel A28). Freedom of speech should not be limited except when freedom of speech is put into harmful situations. Slander is when someone makes a false spoken statement that damages someone’s reputation. You read "Research Paper on Limited Speech on College Campuses" in category "Free Research Paper Samples" This is an example of when freedom of speech should be limited. It is wrong for someone to initially defame someone. Another example of when speech should be limited is libel. Libel is when someone damages someone else’s reputation expressed through writing. Hate speech can come in many forms and limiting speech would be wrong unless it was put into a harmful situation. Another example of how hate speech codes are affecting students would be at Emory University. Gerald Uelmen is a professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law. Professor Uelmen is renowned for his extensive experience in criminal law. He is most well-known for serving on the defense team for the trial of People v. O. J. Simpson in 1994-1995. Well according to Uelmen hate speech codes follow several formats. Some codes, including Emory’s, prohibit speech or conduct that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational environment. Court rulings have prohibited public (state-run) colleges and universities from enacting codes that restrict the constitutional right to free speech based on content (Uelmen). I like the fact that hate speech codes make sure that students are safe within the university. I also like that universities are not suppose to put in codes that will go against the First Amendment. I also think that universities probably do not follow these laws all the time especially earlier when I mentioned the new newspaper bill. It is not right for students to have to know these policies for hate speech codes; it just is not fair towards the students. In society these days people should not have to worry about other people talking about them behind their back. Everyone works together in this world and I do not understand why we cannot just get along. According to Jeremy Waldron, a professor that taught law and philosophy at New York University Law School, was a professor of social and political theory at Oxford, and was an adjunct professor at Victoria University in New Zealand, believes that â€Å"we are diverse in our ethnicity, our race, our appearance, and our religions, and we are embarked on a grand experiment of living and working together despite these sorts of differences† (Waldron) just like colleges. He believes that everyone should not live in fear and just to live life day by day. Hate speech on college campuses are more diverse and the experiences of hate speech occurring is more likely to happen. I believe that no one should have to live in fear on college campuses because of hate speech. White people are not superior, I mean look at President Barrack Obama, he is black and the leader of our country, and so he must be doing something right. But since people have to live in fear, according to Waldron the older generations of the black and Muslim families have to explain to their children why slanderous, libelous, and hateful statements are made towards them. Waldron says, â€Å"Can their lives be led, can their children be brought up, can their hopes be maintained and their worst fears dispelled, in a social environment polluted by these materials† (Waldron). This quote explains what people of different minorities have to endure for their children. Can their children be brought up different than they were? Hate speech is an awful thing to succumb to and people of different diversities especially on college campuses should not have to go through that pain. Waldron also says, â€Å"Diversity† and â€Å"inclusiveness† are so wonderful but fragile that maintaining the â€Å"dignity† of â€Å"vulnerable minorities† (Professor Waldron loves this expression) is a positive obligation not only for government but also for individuals. The law should therefore require us to â€Å"refrain from acting in a way that is calculated to undermine the dignity of other people† (Waldron). This quote by Professor Waldron tells us that diversity is a good thing, but it is also a fragile thing. Waldron says that the law should require us to refrain from undermining the dignity of the â€Å"vulnerable minorities. As citizens of the United States of America we need to quit hating people and let them have a say in how they feel. America is suppose to be the melting pot of the world and the land of the free and no body needs to be limited to it. In conclusion, limiting freedom of speech and allowing hate speech codes to be inv olved in our college campuses is unconstitutional. Limiting freedom of speech and allowing hate speech into our college campuses is wrong. University students are one of the main focus points in our society that are affected by limiting speech. They do not have the right to speak what they want because of hate speech codes and because university officials have a policy on what they can say or do. I honestly think there is something we can do about this, but everyone would have to work together. Unfortunately, I do not see that happening any time soon. Sooner or later this is how America is going to become. If we do not act soon we will no longer have the right to say what we want and the First Amendment will slowly disappear. We will not have the right to what we want to say anymore. Being able to say what we want in this country is a privilege. Most people in other countries do not get to say what they want because their country will not allow them to do so. No one should be able to take our right away from us because it ay hurt people. This is America, many important officials wrote the Constitution of the United States of America in 1787 for a purpose. They wanted us to have freedom and the right to do many things people could not do. The Constitution has been in place and used since 1789. This piece must be important if we are still using it today in our government systems. So in conclusion, college students should not be limited to speech and hate speech codes should not come into effect within Americas college systems. Works Cited Buruma, Ian, â€Å"The Freedom to Offend. † The Best American Essays 2007. Ed. David Foster Wallace and? Robert Atwan. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2007. 22-27. Print Greenup, John S. â€Å"The First Amendment And The Right To Hate. † Journal Of Law ; Education 34. 4 (2005): 605-613. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Hebel, Sara. â€Å"California Bill Would Curb Official Censorship Of Student Newspapers. Chronicle Of Higher Education (2006): A28. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 11 Nov. 2012. Uelmen, Gerald. â€Å"The Price of Free Speech: Campus Hate Speech Codes. † Santa Clara University, 1990. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Waldron, Jeremy. The Harm in Hate Speech, Harvard University Press, 2012, 292 pp. , 26. 95. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Wendel, W. Bradley. â€Å"A Moderate Defense Of Hate Speech Regulations On University Campuses. † Harvard Journal On Legislation 41. 2 (2004): 407-420. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 13 Nov. 2012. How to cite Research Paper on Limited Speech on College Campuses, Essays

