Enlightenment

UTD Rhetoric 1302: Course Homepage.

Grades

I am posting grades right now. Unfortunately, something terrible did succeed in holding me up by tripling the amount of paperork required of me at the semester's end. Please contact me if you need to; however, my internet access is currently very unreliable. We are trying to figure out why. If I do not respond immediately (or have not), it is the result of that technology poltergeist still hiding somewhere in our modem or Airport.

Thanks for everything this semester. I will miss you all. :)

posted by: Fondant at 05/01/06 15:58 | link | comments |

Grades and Portfolio Retrieval

I will post grades, if all goes well, on Thursday, April 27.

If you would like to get the paper component of your portfolio back, you may come pick it up at my office. Contact me, and we will find a time. I keep all student work for one full semester--in this case through Dec. 2006.

posted by: Fondant at 04/24/06 10:18 | link | comments |

Tudor Chis Paper #3

Tudor Chis

RHET 1302 021

Professor Shari Childers

Essay #3 Casual Argument

11 April 2006

Not Enough Beans

Rush hour is one of the worst events created by man in modern history.  What should be a short commute can end up taking over twice the time it is meant to last.  A ridiculous amount of gas is wasted in the extra time spent inching through what appears to be a gigantic parking lot.  Along with rush hour, the average American driving scenario has significantly changed over the last few decades.  The change in driving patterns leads to different fuel consumption.  Why, then, is the same test used for conducting official miles-per-gallon estimates that was developed over thirty years ago?  Almost no one gets the fuel economy advertised to them from the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) estimates.  The procedure for estimating fuel economy should be changed for both consumer estimates and the official federal tests required for meeting the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards.

The current test is long past overdue for a complete overhaul.  With only the current EPA estimates as a guide, trying to find out the actual fuel economy of a vehicle is kind of like asking “How many cups of sugar does it take to get to the moon?” (Goofy Movie, A).  For example, in the highway test, the vehicles “travel” (the cars are actually on rollers in a lab) a total of 10 miles at an average speed of 48 miles per hour (“Fuel Economy Test Schedules”).  The highest speed attained in this test is a whopping 60 mph.  While this is supposed to simulate real world driving situations on our highways, it is painfully obvious that the test conditions are nowhere near real world conditions.  In most locations in the today, the speed limit is between 60 and 70 mph as opposed to the 55 mph speed limit signed into law in 1973 by Richard Nixon (Nesbitt).  The difference in speeds cause fuel consumption to differ from the numbers posted on the sticker of a new car.  According to the San Diego Earth Times, the “US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Transportation (DOT) are misleading consumers and the US Congress by overestimating the average fuel economy of passenger vehicles by as much as 34 percent” (San Diego).  Although most vehicles’ mpg ratings are not quite as far away from the EPA estimates (a 15-25% margin of error is about average), when multiplied by the amount of fuel each person in the United States consumes on a regular basis, the incorrect calculations have a dramatic effect on the average American’s budget.  Currently, the mpg figures posted for many of today’s cars are almost meaningless.

A new test is being proposed that is expected to remedy many of the shortcomings of the current test.  This test is meant to resemble real world driving conditions in order to get a more accurate estimate of expected fuel economy.  The most obvious change is a higher speed for highway tests.  While the current test averages at a low 48 mph, the proposed test would be around the current state speed limits.  Also, the city tests are going to include more rapid acceleration along with prolonged periods of idling in order to simulate real world situations.  In the previous test, “maximum acceleration rate[s]” are “3.3 mph per second, about the same as going from zero to 60 mph in about 18 seconds” (“Fixing the EPA’s Fuel Economy Tests”).  In the real world, people usually do not accelerate that slowly.  Most modern cars are able to complete the sprint to 60 mph in well under half the time spent in the EPA testing procedure.  While the average driver does not accelerate at full throttle all of the time, most driving instances include prolonged sequences of rapid acceleration.  Another addition to the revised test is expected to be the addition of air conditioning in the mix.  According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, “99% of all cars and trucks come with air conditioning” (“Fixing the EPA’s Fuel Economy Tests”).  Air conditioning, which has changed from being a luxury commodity to a requirement in the automobile market, negatively affects fuel consumption.  While the inclusion of air conditioning in the test could present a more accurate representation of the expected fuel economy, it could also lead to automakers equipping their cars with smaller, less efficient AC units in order to achieve better test numbers.

