"Why exercise Won't Make You Thin" by Cloud is an article that basically states that a few minutes of rigorous exercise alone each day will not make you thin. Cloud states that the reasons behind this is that people tend to eat more and exercise less the rest of the day after vigorous exercise. He says that less rigorous exercise done throughout the day is much more likely to cause you to lose weight, as is watching what you eat.
The basic problem that I see with Cloud's claim is the title of the article. Many people will only read the title and stop exercising. As humans most of us look for excuses to get out of things we don't like to do. What better excuse than this title on an article in Time Magazine? Think how many people just look at the title and never read the article.
I agree with most of what Cloud says. I think that it is backed up by many scientific claims. If you actually read most weight loss items they say "with exercise and a healthy diet". They don't say, "with exercise and McDonald's food." I think when you are at the gym and have to drive right by fast food places on your way home, you are more likely to stop because temptation is right in front of you. Whereas if you exercise at home and can't see that McDonalds sign you are less likely to go there.
Another reason that I believe it is that I have been a runner most of my life, but several months ago my doctor advised no more running. Instead I now walk each day. I try to walk about an hour and a half each evening. I have lost over 20 pounds and now wear a jean size that I haven't worn in over 20 years. The only other thing I have done differently is that I don't eat after I exercise. I eat supper before I walk. I also brush my teeth after every meal. It is amazing how much less attractive food tastes after brushing your teeth. However, I see how much more active I am after walking than running because I am less physically exhausted. While I am required to get exercise because of a health problem, I have actually seen more benefits from the walking. My knees, feet, and ankles hurt less, and it has been easier for me to take the weight off and keep it off. Another really amazing thing about it is that they are treating me with a drug that causes weight gain, and yet I still have lost weight instead of gaining it.
I do, however, think that diet has a lot to do with weight loss. I eat healthy, and rarely eat out. If I had to drive past McDonalds every night after exercising, that wouldn't be true anymore. Removing temptation helps me out a lot!!!!
Overall, I found a lot of truth to this article. I just really hope people don't just read the title and stop exercising!
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Friday, September 30, 2011
Revision workshop
Although I wasn't able to be in class today, I did have someone do the peer review on my paper. Lets just say its going to be a really long weekend!!! I have lots of things to fix (as usual). The biggest problem that I have is making my thoughts clear to others. I say what I think I'm saying, and the reader hears something totally different. Or I don't use proper English. My sentences are usually either run-ons or fragments. I'm just really not good at writing papers. Sometimes it gets really frustrating. Our first paper I revised 7 times- no kidding!!! The bad part is that even after 7 I still got a lot of things wrong. So, yeah, its going to be a really long weekend. The peer review does help because then at least I know what I'm doing wrong & can try to fix it.
Were my comments helpful to my fellow writer? I really hope so. Reading is something that I can do well. Explaining myself is not something that I do well. I do think my comments were understood though. Hopefully, this process helps us out. I think that it does.
The comments that were helpful to me were which arguments in my paper were unclear. That also seemed to be the most helpful part of my critique. This will allow both of us time to clarify and revise our papers before we have to turn them in. All in all, a very good process.
Were my comments helpful to my fellow writer? I really hope so. Reading is something that I can do well. Explaining myself is not something that I do well. I do think my comments were understood though. Hopefully, this process helps us out. I think that it does.
The comments that were helpful to me were which arguments in my paper were unclear. That also seemed to be the most helpful part of my critique. This will allow both of us time to clarify and revise our papers before we have to turn them in. All in all, a very good process.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Finding E.T. (roughdraft Pt. 2)
Paper Two Rough draft- Part 2
Where in the universe will we locate extraterrestrial life? Who will be the one to locate it? By examining two different articles from Popular Science magazine the reader can tell the variance in opinion of these two questions through the use of genre. The audiences of said two articles are very different in fact. In "The Search Is On" Jennifer Abbasi addresses normal laymen to conclude that we all should be involved in the search for extraterrestrial life, including how citizens can monetarily support said projects. However, in "The Search For Extraterrestrial Life" author Matt Ransford seems to say that only scientists should be involved in the search and therefore writes accordingly. The use of genre and language and even the way basic facts are represented show a very clear picture of how genre is used to express the opinions of these authors.