Robotic Mission vs Manned Mission free essay sample

It is my opinion that if given a choice between a robotic and a manned space based exploration, it is better to execute a robotic mission. It is not worth the cost and risk for humans to simply explore space, except when the goal is specifically colonization. First, a manned mission would be much more technically complicated than a robotic one outweighing any incremental benefit resulting from a human presence. Second, the financial cost of manned missions to overcome the complications is not worth the projected costs. Third, funding robotic missions are indirect investments in aiding the current human condition. That is, the cost saving from robot missions could help relieve current issues here on earth. Lastly, pushing the boundaries of the unknown will always be fascinating to humans, but we would be pushing current human boundaries to explore much further past the moon, with our current technology. Advancements in robot technology can allow us to take the next step in advanced space missions. We will write a custom essay sample on Robotic Mission vs Manned Mission or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Some would argue the opposite; some would say that manned missions are essential to quench our curiosity and thirst for uncovering the unknown, our desperate search for answers about the universe, and to find life beyond our planet. There are specific advantages to robotic exploration over human space missions. Space is a dangerous place for humans in many ways; there are many factors working against long term human space travel. There is harsh radiation, zero gravity and the element of time to consider. Radiation, in form of cosmic rays (high energy particles) and other high-energy radiation emitted from our sun, breaks down DNA in our bodies (0), leads to major complications, and poses the largest threat to human space travel. Extended zero gravity exposure leads to bone destiny loss and weakened organs because our physiology evolved having gravity. Time is also a factor against human space travel; we simply cannot go fast enough and live long enough to make it. If we went 123,000 mph with current plasma engines (1) to the closest star, Proxima Centauri – 4. 22 light years away (2), it would take 23 thousands years (2. 1). We cant live that long but robots could possibly go faster and need no protection from anything except sensitive equipment. Robots don’t need to come back, they have no families and we can build new ones. As questions are asked about the cosmos we develop new detectors, telescopes, and probes to answer those questions safely, quickly, and with accuracy. Human space missions are extremely expensive, unsafe, and inefficient(3) compared to robotic ones. A manned mission would most likely involve advanced life support systems, ample social interaction that means more people, food, oxygen, radiation protection, constant exercise, etc. with all systems being mostly self-sustaining or replenishing. This is all equals to weight, cost, time, and research. Also, the effects of zero-gravity and cosmic radiation have not been studied in depth and the long term exposure, could be detrimental(4). Also, the effects on the mind, in the long term, we know little about. (5) Constant isolation and confinement could drive any crew mad. (5. 1) We currently don’t even have spacesuits that protect against radiation. (6) Dennis Bushnell, NASA Langley’s chief scientist said, â€Å"What’s affordable is not safe; what’s safe is not affordable. †(7). A robotic mission would not encounter any of these problems and risks. The space shuttle had a price tag of about $450 million per mission and today unmanned payload cost about $12,000 per pound. (8) Most of this cost is associated with the fuel it takes to escape Earth’s orbit which is burned upon take off. The less weight expended the less fuel is required for takeoff, thus saving money to make it worth these endeavors. Assuming we do not colonize the location we plan on exploring, we would want our fellow space explorers to return home to their families safely. This would require a mission plan home, this is more than one mission, an increase in cost and preparation, making a returning virtually impossible. (8. 1) Robotic space missions could directly address and change human conditions on Earth. The possibilities of immediate results on Earth are enticing, new technologies found through the research of problems encountered could lead to advanced propulsion technologies that could give us more efficient methods of travel here on Earth and possibly end our use of fossil fuels. Reaching and exploring asteroids could lead the way to learning how to divert one here on Earth(9). Possible colonization of new worlds can first be explored by robots, giving us an understanding of our true environment and helps us expand, as the human race; not any specific nation or country but for humankind as a whole. Finding new resources from asteroids, moons, and worlds in our solar system could give us a new era of economic stimulus, growth, and hopefully peace. By 2030 we human on Earth will be consuming the resources of two planets annually (10), this is a scary thought and we must prepare for the possibility of expanding our horizons to the new frontier, united as one people for the common good. Some opposing cases have been argued that it is essential for manned missions to be funded. It is very possible for us to reach Mars in one month (11) with a proposed 123,000 MPH plasma engine. This makes it imperative to do so immediately. With less and less standing in our way to colonizing our solar system, we must see these new frontiers with our eyes. New technologies researched for the survival of colonies in space, could bring many positive effects on Earth, such as closed-loop sustainable habitats would give the poor around the world, enough food. 12) This would not be possible, if we sent robots, since they don’t eat. The necessity for manned missions could inadvertently allow us to discover new technologies that will, assuredly help us on Earth. There even is the possibility of a one-way journey for a single candidate to colonize Mars. (13) This would reduce risk, cost, and the lives of other potential settlers. Since, there is no longer the competition of nations to reach space, like the space-race between USA and Russia, but today we work together, â€Å"Like a club of developers. (14) In conclusion, I feel that a robotic mission is the way to explore space. The cost, risk, and benefits gained from a manned mission are just not worth it, when compared to a robotic one. Although, the possibility of many technologies arising from the research aimed toward at solving current hurdles of successful manned missions, we should not to bear the risks associated with them since, robots are extension of ourselves. Endnotes 0: http://schoolworkhelper. net/2011/02/nasa-mission-to-mars-probes-design-dangers/ 1,11,14.