Overall, the new testing procedure that is being proposed should prove to be a better guide for consumers than the current method.  The new test offers consumers a more accurate representation of possible fuel usage.  People will know what to expect from their vehicles, which is the whole purpose of the EPA estimates.  The legal director of Bluewater Network, Danielle Fugere, commented on how “people were disappointed and angry over the mileage they were getting” (Plungis).  One of the main problems as a result of the current testing procedures is the anger and frustration consumers have to face when they realize that they are not getting anywhere near the estimated fuel mileage of their vehicle.  The new testing procedure should make the EPA estimates a more accurate guide than the current test and add the convenience that it was expected to originally have.  In addition, the fuel economy test overhaul should encourage automakers to produce an entourage of more economical vehicles than those that are currently offered.  Capitalism just works that way.  With the fuel prices sky-rocketing the way it is, people want more fuel efficient cars.  Drivers of Geo Metros are suddenly beginning to get stares of envy from random passersby.  The change in the fuel test would substantially lower mpg numbers on the stickers of new cars, deterring potential customers in cases of low mileage vehicles.  If automakers want their potential customers to choose them over the competition in the ever growing automobile market, they need to listen to the desire of the people and build cars that consume less fuel.

Unfortunately for automakers, people these days can be quite picky.  In the case of their cars, consumers want to have their cake and eat it, too.  While this saying may not really make much sense, the point is that vehicle shoppers want to have a significant amount of performance to go along with their fuel economy.  They want their car to go fast while still making visits to the gas pump a rare occurrence.  Since the fuel is what is being converted to power, more power generally means worse fuel economy.  Looking over the May 2006 Road Test Digest from Car and Driver magazine reveals the cars with the fastest acceleration numbers to be the same cars that have the lowest mpg ratings in most cases (“Road Test Digest” 132).  In the 1970s, during the original oil crisis, vehicles’ performance ratings dropped dramatically as a result of sudden strict regulations imposed by the EPA in order to improve fuel economy across the board. 

Today, however, technology is much improved over the 1970s.  Research and development time invested into increasing both fuel economy and performance has the potential to find solutions to this automotive paradox.  General Motors declares on their web site that “turbo charging is just one of many ways GM is increasing engine performance and efficiency” (“GM”).  While this idea is not new (Porsche has been using this method for decades in order to achieve similar results), many patents have sprouted forth since fuel prices began rising.  Daimler-Chrysler recently introduced “Displacement on Demand” at the same time as their popular new Chrysler 300C, Hemi-powered sedan (“Never Compromise”).  Displacement on Demand allows for half of the cylinders to essentially “shut off” while the driver is at a constant speed, saving a significant amount of fuel under that would otherwise be wasted under normal driving conditions.  With Displacement on Demand, drivers are able to enjoy increased fuel economy while still having the power they need when they want it.  Directing a decent amount of time and effort towards problem solving can reveal the possibility of fuel economy coexisting with high performance, a combination that is irresistible to consumers.

Since the testing procedure is being changed in an effort to produce more realistic numbers, it is only logical that the same “more accurate” tests would be used for the official CAFE calculations.  Instead, the plan is for the current outdated test to remain in use for CAFE; the test for CAFE can only be changed by an act of Congress.  The point of CAFE is to “determine manufacturers’ compliance with the applicable average fuel economy standards and to develop its annual report” (“CAFE Overview”).  If any manufacturer’s weighted average fuel economy is below the standard, currently at about 22 mpg for light trucks and 27 mpg for passenger vehicles, a penalty is paid for noncompliance.  Currently, lobbyists are fighting to make sure that the tests do not change.  According to The Center for Public Integrity, lobbyist Andrew H. Card Jr. “led a $25 million… campaign on behalf of the ‘Big Three’ U.S. automakers” for purposes “against higher environmental standards,” including being “against increased Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards, which would increase minimum gas mileage requirements for new vehicles” (Mayrack).  Lobbyists continue to fight for automakers against changes in CAFE because the changes would force the automakers to alter their lineup and introduce more fuel efficient vehicles.  Although consumers are currently asking for more fuel efficiency, if the official tests for CAFE remain the same, there is less incentive for automakers to produce more fuel efficient vehicles.  Automakers may want to offer more fuel efficient vehicles due to the change in EPA tests, but they may not be able to justify the change if the cost for research and development outweighs their profits.  If the CAFE test is changed, however, automakers will be forced to make their cars more efficient in order to avoid the large penalties they will have to pay for being below the average mpg standards.