"The Search Is On" by Jennifer Abbasi examines the current methods used to locate extraterrestrial life. The article examines projects by astrobiologists on earth to locate life in places before thought to be uninhabitable. The author also examines several space missions within our solar system to locate life on other planets and moons. Abbasi further discusses both the Kepler Space Telescope and the James Webb Space Telescope. "The Search Is On" discusses projects by SETI which are currently being funded by public support and even tells the reader how to contribute money. The article is written in laymen’s terms and is directed at the public to gain public support for the search for extraterrestrial life.
"The Search For Extraterrestrial Life: A Brief History" by author Matt Ransford gives the reader a scientific perspective of the history and current search by scientists for extraterrestrial life. This article is definitely written for scientists as it uses a great number of big scientific words which most laymen would not understand. The article also cites the names of each project and the scientists responsible for each discovery. Ransford even discusses the Drake equation, which probably would be unknown to anyone other than scientists. Ransford discusses many SETI projects and NASA missions throughout the article with regard to what they contribute to the search for extraterrestrial life. Projects discussed include SETI, the Drake Equation, astrobiology, life on Mars, Project Cyclops, the Pioneer Plaques, the Arecibo Message, the Voyager Golden Records, meteorites, extremophiles, the Wow! Signal, Project Phoenix, SETI at UC Berkeley, extra solar planets, the Kepler Mission, and the Allen Telescope Array.
The intended audience difference from each article is clearly expressed within each articles thesis statement. Ransford writes, "If (or, as some would say, when) humans make contact with alien intelligence, the scientists who devote their careers to the search will be our first point of contact." This clearly shows bias towards scientists leading the search. Abbasi, on the other hand, states, "New missions and discoveries on Earth, within our solar system and beyond are bringing us closer than ever to finding alien life on other planets. The term "us" would clearly mean to imply everyone.
"The Search Is On" by Jennifer Abbasi examines the current methods used to locate extraterrestrial life. The article examines projects by astrobiologists on earth to locate life in places before thought to be uninhabitable. The author also examines several space missions within our solar system to locate life on other planets and moons. Abbasi further discusses both the Kepler Space Telescope and the James Webb Space Telescope. "The Search Is On" discusses projects by SETI which are currently being funded by public support and even tells the reader how to contribute money. The article is written in laymen’s terms and is directed at the public to gain public support for the search for extraterrestrial life.
"The Search For Extraterrestrial Life: A Brief History" by author Matt Ransford gives the reader a scientific perspective of the history and current search by scientists for extraterrestrial life. This article is definitely written for scientists as it uses a great number of big scientific words which most laymen would not understand. The article also cites the names of each project and the scientists responsible for each discovery. Ransford even discusses the Drake equation, which probably would be unknown to anyone other than scientists. Ransford discusses many SETI projects and NASA missions throughout the article with regard to what they contribute to the search for extraterrestrial life. Projects discussed include SETI, the Drake Equation, astrobiology, life on Mars, Project Cyclops, the Pioneer Plaques, the Arecibo Message, the Voyager Golden Records, meteorites, extremophiles, the Wow! Signal, Project Phoenix, SETI at UC Berkeley, extra solar planets, the Kepler Mission, and the Allen Telescope Array.
The intended audience difference from each article is clearly expressed within each articles thesis statement. Ransford writes, "If (or, as some would say, when) humans make contact with alien intelligence, the scientists who devote their careers to the search will be our first point of contact." This clearly shows bias towards scientists leading the search. Abbasi, on the other hand, states, "New missions and discoveries on Earth, within our solar system and beyond are bringing us closer than ever to finding alien life on other planets. The term "us" would clearly mean to imply everyone.
