-article taken from http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1614620,00.html
The Earth today is facing a lot of crisis like overpopulation and global warming. No one can ensure that the Earth can provide a safe and comfort planet for us to live in forever. The search for a new planet to live in may sound absurd but it is definitely essential in the far future.
According to the article, the newly discovered planet, 581c, showed signs of live. Like Earth, it orbits a comfortable distance from its sun; like Earth, it maintains a surface temperature somewhere between 32 and 104 degrees Fahrenheit. Most importantly, like Earth, it could easily harbor surface water. In the biological arithmetic we know best, warmth and water often equal life. It is also about 1.5 times larger than Earth.
However, one of the problem found is that 581c is a lot nearer to the sun as compared to the Earth. (The Earth is 92.9 million miles away from the sun while 581c is just 7 millions miles away). Traveling there also becomes a problem as we took 8 months to travel to Mars, which is about 35 millions miles away. How long will it take to travel to 581 c, which is 120 trillion miles away? Thus, this planet might not be suitable to live in after all.
Do not be surprise if you would to find your future generation living on other planets. Earth simply just cannot last forever. With scientists and astronomers working on finding a suitable planet to live in, it is definitely possible.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Is the use of torture ever justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists?
I strongly believe that torture is justifiable to those criminals who committed hideous crimes and terrorists. In the first place, it is those criminals fault to have committed crimes or endangered peoples’ lives. I feel that they deserve the torture if they do not confess to their crimes or provide information that could save lives. As mentioned in the first article, some may feel about the terrorists’ treatment, but when they think of 9/11, of the awful carnage, their screams may start sound like justice. Harsh treatments are not illegal and are often effective as said by Bush. Thus, torture is one of the most effective ways to get useful information from stubborn criminals.
However, there is also a limit to torture. Torture is only acceptable in some circumstances as raised in the second article. Mr Faris, former chairman of the National Crime Authority, said that torture is only acceptable in criminal investigations that implicate lives. An example would be when a criminal hides a tied-up hostage, who has no ability to move, in an enclosed area, endangering his or her live. When he refused to say that person’s whereabouts, torture can be used to force the criminal to confess, as this will implicate a person’s live and death. I feel that it’s definitely not against human rights to torture a person that endanger the live of another person, as it will save some one’s live.
Nevertheless, torture should be stopped if proven ineffective on certain criminals. As mentioned in the second article, if a criminal doesn’t say anything after his fingernails had been pulled out, this would mean that no amount of torture would work on him. Torture should stop and not go to the extent of hurting innocents like the criminal’s loved ones to emotionally torture him. I feel that this is then violating human rights.
In conclusion, torture is only justifiable when police is certain that that criminal has information about other serious crime or that criminal happens to endanger other peoples’ lives by not giving the whereabouts of those people to the police.
However, there is also a limit to torture. Torture is only acceptable in some circumstances as raised in the second article. Mr Faris, former chairman of the National Crime Authority, said that torture is only acceptable in criminal investigations that implicate lives. An example would be when a criminal hides a tied-up hostage, who has no ability to move, in an enclosed area, endangering his or her live. When he refused to say that person’s whereabouts, torture can be used to force the criminal to confess, as this will implicate a person’s live and death. I feel that it’s definitely not against human rights to torture a person that endanger the live of another person, as it will save some one’s live.
Nevertheless, torture should be stopped if proven ineffective on certain criminals. As mentioned in the second article, if a criminal doesn’t say anything after his fingernails had been pulled out, this would mean that no amount of torture would work on him. Torture should stop and not go to the extent of hurting innocents like the criminal’s loved ones to emotionally torture him. I feel that this is then violating human rights.
In conclusion, torture is only justifiable when police is certain that that criminal has information about other serious crime or that criminal happens to endanger other peoples’ lives by not giving the whereabouts of those people to the police.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
New Media – Power to the people or threat to stability?
I agree that new media can be a threat to stability. New media provides much information for the people. While some might be useful, some might be a threat to stability to the country or even the entire human communities. Take for example, the terrorists may use the new media to brainwash the people’s mind to influence them to join terrorist activities. Since more satellite dishes are now available, the terrorists can now easily deliver extremists’ ideas to the people and manipulate their minds. This would then threaten the stability of the country if there were people who are successfully manipulated and are carrying out terrorist activities.
