Is Google negatively affecting our intelligence? 12/11/17
Many say that Google is making us think less for ourselves. Yes, that claim is very true. In fact in the words of “A study of Students’ Online research Behavior”, by Moran and Firth it implies, “Our new habits may interfere in the development of deep, conceptual knowledge.” What this quote is trying to say that with the introduction of Google, may not have been thinking deeply as before. Google in fact is making us think less for ourselves due to it’s false information and memorization.
Google has been making us think less for ourselves due to the false information, since much on the information on there is false. Google has many sites and information, but much of that information could be in fact false. For instance, according to Moran and Firth, “A Study of Students research Behavior” it states, “The internet is filled with incorrect information, which may lead to being misinformed.” What this quote is trying to say is that information on the internet cannot always be trusted, and it could give you the wrong information. According to Nicholas Carr, “The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains” it states, “The faster we zip across the Web, clicking links and skimming words and pictures, the more ads Google is able to show us, the more money it makes.” What Nicholas Carr is trying to say, is that Google would rather put up lots of websites with advertisements, even some unreliable sites just to make money. Google would rather make you help make their money, while you get nothing but unreliable information in return. In Conclusion, Google is making us less intelligent due to its false information that it is providing us.
Google is making us think less for ourselves due to memorization. Ever since the creation of the internet and Google people can not rethink the past clearly or at all. In fact, according to Moran and Firth, “ A Study of Students’ Online research Behavior” it states, “These tools have replaced our need to memorize many details; and without these tools we may be lost.” The main point the the quote, is that many people now rely on Google to think and remember for them. But Google can be used as a good thing. Many people use it in order to check a fact or to research a topic. According to Moran and Firth, “A Study of Students’ Online research Behavior” it claims, “Our recall is flawed. Every time we recall a memory we also remake it. Google acts like fact-checker, helping us avoid many errors.” This quote is basically saying that, Google can be used as a fact checker or accessing information that you can not remember. In Conclusion, Google can make you forget more information, but at the same time it can be used as a fact checker or access.
In Conclusion, Google in fact has been making us think less for ourselves due to the false information and memorization. Google has been around for awhile and is used worldwide. But there is in fact a consequence for using it to much. Google has been making people rely on Google and not the person. It makes people think less for themselves but at the same time it can be used for other positive uses. Nicholas Carr stated that, “You can Google all the facts you want, but you’ll never Google your way to brilliance.”
Google has been making us think less for ourselves due to the false information, since much on the information on there is false. Google has many sites and information, but much of that information could be in fact false. For instance, according to Moran and Firth, “A Study of Students research Behavior” it states, “The internet is filled with incorrect information, which may lead to being misinformed.” What this quote is trying to say is that information on the internet cannot always be trusted, and it could give you the wrong information. According to Nicholas Carr, “The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains” it states, “The faster we zip across the Web, clicking links and skimming words and pictures, the more ads Google is able to show us, the more money it makes.” What Nicholas Carr is trying to say, is that Google would rather put up lots of websites with advertisements, even some unreliable sites just to make money. Google would rather make you help make their money, while you get nothing but unreliable information in return. In Conclusion, Google is making us less intelligent due to its false information that it is providing us.
Google is making us think less for ourselves due to memorization. Ever since the creation of the internet and Google people can not rethink the past clearly or at all. In fact, according to Moran and Firth, “ A Study of Students’ Online research Behavior” it states, “These tools have replaced our need to memorize many details; and without these tools we may be lost.” The main point the the quote, is that many people now rely on Google to think and remember for them. But Google can be used as a good thing. Many people use it in order to check a fact or to research a topic. According to Moran and Firth, “A Study of Students’ Online research Behavior” it claims, “Our recall is flawed. Every time we recall a memory we also remake it. Google acts like fact-checker, helping us avoid many errors.” This quote is basically saying that, Google can be used as a fact checker or accessing information that you can not remember. In Conclusion, Google can make you forget more information, but at the same time it can be used as a fact checker or access.
In Conclusion, Google in fact has been making us think less for ourselves due to the false information and memorization. Google has been around for awhile and is used worldwide. But there is in fact a consequence for using it to much. Google has been making people rely on Google and not the person. It makes people think less for themselves but at the same time it can be used for other positive uses. Nicholas Carr stated that, “You can Google all the facts you want, but you’ll never Google your way to brilliance.”
Junk Food Essay. 12/18/17
Junk Food Essay
Junk food is now one of our nation’s greatest crisis. Fast food portions have increased so have the amount of people who are obese. Many people now face the idea of being obese, and many include children. School lunches is a key role in childhood obesity, since many of the lunches include fast food. School is a factor since that is where children spend most of their time. School junk foods should be banned due to eating disorders, obesity, and the amount of money.