Another trait that characterizes the intended audience of each article is the use of language. The biggest word used in “The Search Is On” by Abbasi is the word “astrobiologist”. While it is large word, most laymen could clearly distinguish the meaning of this word by its root parts: “astro” meaning space, “biologist” meaning one who studies life. This makes the article simple to read for anyone. However, in “The Search For Extraterrestrial Life: A Brief History” by Matt Ransford many large words are used, especially scientific words. Words such as “Interstellar communications”, “electromagnetic”, ”nebulous”, “interdisciplinary”, “extremophiles”, “compendium”, “tardigrades”, etc. are used throughout the article. The reader would have to be well educated in the scientific field to know what most of these words meant. Therefore, the audiences for both articles are clearly different through the use of language.
Although both articles address many of the same projects, the manner in which they are discussed clearly shows the authors intended audience. There are many large differences. For example, Abbasi rarely names the scientists who made the discoveries in each project. In fact, “The Search Is On” usually uses the term “scientists” instead of names. Ransford, however, always names the scientist credited to each discovery or project in “The Search For Extraterrestrial Life: A Brief History”. Most laymen would not care about the names of the scientists. However, most scientists definitely would want to know the names of each scientist. This gives another clear view of audience and intended purpose.
Another example of intended audience is the terminology used to address the same projects. Both articles, for example, discuss the exoplanets discovered by the Kepler Space Telescope. Abbasi calls them “exoplanets”, while Ransford calls them “extra solar planets”. Most laymen could determine the meaning of “exoplanet” from its two root words: “exo” meaning external, and planets. However, “extra solar planets” would probably only be understood by a scientist, as breaking it down into its roots would not give a clear meaning to the word.
Works Cited
Abbasi, Jennifer. "The Search Is On." Popular Science Oct. 2011: 37-44. Print.
Works Cited
Abbasi, Jennifer. "The Search Is On." Popular Science Oct. 2011: 37-44. Print.
Ransford, Matt. "The Search For Extraterrestrial Life: A Brief History." Popular Science June 2008: Print
Monday, September 26, 2011
Paper Two Roughdraft
Where in the universe will we locate extraterrestrial life? Who will be the one to locate it? By examining two different articles from Popular Science magazine the reader can tell the variance in opinion of these two questions through the use of genre. The audiences of said two articles are very different in fact. In "The Search Is On" Jennifer Abbasi addresses normal laymen to conclude that we all should be involved in the search for extraterrestrial life, including how citizens can monetarily support said projects. However, in "The Search For Extraterrestrial Life" author Matt Ransford seems to say that only scientists should be involved in the search and therefore writes accordingly. The use of genre and language and even the way basic facts are represented show a very clear picture of how genre is used to express the opinions of these authors.
"The Search Is On" by Jennifer Abbsi examines the current methods used to locate extraterrestrial life. The article examines projects by astrobiologists on earth to locate life in places before thought to be uninhabitable. The author also examines several space missions within our solar system to locate life on other planets and moons. Abbasi further discusses both the Kepler Space Telescope and the James Webb Space Telescope. "The Search Is On" discusses projects by SETI which are currently being funded by public support and even tells the reader how to contribute money. The article is written in laymens terms and is directed at the public to gain public support for the search for extraterrestrial life.
"The Search For Extraterrestrial Life: A Brief History" by author Matt Ransford gives the reader a scientific perspective of the history and current search by scientists for extraterrestrial Life. This article is definitely written for scientists as it uses a great number of big scientific words which most laymen would not understand. The article also cites the names of each project and the scientists responsible for each discovery. Ransford even discusses the Drake equation, which probably would be unknown to anyone other than scientists. Ransford discusses many SETI projects and NASA missions throughout the article with regard to what they contribute to the search for extraterrestrial life.
