If someone asked you if you could walk in a straight line blind-folded the obvious answer would be yes, wouldn’t it? Well, if you said yes than you’re in for a surprise. It is actually impossible for us to stay on a straight path while blind-folded. Jan Souman, a German scientist, conducted an experiment to see if someone could walk in a straight line while blind-folded. He found that when the participant had no visual landmarks to work off of they ended up walking in circles, even though they thought that they were staying on a straight path.

But what exactly is a straight line? Well, according to the free dictionary, “a line…traveling in a constant direction” or” a line of zero curvature.” In other words, having zero deviation throughout the entirety of the trip. In Jan Souman’s large scale experiment, where people were told to walk for up to an hour in a wide open area, a straight line meant not going in circles and staying in relatively one direction. However, in my much smaller scale experiments, where the participants will walk across a gym or small park area, a straight line will be the shortest distance between two points. In other words, if the participant deviates at all from the designated start point to the designated end point it will not be considered a straight line.

In my experiment I will be measuring how far the participant deviates from their path. They will have a very specific end point and in order to hit it they will have to remain on a near perfectly straight path. After each trial it will be measured, in feet, how far they deviated from a straight line.

So far I have talked a lot about walking in a straight line, but what exactly is walking? According to the free dictionary it is “To move over a surface by taking steps with the feet at a pace slower than a run.” Walking is a type of controlled falling where you let your body fall but catch yourself with your leading leg. It can also be described as an “inverted pendulum” where we see the center of mass almost vault over the supporting leg. However, walking in itself is not perfect. Walking is a fluid motion where a lot of muscles have to make a lot of movements. Some of them are bound to make mistakes. If you are not blind-folded you could easily fix these errors and stay straight. However, once you are blind-folded fixing these mistakes doesn’t happen quite as often and you will veer off path. Even if you don’t have a blindfold on, if there is no clear visual landmark for you to work off of, i.e. the sun, you will veer of path just as easily.

If possible my experiment will be done indoors to avoid then sun piercing through the blindfold and acting as a visual landmark. If this is not possible then I will attempt to do my research on a cloudy day, or account for the sun in the results. The definition of walking noted above will be the same I will be using in my tests, a slow controlled movement over a surface.

In my experiment I will be using sounds in an attempt to replace the visual aid that is needed to stay straight. However, I will only be using distinct sounds, such as an alarm beeping. The sounds I will use will be as clear and distinct as possible in an attempt to set it apart from any background or white noise. I will do multiple trials on each participant with the noise coming from a different area to see how it influences their walking. With about half of the participants I will tell them where the noise is coming from, i.e. straight ahead, to their left/right, or behind them, and see how their walking path is influenced.

Works Cited

F. Lacquaniti, R. Grasso, M. Zago. Motor Patterns in Walking. August 1999. 7 March 2012.

Krulwich, Robert. A Mystery: Why Can’t we Walk Straight. 7 march 2012.

The free dictionary. 7 march 2012.

The Free Dictionary. 7 March 2012.

In a highly social society, we tend to separate ourselves into multiple personalities. We have a professional side, which we share in the workplace and with acquaintances; we have an informal side, which we share with friends and family; and we also have a personal side, which we share with only ourselves. All of these separate aspects of our personalities make up who we are as individuals. But when these different personalities are shared with the wrong intended audience, it can sometimes lead to trouble. And with the emergence of higher technology and social networking, it has become a lot easier for others to view a glimpse of parts of our lives that we may not want them to see. Businesses use social networking sites to prescreen candidates for employment at their companies, schools use these sites to intervene with student conflicts, and law enforcement officials use them to dig up information on certain cases or to find a basis for targeting a group of people in an investigation. The use of social media profiles for purposes such as these may seem to be an invasion of privacy, but that accusation is entirely dependent upon what one defines to be an “invasion of privacy.”

Generally, an invasion of privacy is considered to be the act of prying into someone’s private life without their permission or consent; but if someone signs up for a social networking account and provides all their information on a public website, regardless of their “privacy settings,” can it truly be considered an invasion of privacy for an unintended audience to access that information? According to a 2010 article in Computers and Composition, Gina Maranto and Matt Barton report that, “both Facebook and MySpace (and their parent companies) are far more concerned with profits than privacy. Neither site claims to keep user information confidential; indeed, their profits come from exchanging this data with companies who are exploiting these sites” (Maranto and Barton). This means that essentially, no matter what kind of privacy settings or blocks that someone may place on a social networking account, the expected level of privacy is never truly enforced. This doesn’t necessarily mean that Facebook or MySpace sell out all of their users’ personal information to anyone who wants it; what they do, however, is allow outside advertising agencies to access their users’ basic information and interests in order for these companies to provide targeted advertising to as many people as they can.