Due to possible eating disorders schools should ban junk food in order to stop things from worsening. An example of this is stated in Source B as it says,”He told Mental Floss that some foods are purposely made with bland ingredients so that you crave more food or you just add enough sugar or salt until your mouth explodes with flavor”. This meaning that companies try to get consumers hooked to their products knowing that they can cause some type of eating disorder or addiction which could then cause some other health problems. Due to the fact that they put lots of sugar kids with diabetes are highly affected especially since they are attracted to sugar.
Junk food should be banned in schools due to problems with obesity. Children in this generation have more problems and run-in’s with obesity than any other generation. Source C presents that,”25,000,000 children in the United States are overweight or obese. That’s equal to 1 of every 3 kids!” This is a study found by the Norton Center. What this is saying, for example, is that if you pick out 3 kids from your school, at least one of
them is either overweight or obese. Another reason why we should ban junk food in schools is because people die due to obesity. Source A states,”Nearly 300,000 people die each year from complications associated with being obese or overweight.” This was said by Richard J. Codey, the acting governor of New Jersey. This says that since school contributed to their obesity, they gained more weight, which led to their death. School junk food should be banned due to the bad impact it has on today’s generation. However, some people believe that it should not be banned.
On the other hand, junk food should not be banned due to the affordability and accessibility. According to an article by Erica Robinson, “In low-income communities, fast food is easy to access and affordable, but healthy food is inaccessible and very expensive.” This means that junk food is easier to access but healthier food is more expensive. Most people cannot afford or even access healthy foods, but junk food is available everywhere, even schools. To add on, according to an article written by Roberta Alexander and Nina Lincoff, it states “The healthy choice is rarely the affordable choice… As long as a bottle of water costs more than a soda and [food companies] market to lower income kids, obesity and diabetes rates will go up in those communities.” This indicates that as long as junk food is made available to children, including at school, obesity rates will go up. In lower income communities, people are more likely to consume junk food since it is accessible and available to them.
In Conclusion, junk foods should be banned in schools due to eating disorders, obesity, and the amount of money. In fact if we do not fix this crisis the rate of childhood
Junk food is now one of our nation’s greatest crisis. Fast food portions have increased so have the amount of people who are obese. Many people now face the idea of being obese, and many include children. School lunches is a key role in childhood obesity, since many of the lunches include fast food. School is a factor since that is where children spend most of their time. School junk foods should be banned due to eating disorders, obesity, and the amount of money.
Due to possible eating disorders schools should ban junk food in order to stop things from worsening. An example of this is stated in Source B as it says,”He told Mental Floss that some foods are purposely made with bland ingredients so that you crave more food or you just add enough sugar or salt until your mouth explodes with flavor”. This meaning that companies try to get consumers hooked to their products knowing that they can cause some type of eating disorder or addiction which could then cause some other health problems. Due to the fact that they put lots of sugar kids with diabetes are highly affected especially since they are attracted to sugar.
Junk food should be banned in schools due to problems with obesity. Children in this generation have more problems and run-in’s with obesity than any other generation. Source C presents that,”25,000,000 children in the United States are overweight or obese. That’s equal to 1 of every 3 kids!” This is a study found by the Norton Center. What this is saying, for example, is that if you pick out 3 kids from your school, at least one of
them is either overweight or obese. Another reason why we should ban junk food in schools is because people die due to obesity. Source A states,”Nearly 300,000 people die each year from complications associated with being obese or overweight.” This was said by Richard J. Codey, the acting governor of New Jersey. This says that since school contributed to their obesity, they gained more weight, which led to their death. School junk food should be banned due to the bad impact it has on today’s generation. However, some people believe that it should not be banned.
On the other hand, junk food should not be banned due to the affordability and accessibility. According to an article by Erica Robinson, “In low-income communities, fast food is easy to access and affordable, but healthy food is inaccessible and very expensive.” This means that junk food is easier to access but healthier food is more expensive. Most people cannot afford or even access healthy foods, but junk food is available everywhere, even schools. To add on, according to an article written by Roberta Alexander and Nina Lincoff, it states “The healthy choice is rarely the affordable choice… As long as a bottle of water costs more than a soda and [food companies] market to lower income kids, obesity and diabetes rates will go up in those communities.” This indicates that as long as junk food is made available to children, including at school, obesity rates will go up. In lower income communities, people are more likely to consume junk food since it is accessible and available to them.
In Conclusion, junk foods should be banned in schools due to eating disorders, obesity, and the amount of money. In fact if we do not fix this crisis the rate of childhood
"Freedoms" Essay. 12/20/17
Should One’s Freedom to Speech be Taken Away?
On Thursday November 16, 2017, a woman, Karen Cook Fonseca, was arrested on an unrelated warrant. But this brought up a debate about free- speech. Since it was issued in August and was right after the Sheriff called her out about her anti- Trump sticker. Karen and many others believe that she is victim of having her freedom of speech violated. The right for a person to have an anti- Trump sticker should be allowed based on the First Amendment because being told to take it off violates one’s right. The right for a person to have an anti- Trump sticker should be allowed because of not violating the law and expression.