The intended audience difference from each article is clearly expressed within each articles thesis statement. Ransford writes, "If (or, as some would say, when) humans make contact with alien intelligence, the scientists who devote their careers to the search will be our first point on contact." This clearly shows bias towards scientists leading the search. Abbasi, on the other hand, states, "New missions and discoveries on Earth, within our solar system and beyond are bringing us closer than ever to finding alien life on other planets. The term "us" would clearly mean to imply everyone.
Works Cited
Abbasi, Jennifer. "The Search Is On." Popular Science Oct. 2011: 37-44. Print.
Ransford, Matt. "The Search For Extraterrestrial Life: A Brief History." Popular Science June 2008: Print.
"The Search Is On" by Jennifer Abbsi examines the current methods used to locate extraterrestrial life. The article examines projects by astrobiologists on earth to locate life in places before thought to be uninhabitable. The author also examines several space missions within our solar system to locate life on other planets and moons. Abbasi further discusses both the Kepler Space Telescope and the James Webb Space Telescope. "The Search Is On" discusses projects by SETI which are currently being funded by public support and even tells the reader how to contribute money. The article is written in laymens terms and is directed at the public to gain public support for the search for extraterrestrial life.
"The Search For Extraterrestrial Life: A Brief History" by author Matt Ransford gives the reader a scientific perspective of the history and current search by scientists for extraterrestrial Life. This article is definitely written for scientists as it uses a great number of big scientific words which most laymen would not understand. The article also cites the names of each project and the scientists responsible for each discovery. Ransford even discusses the Drake equation, which probably would be unknown to anyone other than scientists. Ransford discusses many SETI projects and NASA missions throughout the article with regard to what they contribute to the search for extraterrestrial life.
The intended audience difference from each article is clearly expressed within each articles thesis statement. Ransford writes, "If (or, as some would say, when) humans make contact with alien intelligence, the scientists who devote their careers to the search will be our first point on contact." This clearly shows bias towards scientists leading the search. Abbasi, on the other hand, states, "New missions and discoveries on Earth, within our solar system and beyond are bringing us closer than ever to finding alien life on other planets. The term "us" would clearly mean to imply everyone.
Works Cited
Abbasi, Jennifer. "The Search Is On." Popular Science Oct. 2011: 37-44. Print.
Ransford, Matt. "The Search For Extraterrestrial Life: A Brief History." Popular Science June 2008: Print.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Finding E.T.
Where do we start looking to find extraterrestrial life? It seems many people have different opinions on this and also on just exactly which of us should be looking. In comparing two different articles from two different authors both of which were published by Popular Science magazine, you can definitely tell the difference of opinions in terms of genre.
In "The Search For Extraterrestrial Life: A Brief History" author Matt Ransford makes it pretty apparent that his intended audience is professional scientists. Much of the terminology of the article would only be understood by professional scientists. Much of the article goes over the history of finding trying to find alien life through science. It even discusses equations. Very clearly this information would only seem interesting to scientists. The article also explores the future of finding alien life, also through science. The article would be rather boring to someone who wasn't a scientist.
On the other hand, in "The Search Is On" author Jennifer Abbasi clearly uses the public as her intended audience, in particular those interested in supporting extraterrestrial life, astronomy, and space exploration programs. Abbasi uses laymens terms and the article is very interesting and understandable by most normal people. Abbasi clearly tries to drum up support for these programs from the public and even cites ways to send money to the programs. While science is definitely involved in the article, it is written to appeal to the public.
The really shocking part is that both of these articles were published by Popular Science Magazine. The genre of both articles are very telling to their audience and their views. It seems unusual though to see both views in one publication. However, the Ransford article was published in 2008 and the Abbasi article was published just this month. Many state sponsored extraterrestrial life programs have been closed during this time period, which would lead one to reason that this is the reason for the newer publication.