Obviously, retaining the old methods for the CAFE standards would simply be a flagrant lie.  The current testing procedure gives untrue results.  When the Energy Policy Conservation Act was “enacted into law by Congress in 1975…,” it included an “Improving Automotive Efficiency” section that created CAFE standards with the “near-term goal” to “double new car fuel economy by model year 1985… in response to the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo” (“CAFE Overview”).  In those years, the point of CAFE standards has been to reduce oil consumption because the costs were going up do to the fuel crisis.  Today, we are facing a similar situation.  Gas prices are once again soaring—although no one seems to really know why—and people want more fuel economy as a result.  If the CAFE tests remain skewed, the only people who will lose as a result are Americans.  The point of CAFE is to make sure fuel economy remains at an acceptable rate for consumers in this country.  If the current “acceptable rate” for passenger vehicles is set at approximately 27 mpg, yet they really achieve closer to 20 mpg, not only is this obviously a lie, but consumers are hurt financially as a result of the untrue statistics.  If the test for measuring the data used in measuring compliance with CAFE standards is not changed, the very same people lose who the CAFE standards are meant to protect.

The false fuel mileage numbers used to currently calculate average fuel economies do not help with the ’ dependence on foreign oil.  Illinois senator Dick Durban’s plan for decreasing dependence on foreign oil includes “[increasing] the standards required under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)” (“Reducing Dependence on Foreign Oil”).  In order for Senator Durban’s plan, along with many other senators’ similar plan, to work (as opposed to Bush’s plan to make sure the oil is not “foreign” any more), the CAFE data has to consist of actual fuel mileages rather than the evidently incorrect collection of information that is currently being used.  Since automakers produce their vehicles with CAFE in mind (the PT Cruiser is classified as a light truck because it has a flat “cargo” area behind its back seats), a change in the test for CAFE standards would, as previously mentioned, eventually lead to vehicles that use less fuel without even altering the actual CAFE standards at all (Fahey).  Even if the EPA test is changed, the same amount of fuel will be used as long as the numbers that really matter in the eyes of automakers remain the same.

The current procedure for calculating fuel economy is highly outdated and is in dire need of a complete overhaul.  It simply does not relate to the current driving scenarios faced in the today.  EPA’s new test that is proposed to take the place of the current one by model year 2008 should display a more accurate estimate of fuel usage which, in turn, will be more convenient for consumers.  If the same test is carried over to be used for CAFE as well, there is a greater chance that automakers will begin producing more fuel efficient vehicles, and dependence on foreign oil will greatly decrease.  With fuel prices going up at the current rate, any form of relief is strongly encouraged.  Traffic patterns may never improve, but at least there is chance for a new, brighter future awaiting the automotive industry.

Works Cited

Bluewater Network.  “Report reveals EPA deceives consumers, Congress by significantly overestimating fuel economy.”  San Diego Earth Times.  November 2002 http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1102/et1102s19.html

“CAFE Overview - Frequently Asked Questions.”  NHTSA.  http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm

Fahey, Jonathan.  “The Gas-Guzzler Relief Act.”  Forbes.   24 August 2005.  http://www.forbes.com/home/manufacturing/2005/08/24/autos-fuel-cafe-cz_jf_0824fuel.html  

“Fixing the EPA’s Fuel Economy Tests.”  Union of Concerned Scientists.  http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_economy/fixing-the-epas-fuel-economy-tests.html

“Fuel Economy Schedules.”  http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

 “GM Announces Plans for 50 New Powertrain Variants By The End of The Decade.”  General Motors.  http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/hybrid_092004.html

Goofy Movie, A.  Dir. Kevin Lima.  Story/Screenplay:  Jymn Magon.  Disney, 1995.

