1. I would probably have to hear something like, “today we have invented a way to stop aging!” or something like, “Now we have found a new planet that humans can live on.” Mostly something newly discovered that would have a major impact on life would make me feel like I’m in a new world.
2. Well it’s reciprocal because kind of like history it seems like science always tends to repeat itself. For instance old problems become new problems and new solutions from the past have better solutions in the present kind of thing.
3. I would find it very beautiful because I am actually a big fan of nature and I’m sad to admit it but I have been bird watching before. It might cry out of sadness I am guessing.
4. I believe paragraph 14 when he is talking about what would it have cost to to capture the past was an epiphany because it seemed like an idea that just struck him.
5. I think that the second paragraph of the first three would provide a good thesis implicit.
6. He seems to somehow show that science is created by human curiosity and then through that scientific curiosity to strive further in life technology is created. It sounds confusing and simple but this is what I came up with.
I qualify with Trubey on his argument on whether or not television is good or bad for our society. Trubey makes a valid point when talking about how you can do so much more with your time rather than watch t.v., but at the same time television helps our economy and all in all who’s choice is it to sit in front of the “omnipresent box”? Television really has transformed into a truly multimedia form of entertainment and not all of it is good. Trubey says that people become brainwashed and plastered to television. This is true in some aspects because children, teens, and adults are influenced by the things they see and hear on t.v. on a daily basis. Children might see an action film and go to school the next day thinking that it is cool to attack other children the way they saw on a show. Teenage girls may start to imitate the women seen on t.v. who hold a normal image of a woman up to an unreachable standard, and thus making girls have eating disorders, behavioral problems, and have self esteem issues. Boys may do drugs and act a certain way due to shows and music channels on different programs and end up forgetting who they are. Adults can have their opinions swayed and can possibly have a negative view point on something they really know nothing about. In these ways television can brainwash Americans but television also has a positive outlook on the way that it effects Americans today of all ages. Television can give you a heightened sense and make people pay attention to small details and help process difficult plots which could help them in actual life to find solutions to difficult problems. If television were such a terrible influence then why would educators use movies to teach their students a lesson in a chapter or to show a better example of what they can not explain thoroughly through words. Some people learn easier through movies and shows rather than read books and listen to lectures. Also television is boosting American economy and in this way making America “richer”. So in these ways television is good for the American society.
1. It helps his argument by appealing to youth and giving a perspective no one else would have really brought to mind. It also makes people question themselves on what good media really is. It also helps to go back and forth between two subjects that most people are familiar with so that readers can relate a little easier.
2. The charts help to create a visual image of what they are reading. Since some people absorb information easier through visuals and some better through words, having charts within an essay becomes a win, win situation for Johnson and his entirety if of his essay. I don’t think that the charts could stand on their own because if someone just looked at it as is it would be extremely confusing and probably would not make much sense without the description of what it stands for.
3. The narrative threads intrigue viewers because although the storyline ends up going in the same direction as previous episodes the actual plot changes on a never ending basis. Audiences can then relate to what they are watching and feel comfortable because they are familiar with a program, but yet at the same time remain interested because of the plot changes that occur. Multi-threading makes viewers pay attention in order to keep up with the story-line, and it reverts to patience because in order to make sense of certain plots, a viewer must think things through to the smallest things said on the program and subtle clues. The flashing arrows attract attention by making certain phrases stick out to a viewer because they almost instantly know that certain sayings will foreshadow what will happen next giving the viewer an almost false sense of superiority haha. They all do well in attracting attention and entertaining. Their difference is that they all force viewers to pay attention in different ways to different aspects.
4. As I read the essay, it kind of seemed to me that Johnson subtly put in counterarguments to his actual opinion. Then to prove his points he gave some hard facts but also some colloquial statements that made it almost seem like a conversation and related the readers.
5. Because more money is made when programs can be watched more than once. By making a program “smarter” a viewer will discover new hidden plots, new sayings, and new clues that they did not notice before. By doing this the economy because much wealthier.
Product: For more than 10 years, the herbal remedy Airborne was marketed as a cold-fighting treatment by CEO Elise Donahue, a former second-grade teacher who created and marketed the product herself, working her way up to an Oprah endorsement. Donahue’s company claimed that it had been tested, with remarkable success, in a “double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of 120 patients” in the early stages of a head cold. About half the patients treated with Airborne reportedly didn’t develop a full-blown cold, compared with 77 percent of placebo-treated patients who did.
*this article shows types of support by using facts and statisitics to show authenticity.
Training DazeWhy do doctors fixate on diagnosis, not treatment?
By Darshak Sanghavi
Posted Wednesday, March 12, 2008, at 1:06 PM ET When doctors are freed from commercial pressure, how well do they perform? We’ve grown accustomed to scapegoating pharmaceutical companies for health-care ills—consider movies like The Constant Gardener and the recent New York Times Magazineexposé by a psychiatrist paid by drug makers. The implication is that if left alone by money-grubbing drug companies and health insurers, physicians make the right decisions on behalf of their patients.
There are at least two explanations. First, clinical training in primary care—including pediatrics, internal medicine, and family practice—excessively focuses on the diagnostic hunt rather than the more routine rounds of treatment that follow. It’s tempting to think that most doctors are detectives nailing baffling diagnoses, like Hugh Laurie’s character on House. In part, this view of medicine accounts for the success of Jerome Groopman’s book How Doctors Think, which explores how wrong diagnoses occur. In almost every educational venue—from morning teaching sessions for residents to the weekly case conference featured in the New England Journal of Medicine—medical trainees spend hours learning about how to diagnose rare ailments. And then, abruptly, discussion ends, as though treatment were an afterthought.
*the type of support used here is facts, and some testimony i guess because it uses information from books written by doctors and such.
My interpretation of this piece was that it was used to get a point across about he struggles of people in the past and present and how a person’s race or geography should not undermine their tragedies. By using such a popular modern novel that most people have at least heard of I think Giovanni was able to have readers of all ages and levels connect to the issues mentioned in this piece to the same central point. I believe that Giovanni was trying to show how all people’s inner hope and strength can save them from their obstacles and how just the smallest minuscule glimmer of hope can be the driving factor to survive for anyone in the world. This piece pretty much just made me think that Giovanni was just trying to in an almost satirical way, show how prejudice is ridiculous and that the tragedies of one group of people should not seem worse than the next and how people should not judge or be judged on it. By using parallelism to the stories Giovanni connected past tragedies that no one would have ever associated with the fictional novel, and through her mentioning, of different time periods and issues I thoroughly assume that the author of this piece was trying to say that we are all one people not separated by race, heritage, or even position on the globe, but rather connected by past and present tragedies, our hopes, and our common determination to not only survive but thrive. This was pretty much how I interpreted the piece but I am almost positive I’m wrong.
If you’ve got 4 minutes and 55 seconds, we’ve also put together a video introduction that you might like:
You can also subscribe to our brilliant free publication, The Edublogger, which is jammed with helpful tips, ideas and more.
And finally, if you like Edublogs but want to be able to simply create, administer, control and manage hundreds of student and teacher blogs at your school or college, check out Edublogs Campus… it’s like Edublogs in a box, all for you.