Genre helps me to understand the similarities in the articles. The subject matter and methods discussed are much the same. However, genre also helps me to visualize the difference in intended audience by the language that is used, and also descriptors. The Ransford article is much more technical and would be boring to many members of the public. The Abbasi article seems to say we should all be doing this together, while the Ransford article seems to say if you're not a scientist, don't bother trying to read this.
Of the two, I much prefer the Abbasi article because its easier to understand. I don't need a dictionary and a science book to read it. The Ransford article, however, does contain more beautiful pictures. Maybe thats the part the rest of us are supposed to "read".
So even though we are all looking for E.T., it would seem as if there's a difference of opinion on who should be looking.
Works Cited
Abbasi, Jennifer. "The Search Is On." Popular Science Oct. 2011: 37-44. Print.
Ransford, Matt. "The Search For Extraterrestrial Life: A Brief History." Popular Science June 2008: Print.
In "The Search For Extraterrestrial Life: A Brief History" author Matt Ransford makes it pretty apparent that his intended audience is professional scientists. Much of the terminology of the article would only be understood by professional scientists. Much of the article goes over the history of finding trying to find alien life through science. It even discusses equations. Very clearly this information would only seem interesting to scientists. The article also explores the future of finding alien life, also through science. The article would be rather boring to someone who wasn't a scientist.
On the other hand, in "The Search Is On" author Jennifer Abbasi clearly uses the public as her intended audience, in particular those interested in supporting extraterrestrial life, astronomy, and space exploration programs. Abbasi uses laymens terms and the article is very interesting and understandable by most normal people. Abbasi clearly tries to drum up support for these programs from the public and even cites ways to send money to the programs. While science is definitely involved in the article, it is written to appeal to the public.
The really shocking part is that both of these articles were published by Popular Science Magazine. The genre of both articles are very telling to their audience and their views. It seems unusual though to see both views in one publication. However, the Ransford article was published in 2008 and the Abbasi article was published just this month. Many state sponsored extraterrestrial life programs have been closed during this time period, which would lead one to reason that this is the reason for the newer publication.
Genre helps me to understand the similarities in the articles. The subject matter and methods discussed are much the same. However, genre also helps me to visualize the difference in intended audience by the language that is used, and also descriptors. The Ransford article is much more technical and would be boring to many members of the public. The Abbasi article seems to say we should all be doing this together, while the Ransford article seems to say if you're not a scientist, don't bother trying to read this.
Of the two, I much prefer the Abbasi article because its easier to understand. I don't need a dictionary and a science book to read it. The Ransford article, however, does contain more beautiful pictures. Maybe thats the part the rest of us are supposed to "read".
So even though we are all looking for E.T., it would seem as if there's a difference of opinion on who should be looking.
Works Cited
Abbasi, Jennifer. "The Search Is On." Popular Science Oct. 2011: 37-44. Print.
Ransford, Matt. "The Search For Extraterrestrial Life: A Brief History." Popular Science June 2008: Print.
Friday, September 2, 2011
"The Future of Space: Cluttered Space"
In "The Future of Space: Cluttered Space" (August 2010) Popular Science's David Kushner discusses the dangers posed by space trash to astronauts and spacecraft, and the current scientific proposals to remove the trash. This article uses science by explaining how each device would remove the debris from low earth orbit, and the pros, cons, and plausibility of each device. It uses laymens language to explain the dangers posed and how important it is that we remove this debris that is of our own creation. The article explains the science behind each device, how it works, is made, and if it would actually work to push the debris out of orbit where it would burn up in Earth's atmosphere.
Did you know that currently there are over 500,000 man made objects in low earth orbit bigger than 4/10 of an inch? Did you know that an object 4/100 of an inch could kill an astronaut? NASA currently predicts a "catastrophic collision" once every 20 years. These figures give some understanding of the threat this space trash poses.
This article examines the possibilities of using lasers, solar sails, tethers and nets, space mist, robots and adhesives to remove said objects out of low earth orbit into our atmosphere, where the objects would burn up.