Mayrack, Brenda.  “Bush's New Chief of Staff Once Fought for Polluters.” The Center for Public Integrity.  February 2, 2001 http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=316

Nesbitt, Ted.  “Law reducing speed limit to 55 MPH.”  Experts.  http://experts.about.com/q/Legislation-Presidential-Congressional-337/law-reducing-speed-limit.htm

“Never Compromise Power for Economy.”  Chrysler Vehicles.  http://www.chrysler.com/300/features/performance/index.html

Plungis, Jeff.  “Fuel test overhaul may dent hybrids.”  The Detroit News.  11 January 2006 http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060111/AUTO01/601110398/1148

“Reducing Dependence on Foreign Oil.”  Senator Dick Durban.  http://www.senate.gov/~durbin/issues/foreignoil.cfm

Richard, Michael.  “EPA to Update Fuel Economy Test Procedure.”  treehugger.  19 November 2005 http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/11/epa_to_update_f.php.

“Road Test Digest.”  Car and Driver May 2006:  132-133.

posted by: TudorChis at 04/18/06 09:36 | link | comments |

Johnny's Essay #3

Johnny Wang
RHET 1302.021
Professor Shari Childers
Essay #3 Rough Draft
11 April 2006

       In years past, levels of air, noise, and sight pollution were much lower than they are today. There are more cars on the road today, and because of this we experience higher levels of pollution than before. The automobile is probably the leading contributor pollution in our cities. They release toxic emissions into our atmosphere. Automobiles are linked particularly to carbon monoxide pollution. (1) They are noisy (especially if you are living near the highway), and they take up valuable space in the form of vast parking lots that are unpleasing to the eye. Why are there more automobiles on the road today than there was in the past? Understanding the answer to this question is important when trying to propose an effective solution to the increasing levels of pollution that we are experiencing.
       There are several factors that have caused the increase in the number of cars that we have on our roads today. First, and most obvious, is the fact that our population has been growing over time and continues to grow exponentially. (2) Even if the percentage of people driving were the same as it were in the past, we would still have more cars on our roads today for the simple fact that there are more people living in our country.
       However, I think there is a greater percentage of drivers today as well as a larger population in general. I say this for the following reason. Our standard of living is relatively high, compared to other countries. (3) Our per capita income is high enough for many of our citizens to be able to buy cars. This means that more people will continue to drive their single occupancy vehicles downtown to work or school, polluting all the way, and leave their cars in parking lots that interrupt the natural beauty of our cities. This occurs daily in the lives of millions of people who never give a second thought to the harmful effects that their actions have on the quality of life in our country as well as in our planet.
       Americans have been known to have a passion for the automobile. A "love affair" with the automobile. The automobile symbolizes freedom and independence. Freedom is the backbone of our country. Many of our historical documents have been written with this idea of freedom as the major theme. For example, the declaration of independence was written in search of freedom from an oppressive government. Freedom is a concept that most Americans hold dear to their heart. For this reason, the automobile is so attractive. If you own your own automobile, you are free to go any place you like whenever you want. You suddenly become independent and you no longer have to rely on other people for rides. This is a common feeling among 16-year-olds. With the acquisition of the drivers license comes a whole new world of opportunity and responsibility.
       Another factor to be considered is the whole American concept of time. To us, time is money. Because of this we are usually in a hurry, so we hop in our cars and off we go, late for some sort of an appointment. We could use alternate forms of transportation like busses or railways which decrease pollution by decreasing the total number of cars on our roads, but these forms of transportation are not as convenient as driving ourselves. After all, time is money and I am late for a class. I don't have time to wait for the bus. Is this laziness? Maybe so, but I think our obsession with time also contributes to the fact that we would rather drive ourselves rather than utilize public transportation systems.
       We have become used to living with a certain level of pollution. It is acceptable, even normal for us, so much so that most of us don't even give pollution a second thought. Even though pollution is all around us, entering our bodies through the air we breathe and the water we drink, killing us slowly, it has become such a part of our life that we don't even think about it any more. We don't consider how we as citizens of the world directly effect our environment and what we should do to protect it. Most of us don't know what it is like to live in a pollution free environment. We have always lived in a polluted world, so it all seems normal to us. What can be done to put an end to the increasing level of pollution that we live with? What should be done? Educate the people to make them more aware of how they are harming our environment and offer more alternative forms of public transportation. Advertise the benefits that these programs have on our environment. This will hopefully make the public more aware and more willing to change their ways.
       All of these are reasons why there are more cars on our roads today than in the past. This increase in traffic has brought about disastrous effects. As you can see, automobiles and the pollution of our environment are directly related in a causal relationship. If we want to preserve and protect our environment, we must lower the level of traffic on out streets. By understanding the causal relationship between cars and our environment, we will be better prepared to offer legitimate solutions to a problem that will kill us all if we continue with the status quo.