The new media can also be harmful to the society when people express extremist views on certain issues like racisms or posting illegal information or images. These may lead to discontentment in the affected group of people and they might start do the same things to those who hurt them. When this viscous cycle continues, the new media would then become a portal for people to quarrel and argue. In worst-case scenarios, riots might even break out.
Although new media can bring harm to the society, it has also brought power to the people. People all over the world have discovered profitable ways to incorporate blogging in their personal and business lives. For example, in Africa, the Mail and the Guardian hosted a blog for all politicians in recent local elections. This resulted in many comments and helped to encourage debate. Through this way, people are then engaged actively in the politics of their country. They can now express their views about the country and the governement have to response to them.
In conclusion, I agree to a large extent that new media has brought more of a threat to the stablility of people as the consequeses caused by it is simply too serious.
The new media can also be harmful to the society when people express extremist views on certain issues like racisms or posting illegal information or images. These may lead to discontentment in the affected group of people and they might start do the same things to those who hurt them. When this viscous cycle continues, the new media would then become a portal for people to quarrel and argue. In worst-case scenarios, riots might even break out.
Although new media can bring harm to the society, it has also brought power to the people. People all over the world have discovered profitable ways to incorporate blogging in their personal and business lives. For example, in Africa, the Mail and the Guardian hosted a blog for all politicians in recent local elections. This resulted in many comments and helped to encourage debate. Through this way, people are then engaged actively in the politics of their country. They can now express their views about the country and the governement have to response to them.
In conclusion, I agree to a large extent that new media has brought more of a threat to the stablility of people as the consequeses caused by it is simply too serious.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Can the media ever be relied upon to convey the truth?
Based on the article “Great Lies of the American Free Press”, it can be concluded that the media actually focuses more on the 3P’s (popularity, prejudice and profit) rather than the interest of the people and of the public. Thus I feel that, to a large extent, media can sometimes never be relied upon to convey the truth.
From the word “popularity”, we know that the media edit and select their reports in order to not lose their readers and viewers. This means that the media would only publish reports, which they think that will attract the attention and concern of numerous readers and viewers. For example, the Iraqi War is one that was "fueled by corporate-controlled media's lust to boost profits". The more Iraqi War was promoted, the more will the media have viewers and readers who want to know more about the updates of the war. The word prejudice suggests that the media is bias in their reports. For example, the media may decide to censor an article, which conveys the truth of an improper act by the police force, as the media is afraid that they might offend the police force. This kind of practice may result in the police force continuing that inappropriate act, which maybe harmful to the society. Also, the act of censorship greatly reduced the chances of the public getting to know the truth.
Lastly, profit, which is the most powerful driving force for the media, suggest that the media accept bribes from people to publish articles that favors them. This kind of articles are often unreliable. One example from the article is that Armstrong Williams, a “conservative” African-American pseudo-journalist, was recently paid two hundred and forty thousand dollars ($240,000) by the Bush dictatorship to promote an education reform law on his syndicated television show.
In conclusion, based on the above factors, the media can never be relied upon to convey the truth to the public.
From the word “popularity”, we know that the media edit and select their reports in order to not lose their readers and viewers. This means that the media would only publish reports, which they think that will attract the attention and concern of numerous readers and viewers. For example, the Iraqi War is one that was "fueled by corporate-controlled media's lust to boost profits". The more Iraqi War was promoted, the more will the media have viewers and readers who want to know more about the updates of the war. The word prejudice suggests that the media is bias in their reports. For example, the media may decide to censor an article, which conveys the truth of an improper act by the police force, as the media is afraid that they might offend the police force. This kind of practice may result in the police force continuing that inappropriate act, which maybe harmful to the society. Also, the act of censorship greatly reduced the chances of the public getting to know the truth.
Lastly, profit, which is the most powerful driving force for the media, suggest that the media accept bribes from people to publish articles that favors them. This kind of articles are often unreliable. One example from the article is that Armstrong Williams, a “conservative” African-American pseudo-journalist, was recently paid two hundred and forty thousand dollars ($240,000) by the Bush dictatorship to promote an education reform law on his syndicated television show.
In conclusion, based on the above factors, the media can never be relied upon to convey the truth to the public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)