The article appears to be written for anyone interested in the space program and in new technologies to do with space objects. The indicators that give clues to the audience are the explanations posed to the threat to the space program and those involved in space. No mention of any dangers posed to objects or people on the planet are ever mentioned. Also, the article gives a good explanation of how each device would work, what materials it would be made of, and the pros, cons, and plausibility of the devices actually working. This would seem to only be interesting to those interested in space and new scientific technologies.
Did you know that currently there are over 500,000 man made objects in low earth orbit bigger than 4/10 of an inch? Did you know that an object 4/100 of an inch could kill an astronaut? NASA currently predicts a "catastrophic collision" once every 20 years. These figures give some understanding of the threat this space trash poses.
This article examines the possibilities of using lasers, solar sails, tethers and nets, space mist, robots and adhesives to remove said objects out of low earth orbit into our atmosphere, where the objects would burn up.
The article appears to be written for anyone interested in the space program and in new technologies to do with space objects. The indicators that give clues to the audience are the explanations posed to the threat to the space program and those involved in space. No mention of any dangers posed to objects or people on the planet are ever mentioned. Also, the article gives a good explanation of how each device would work, what materials it would be made of, and the pros, cons, and plausibility of the devices actually working. This would seem to only be interesting to those interested in space and new scientific technologies.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
"106 Science Claims and a Truck Full of Baloney"
In regard to the article "106 Science Claims and a Truck Full of Baloney" I must say that I found the article to be very amusing and very truthful. I am sure that we can all agree that we all have heard several of these same claims before in our daily routine. There were two things that I really found interesting: 1. That Cheerios really has done scientific testing to show that their cereal really does reduce cholesterol. 2. That the majority of scientific claims are made by advertising companies.
I found the Cheerios testing interesting because I actually eat Cheerios, and the claim that it reduces cholesterol is the main reason why I eat them. To actually know that they have and are testing their product to validate their claims really is nice!!! Yay for Proctor and Gambill!!! Someone actually might care about their advertising!
The idea that most scientific claims come from advertising companies interested me because I had never really thought about it before. If you actually do stop to think about that idea it really does make sense. You hear the ads all the time, and I actually will pick one product over another if I feel it has scientific benefits for me.
The two questions that I had were: 1. Why do their appear to be different FDA standards for homeopathic products from prescriptive pharmaceutical medicines?
And 2. Why doesn't the FDA go after some of these companies for false advertising?
There appears to be a double standard. Why aren't the regulations the same for both homeopathic medicines and pharmacuticals? Both are used by humans and both can do harm.
Also, if the federal government can go after people for fraud why doesn't the FDA go after some of these people for false advertising? To me, when it involves things that people will ingest, false advertising is fraud because someone could be seriously injured by it, even fatally harmed. Why is there a double standard?
I found the Cheerios testing interesting because I actually eat Cheerios, and the claim that it reduces cholesterol is the main reason why I eat them. To actually know that they have and are testing their product to validate their claims really is nice!!! Yay for Proctor and Gambill!!! Someone actually might care about their advertising!
The idea that most scientific claims come from advertising companies interested me because I had never really thought about it before. If you actually do stop to think about that idea it really does make sense. You hear the ads all the time, and I actually will pick one product over another if I feel it has scientific benefits for me.
The two questions that I had were: 1. Why do their appear to be different FDA standards for homeopathic products from prescriptive pharmaceutical medicines?
And 2. Why doesn't the FDA go after some of these companies for false advertising?
There appears to be a double standard. Why aren't the regulations the same for both homeopathic medicines and pharmacuticals? Both are used by humans and both can do harm.
Also, if the federal government can go after people for fraud why doesn't the FDA go after some of these people for false advertising? To me, when it involves things that people will ingest, false advertising is fraud because someone could be seriously injured by it, even fatally harmed. Why is there a double standard?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)