posted by: JohnnyWang at 04/13/06 10:03 | link | comments (1) |

Self Evaluation Questions for Essays:
1) What is your thesis? What are the most important words in your thesis? Why?
2) Outline your essay. Justify your order and show progression.
3) Which paragraph/section works the best right now? Why?
4) Which paragraph/section needs the most work right now? Why?
5) What is your conclusion? Not a thesis restatement!

posted by: MattC at 04/13/06 10:03 | link | comments |

posted by: Meredith at 04/12/06 11:27 | link | comments (1) |

Essay #3

Jeremy Wright

Prof. Childers

Rhet 1302-021

Essay # 3 – Causal

10 April 2006

It Is Not a Game!!!

            When teenagers finally reach the age of sixteen or driving age, they are very happy because they figure that they could go anywhere they please without their parents driving them.  These teens need to know that driving is not a game.  Driving can cause a person to lose his or her life by doing things that they know what not to do.

 

            People think that speeding is very cool, but it is not.  Speeding is a very dangerous way to drive that’s why there are speed limits.  Take this in consideration; a person’s vehicle was rolled over in a ditch right after the curve in the road.  Speeding can do this to anyone’s vehicle, but it can cause a great deal of damage to the person or just kill them.  According to Roads and Traffic Authority, “Speeding is the biggest killer on our roads.” RTA statistically shows that there is an average of 562 total deaths on the road, but 234 of the total deaths were due to speeding.  That is 42 percent of the total.  Also there were more than 4700 people whom were injured in crashes due to speeding.  Some people don’t just speed when the weather is fair; they speed even when the weather is bad such as snowing or raining ridiculously.  These people don’t know the dangers they putting onto them and the drivers around them.  When it is raining or snowing hard, there is no reaction time for the driver to stop.  The car if stopped suddenly would start skidding or even spin out of control, like it was on an icy bridge, and cause a person to lose their life or injure their self  severely.  Speeding can cause the other drivers around the person speeding lose control of their car or make them mad by cutting people off or tailing them.  Speeding can also kill pedestrians crossing the road.  If a person just crosses the road without looking, the driver speeding has no reaction time to hit the brakes so the pedestrian is hurt because of the speeding that was going on.  Speeding is not great when these effects are put in perspective with the driver who is speeding.  

            When you are behind the wheel of a car, being sleepy is dangerous. Although most people know how dangerous drinking and driving is, they may not fully realize that drowsy driving can be just as fatal as driving drunk.  Like drugs or alcohol, sleepiness slows reaction time, decreases awareness, impairs judgment and increases your risk of a crash.  People have a greater tendency to fall asleep while driving on the long, uninteresting stretches of road that are characteristic of many high-speed, rural highways.  The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that approximately 100,000 police-reported crashes annually (about 1.5 percent of all crashes) involve drowsiness or fatigue as a principal causal factor.  A conservative estimate of related fatalities is 1,500 annually or 4 percent of all traffic crash fatalities.  At least 71,000 people are injured in fall-asleep crashes each year.  The economic costs are immense: NHTSA estimates that these crashes represent $12.5 billion in monetary losses each year.  If in a car with a person that can't remember the last few miles driven, have wandering or disconnected thoughts, experience difficulty focusing or keeping their eyes open, have trouble keeping their head up, drift from lanes or hit a rumble strip, yawn repeatedly, tailgate or miss traffic signs, or find them jerking their vehicle back into lane, they may be suffering from drowsiness or fatigue.  Continuing to drive in this condition puts you at serious risk of being involved in a fatigue-related crash.   should pull over in a safe place and get some rest before resuming your trip. 