With the introduction of the Beacon advertising program on the Facebook website in 2007, Facebook essentially has “empower[ed] advertisers to target … ads using the information on the personal profiles that members supply to Facebook. A national advertiser could sell ads to a huge group (all women between 25 and 40), or a local advertiser, like a restaurant, could pay much less to reach a microgroup (Ivy League-educated Indian-food lovers in a specific ZIP code). You could even target people who work for a specific company,” according to Stan Levy in his Newsweek article “Do Real Friends Share Ads?”. However, Facebook’s privacy officer at the time, Chris Kelly, assured users of the site that personal data is never given to the advertising agencies (Levy). As long as personal information is not exposed by Facebook, an advertising agency’s access to a person’s interests or recent web searches doesn’t really affect their lives in any other way other than the fact that agencies are able to deliver more targeted advertising to Facebook users.

Many people don’t even feel as though this access to their interests and activity on the internet is really that detrimental. Acohido Byron reported in his USA Today article “Frequent users less wary of Facebook” that “only 26% of respondents who use Facebook at least daily said they were ‘very concerned’ about privacy, compared with 35% who use the social network at least once a week, and 39% who use Facebook less often” (Byron). Forty-six year old Facebook user Danny Jackson of Maine told Byron, “I really don’t care if people know about the stuff I like” (Byron). USA Today partnered with Gallup Poll to survey a group of 2,000 adults, in which they concluded that the more that users actually use Facebook, the less likely they are to be concerned with their privacy. Yet even still, “technologists worry about Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft and others racing to develop businesses based on amassing vast amounts of data about what people do on their PCs and mobile devices” (Byron).

This potential “invasion of privacy” that is imposed on users by Facebook, however, is still not nearly as invasive as the Intercept Modernisation Programme proposed in the Communications Data Bill in the UK in 2008. According to Becky Hogge in her article in New Statesmanin 2008, the program’s intent was “to log details about every web page [they] visit, every SMS message [they] text and every e-mail [they] send. And not only that, but to store all this ‘communication traffic’ information in a central database.” While this program is incredibly intrusive in the private lives of all UK citizens, its intent was for the purpose of national security and protection after the 2005 terrorist bombings in London. This program would ultimately “dramatically reduce the cost of mass surveillance, and allow the security services and other law enforcers to trace friendship trees … and thereby to hunt for potential conspirators as yet unknown to the authorities, subjecting them in turn to more intrusive surveillance techniques” (Hogge). The entire concept is a catch-22 because although it invades the private lives of UK citizens tremendously, it also allows for more extreme safety measures to be enforced by the government in order to protect the public.

While the bottom line definition of an “invasion of privacy” will vary from person to person, most will agree that our lives have become significantly less private with the introduction of new technology and social networking. It is unnerving to imagine that all information that we may have ever entered into any online program or website can be available to almost anyone that tries to access it, but if there is a beneficial way to use that information — focused advertising, national security, etc. — the “invasion” isn’t so much a danger as it is a revolutionary tool for social and technological innovation.

• Works Cited
  1. Frequent users less wary of Facebook 
  2. Do Real Friends Share Ads?
  3. Facebook for snoopers
  4. Paradox and Promise: MySpace, Facebook, and the Sociopolitics of Social Networking in the Writing Classroom

The Game of Numbers

The term sabermetrics will not mean anything to people who do not know about baseball, but to those who do know about baseball this term changed the game. Sabermetrics is the statistical analysis of baseball. There are statistics that players will get paid millions for such as home runs, earned run average, and batting average. Some statistics are over looked, and will win a team a game such as one statistic which is RE24 or  base- out runs saved. This statistic is described as “Given the bases occupied/out situation, how many runs did the pitcher save in the resulting play”(Baseball-Reference.com 1). (An example of this statistic would be if a pitcher was to come in with men on second and third base with one out and get both of the next batters out his statistic would be above zero, and if he would have gave up a run his average would be negative.