The right for a person to have an anti- Trump sticker is protected by the First Amendment, because they are not violating any laws. The First Amendment protects the Freedom of Speech, which in this case is being violated because there telling her it is against the law to have that decal on her truck. According to CNN, the Sheriff stated, “Our Prosecutor has informed us she would accept Disorderly Conduct charges regarding it but I feel we could come to an agreement regarding a modification to it.” What CNN is trying to argue is that the woman would’ve have taken a disorderly conduct, but that would be in violate the freedom of speech because she is being penalized for having a sticker opposing the government. Another piece of evidence is from the 1971 court case Cohen v. California it states, “...the high court overturned the conviction of a man who wore a jacket in a courtroom with the words “F*** the draft.” The 5-4 ruling found those words would not immediately incite violence and should be considered protected political speech.” What this case did is that it basically said is that the f*** word does not incite violence and that is protected by the freedom of speech. But in this case, Fonseca is being harassed for having an f*** Trump sticker, but that is violating the freedom of speech. Since she is punished for having a sticker opposing the government. In Conclusion, Karen Fonseca can have the sticker since she is not violating any laws.
The right for a person to have an anti- Trump sticker is protected by the First Amendment because they have the right to expression. In the right of expression, you have the right to express how you feel. According to the Washington Post it states, “Before Fonseca’s arrest, the Houston Chronicle reported she and her husband have no plans to remove the custom graphic, witch they ordered after Trump’s election. “It’s not to cause hate or animosity”, Fonseca told the newspaper, “It’s just our freedom of speech and were exercising it.” What this quote claims is that Fonseca has the right to put that decal on her truck. The decal is her opinion and that is protected by the freedom of speech. In fact according to CNN it states, “Karen Cook Fonseca, who owns the truck with her husband, told CNN she put the decal up about 11 months ago. She said there was “no particular reason” they decided to stick the message on the back of the truck… We wanted our statement out there. Thats our opinion of him” What this quote observes is that, Fonseca has the right to just have their opinion of the president on their car.
In Conclusion, the right for a person to have an anti- Trump sticker should be allowed because of not violating the law and expression. Karen Fonseca turned out to be a victim as someone who’s freedom of speech was violated. In fact, many of people have their freedom of speech taken away and this is a problem we need to face as a country together.
On Thursday November 16, 2017, a woman, Karen Cook Fonseca, was arrested on an unrelated warrant. But this brought up a debate about free- speech. Since it was issued in August and was right after the Sheriff called her out about her anti- Trump sticker. Karen and many others believe that she is victim of having her freedom of speech violated. The right for a person to have an anti- Trump sticker should be allowed based on the First Amendment because being told to take it off violates one’s right. The right for a person to have an anti- Trump sticker should be allowed because of not violating the law and expression.
The right for a person to have an anti- Trump sticker is protected by the First Amendment, because they are not violating any laws. The First Amendment protects the Freedom of Speech, which in this case is being violated because there telling her it is against the law to have that decal on her truck. According to CNN, the Sheriff stated, “Our Prosecutor has informed us she would accept Disorderly Conduct charges regarding it but I feel we could come to an agreement regarding a modification to it.” What CNN is trying to argue is that the woman would’ve have taken a disorderly conduct, but that would be in violate the freedom of speech because she is being penalized for having a sticker opposing the government. Another piece of evidence is from the 1971 court case Cohen v. California it states, “...the high court overturned the conviction of a man who wore a jacket in a courtroom with the words “F*** the draft.” The 5-4 ruling found those words would not immediately incite violence and should be considered protected political speech.” What this case did is that it basically said is that the f*** word does not incite violence and that is protected by the freedom of speech. But in this case, Fonseca is being harassed for having an f*** Trump sticker, but that is violating the freedom of speech. Since she is punished for having a sticker opposing the government. In Conclusion, Karen Fonseca can have the sticker since she is not violating any laws.
The right for a person to have an anti- Trump sticker is protected by the First Amendment because they have the right to expression. In the right of expression, you have the right to express how you feel. According to the Washington Post it states, “Before Fonseca’s arrest, the Houston Chronicle reported she and her husband have no plans to remove the custom graphic, witch they ordered after Trump’s election. “It’s not to cause hate or animosity”, Fonseca told the newspaper, “It’s just our freedom of speech and were exercising it.” What this quote claims is that Fonseca has the right to put that decal on her truck. The decal is her opinion and that is protected by the freedom of speech. In fact according to CNN it states, “Karen Cook Fonseca, who owns the truck with her husband, told CNN she put the decal up about 11 months ago. She said there was “no particular reason” they decided to stick the message on the back of the truck… We wanted our statement out there. Thats our opinion of him” What this quote observes is that, Fonseca has the right to just have their opinion of the president on their car.
In Conclusion, the right for a person to have an anti- Trump sticker should be allowed because of not violating the law and expression. Karen Fonseca turned out to be a victim as someone who’s freedom of speech was violated. In fact, many of people have their freedom of speech taken away and this is a problem we need to face as a country together.