 

Drinking and driving has been a real problem for many years, but has not been known to the public as a wide spread problem until just a few years ago.  The fatalities and accidents involving drinking and driving are on the decline.  I think that the problem of drinking and driving and accidents and deaths related to drinking and driving may have originated from people with severe drinking problems.  More than 70 percent of drivers convicted of driving while impaired have serious drinking problems.  In 1995, 41 percent of fatal traffic crashes involved a driver or pedestrian who had been drinking.  Over 31,000 people were charged with impaired driving offenses in 1991, which is one person every 17 minutes.  More than 60% of the charges of impaired driving are for a second or subsequent offense.  Specific deterrence laws seek to prevent people who have been convicted for driving under the influence from repeating their offense.  Driving drunk causes more deaths, injuries and destruction than all murderers, muggers, rapists and robbers combined.  Every 6 hours some one is killed by an impaired driver.  Drinking and driving is a crime in which 2 out of 5 Americans will be involved in.  Drunk driving is on the decline and is becoming more and more a threat to everyday society.  There are easy ways to identify a drunk driver.  Signs of a driver under the influence: turning with wide radius, straddling center or lane marker, swerving, following too closely, headlights off, speed slower than speed limit, drifting, accelerating or decelerating rapidly, slow response to traffic signal, and braking erratically.

 

Driver distraction is reaching epidemic proportions in drivers of all ages, but especially in young, inexperienced drivers.  Consider all the things inside and outside the vehicle that can distract the driver.  Studies conducted in 2002 found that looking at crashes and vehicle breakdowns, driver fatigue and looking at scenery were the three leading causes of distracted driving in the .  Other distractions included passengers and children, adjusting the radio or changing the CD player, using a cell phone, eating and drinking and adjusting vehicle controls. Annually, driver distraction accounts for roughly 13 percent of all traffic crashes in the  Distracted driving is deadly because while the driver is distracted, the vehicle moves into a high-risk situation. The driver loses precious seconds before recognizing the situation and making an emergency maneuver. Young drivers are even more susceptible because they often over-correct and because they lack experience in controlling a vehicle during an emergency situation.  A driver should keep their eyes on the road and their hands on the wheel at all times so they should:  set or adjust the controls on the vehicle and other devices when in the car and before beginning to drive, stay alert; sit straight, but relaxed.  If the drivers do all these things, they would enjoy their life while their body is still intact and not injured.

Driving can cause a person’s love ones injury or destroy their pockets which holds cash to fix their car and the opposing driver’s car.  A driver also has to recognize the way that all drivers around them drive so they know what to expect and how to treat the situation.  All drivers should drive with caution and be safe because if they do not drive safe expect to go to a funeral one day.

 

posted by: jr87wright at 04/11/06 11:19 | link | comments (1) |

WHAT YOU NEED FOR THE FINAL DAY!

2 sections:
note: cannot be loose!

mid term self evaluation with comments.
final self evaluation.

final draft of essay #1 and revision draft.
final draft of essay #2 and revision draft.
final draft of essay#3 and all related work.

posted by: Jainans at 04/11/06 10:53 | link | comments |

Essay #3

Mark Zhine

 

Rhetoric 1302.021

 

Prof. Shari Childers

 

Essay #3 Proposal

 

11 April 2006

 

Becoming Feared

 

            As Planetside is nearing its third year, The Regiment is nearing its first. During this time we have had some good times. We have grown from the original ten members to now over hundred active daily. We have had quite a few memorable holds and resecures. We have earned recognition from our fellow Vanu as well as our enemies. In that one year we have become one of Emerald’s top outfits. The trip however hasn’t been easy. As we started reaching our prime, players started leaving the game. Even so, we continued to expand our ranks. Then a series of events caused us to almost fall apart. The exact cause is debatable, but I think we all can agree that we thought at one point we were done as an outfit on Planetside. We tried reforming on other games, but none seemed to be able to accommodate us as well as Planetside, not even Battlefield 2. However as a series of events threatened to break us apart, another series brought us back together. The reserves program has revitalized the game as well as The Regiment by bringing in plenty on new players. This new influx of players seems to have has brought new problems to The Regiment.