The statistic base-out runs saved will win games for your team. It can be considered a “winning statistic” because if your team has a better base-out runs saved percentage than the team you are playing against you will win the game. Every game has this statistic, and it is for only pitchers. The batters have the opportunity to ruin the other team’s statistic, but that is where the competition happens, it is the pitchers against the batters. This  “winning statistic” shows up in every game, but I will give you examples from two  specific World Series which are the 2002 World Series between the Anaheim Angels and San Francisco Giants and the 2003 World Series between the Florida Marlins and New York Yankees. These two World Series demonstrate the teams’ base-out runs saved average in each game and whoever had the better average won the game no matter if the team had a team of all-stars and the other team had role players such as the New York Yankees vs. Florida Marlins.

The 2002 World Series between the Anaheim Angels and San Francisco Giants had two good teams with players that had roles and players that were all stars also such as Barry Bonds of the Giants who would go on to break the Major League Baseball homerun record later in his career.  For game one  pitchers for the Giants had an RE24 of 1.9 while the Angels had an RE24 of 0.9 the Giants went on to win this game 4-3. The pitchers that messed up the team average for the Angels were Jarrod Washburn who had an RE24 of -0.9, and Scott Shoeneweiss who had an RE24 of -0.3, Shoeneweiss had come in the eighth inning faced one batter and walked him then got taken out. Game two had the Giants losing to the Angels 10-11, the Giants had an RE24 of  -6.7 while the Angels had an RE24 of -5.1. Game three had the Angels beating the Giants by a score of 10-4, the Angels had an RE24 of 0.2 while the Giants had an RE24 of  -5.8. Starting pitcher for the Giants Livan Hernandez contributed with an RE24 of -3.5. Game four had the Giants defeating the Angels 4-3, the Giants had an RE24 of 1.2, while the Angels had an RE24 of -0.2 with starting pitcher John Lackey contributing an average of -0.6. A big part of that average happened in the bottom of the fifth inning where Lackey gave up three runs, four hits, and faced eight batters that inning. Game five had the Giants defeating the Angels by a score of 16-4. The Giants had an RE24 of 0.2 while the Angels had an RE24 of -12.2. Three pitchers for the Angels had very bad averages they were Jarrod Washburn who had an RE24 of -4.1, Ben Weber who had an RE24 of -4.0, and Scott Shields who had an RE24 of -4.6. Jarrod Washburn gave up six runs on five hits in the first two innings, in the bottom of the seventh inning Ben Weber gave up four runs on four hits, and Scott Shields gave up four runs on three hits in the bottom of the eighth inning. In Game six had the Giants losing to the Angels by a score of 3-4 the Giants had an RE24 of -1.7 while the Angels had an RE24 of -0.1. The series came down to game seven where the Giants lost to the Angels by a score of 1-4, the Giants had an RE24 of  0.4 while the Angels had an RE24 of 3.9. (“2002 World Series Anaheim Angels vs. San Francisco Giants” 1).

RE24 was an important statistic in the 2002 World Series, and it was as well in the 2003 World Series between the Florida Marlins and New York Yankees. In game one the Marlins defeated the Yankees 3-2 , the Marlins had an RE24 of 2.8 while the Yankees had an RE24 of 1.8, the Yankees pitchers did not have anyone over a 1.0 average while the Marlins had two pitchers with averages of 1.1 who were Dontrelle Willis, and the Marlins closer Uguetha Urbina. In game two the Florida Marlins lost to the Yankees by a score of 1-6, the Marlins had an RE24 of -1.7 while the Yankees had an RE24 of 3.8. The Marlins starter Mark Redman had an RE24 of -3.3, he had problems in the bottom of the first giving up three runs on two hits, while the Yankees starter Andy Pettitte had an RE24 of 3.3. In game three the Marlins lost to the Yankees by a score of 1-6. The Marlins had an RE24 of -1.4 while the Yankees had an RE24 of 3.6. The Marlin’s starter Josh Beckett had an RE24 of 2.4, but the closer Braden Looper had an RE24 of -2.5 which happened in the top of the ninth inning where he gave up four runs on two hits. The Yankees starting pitcher Mike Mussina had an RE24 of 2.6. In game four the Marlins defeated the Yankees by a score of 4-3. The Marlins had an Re24 of 3.1 while the Yankees had a RE24 of 1.6. Contributing to the Marlins average were starting pitcher Carl Pavano with an RE24 of 3.1 and closer Braden Looper who had an RE24 of 2.1. In game five the Marlins defeated the Yankees by a score of 6-4. The Marlins had an RE24 of 0.6 while the Yankees had an RE24 of -1.9. In game six the Marlins won the World Series with a score of 2-0 . The Marlins had Josh Beckett pitch a complete game shutout and his RE24 was 4.8, the Yankees had an RE24 of 2.8. (“2003 World Series Florida Marlins vs. New York Yankees” 1). 