 

            The main problem in my opinion is that we aren’t doing as well as we did in the past. Back in our prime we were consistent in our effectiveness as a unit. Now it seems to be hit and miss. Any number of smaller problems could be the cause of this: the new members lack experience, the targets aren’t very good, the leadership is slacking, etc. We are not the first outfit to experience these problems. In the past other outfits have dealt with these problems and a few have even became very effective in game. A few outfits became feared by the opposing empires. They became legends. I for one want the same for The Regiment, and I believe we can make it happen if we follow the examples of the great outfits of the past and present. Some might argue that if we do, that we would lose what made The Regiment special. I for one wouldn’t mind losing some of that uniqueness if it means we become more effective, and maybe even feared.

 

            We start by examining the other successful outfit’s administration, requirements, and leadership. We find out why it worked so well for the other outfit and how it differs from our own methods. We revise ourselves and hopefully end up more effective and feared. Also, we should look at the outfits that have failed and see why that did in order to avoid their mistakes.

 

            By examining other outfits and making changes based on them, we will become feared by our enemies and envied by our allies. We will win more and get more out of the game. And we will set up a legacy for our next game when Planetside finally shuts down.

 

posted by: MarkZhine at 04/11/06 10:43 | link | comments |

Nghi Dinh Rhetoric 1302.021 Professor Shari Childers Essay 3 Rough Draft 11 April 2006 Internet Gambling Gambling is a billion dollar industry. In the United States there are only certain places where it is legal such as Las Vegas and Atlantic City. However, the gambling industry has changed with the introduction of the internet. Today anyone can go online and visit one of the many online gaming websites and began gambling. Whether it is playing poker, blackjack or a number of table games to placing wagers on events, all this can be done with a click of a mouse. Despite being technically illegal in the United States, many Americans still gamble on the internet. The government can neither prosecute the website, since all operate outside the United States, or the individual due to privacy issues. Instead of trying to prohibit internet gambling and creating several problems it should be legalized so that everyone, the gamblers and non gamblers, can enjoy the benefits of regulation. The prohibition of internet gambling creates more problems than it solves. The problems created by the prohibition of internet gambling include the increase exposure to minors and the higher probability of fraud. For example, without regulation the websites can adjust the odds of winning to be more in favor of the house than it already is. If websites were able to legally operate within the United States than state regulations can be enforced on the fairness of the game. In Las Vegas, the gaming commissions regulate the guidelines for slot machines. Modern slot machines are not mechanical but rather are controlled by computer chips. The chip is program to payout according to actual odds calculated. These chips are highly regulated and monitor by the gaming commission so that there is fairness for the gamer. Similar regulations could be imposed on internet gambling sites if they were allowed to operate in the United States since they are using the same chips or programs to run the web based game. Another problem caused by prohibiting internet gambling is the ease of minors to access gambling websites. With government regulation, minors could be denied access. It is true that in some cases this could be circumvented by the minor, as it is the websites have no incentive to deny entries to minors. Through fines the government can influence web based gambling sites to develop methods and procedures to verify the age of users. However, if internet gambling were to be legalize than instead of creating problems it would create jobs and tax revenues. Internet gambling would introduce a new industry to the economy and thus create jobs. For example, jobs would be created because programmers, web designers, and customer service representatives, to name just a few, are required to run the website. The creation of jobs is obvious beneficial to the economy. The most significant reason for legalizing internet gambling is the tax revenue generated. The internet gambling industry is a multibillion dollar industrial. The tax revenue generated from this industry could be used to fund schools or other sectors in need of revenues. Need to finish and add in research evidence.

posted by: ntdinh21 at 04/11/06 10:29 | link | comments |

Template by motime.com  |  header image credit: Markus Gann © www.begann.de