Both of these World Series show how the statistic base-out runs saved really is the “winning statistic”,  because every team that had the higher average won the game. The statistic is important to the teams because it is the difference between giving up runs when a pitcher is in a tough situation or if he is going to get out of the inning without giving up any runs. That gives your team the ability to put something together and scrounge up a run or two and if you can do that and not give up any runs you will win the game.

Works Cited

Baseball-Reference.com. Web. 01 Mar. 2012.

“2002 World Series Anaheim Angels vs. San Francisco Giants.” Baseball-Reference.com. Web. 01 Mar. 2012.

“2003 World Series Florida Marlins vs. New York Yankees.” Baseball-Reference.com. Web. 01 Mar. 2012.

These websites are the main websites that I use, but I go into different links like the box scores for every game, but I am not sure if I have to cite every single page I use if I do can someone let me know, so that I can do that.

Unspoken, acknowledged, and respected rules to abide by unfortunately are a thing of the past.  Possibly the only unspoken rule that remains to this day is the concept of money, where people “just know” what the bills they exchange for goods represent; the days of verbal agreement are things of the past.  Today, everything must be dealt with in dense legal contracts, with witnesses and hundreds of “sign here” lines.  Ironically, all of this is driven by money, and understanding who owns what and who makes a profit.  This, though, deals more with the laws of copyright.  Copyright is understood as protecting the rights of someone (or someones) who own a specific object or creation. In fact, the United States Copyright Office’s website explicitly states that their mission statement is “To promote creativity by administering and sustaining an effective national copyright system.”  Unfortunately, all this seems to do is act as positive advertising; yes, the Copyright Office wants to promote creativity, but they do not actual specify what they do or how.  Perhaps that may be too much for a “mission statement,” but with how many legal cases there are every year because of copyright laws, clarification should be demanded.

The actual definition of copyright, as according to Mirriam-Webster’s most up-to-date edition, is “the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (as a literary, musical, or artistic work).”  This is merely a bare-bones description, however.  Copyright laws are defined not by what they are, but who decides what they are; there will be different laws and regulations per each contract.  For instance, both Marvel and DC Comics publishers own different characters named Captain Marvel.  DC is still legally permitted to advertise their character and use his name inside their books, but, as his name is the name of their rival company, on the covers or merchandise he must be dubbed “Shazam!” instead; they still own him, usage is just restricted.  This is wear the issues with copyright laws arise; the laws and contracts are beneficially vague.  Beneficial, note, to the owner of the rights.

This does beg for clarification.   A recent upsetting copyright battle has been launched by Marvel Comics, on the grounds of them begin supreme owners of all characters they publish.  This has always been the case, but there was always another unspoken agreement between Marvel and its artists that they would be permitted to draw these characters for commission and personal profit.  Due to some bad blood spilled in several court cases over the rights of Ghost Rider with creator Gary Friedrich, Marvel’s position has changed.  Creators and artists do not have the ability to earn a personal profit from Marvel characters, it appears; these are not just ex-artists or the artist of The Invincible Iron Man drawing Spider-man, Marvel will sue the Iron Man artist for selling an Iron Man commission.  Someone who draws this character literally for a living cannot due so by other means, without the risk of impending lawsuit.

Yes, the artists do not own the rights.  All created characters to be published by Marvel are legally sold over to Marvel, they make sure of that at the meeting.  This is not the case to attack; it is universally understood that the publisher now owns the rights, such as artist Rob Liefeld mentions in his description of signing his creations over to Marvel, and it is now understood that Marvel can use that character in whatever manner they see fit.  But this creates a rift between the publisher and the creators, as a lack of respect grows.  Something worth noting is the ability of artistic license and interpretation.  No artist draws the same; Ed McGuinness will not be drawing the Hulk forever, and a new artist will take his place.  He will draw in his own way, and thus make that book run “his own.”  Should he sued for changing the look of a character from the status quo?  Not as long as he makes Marvel money, surely.  The issue is personal gain.

From there we can step back and observe art in the realm of copyright.  Artists always have personal liberties allotted to respect each’s own personal methods.  This is true for the entire art and design world; Brand logos like Pepsi have gone through drastic changes, never by the same designer, and the differences represent liberties taken.  The same can be applied to the Marvel suit.  Within the realm of artistic license, artists are allowed personal interpretation.  So, why not make a statement that these commissions are merely portraits?  Portrait works for artists is a norm, and part of the profession (then again, so is drawing Marvel characters, in this case), and thus could skirt some of the attack.  In fact, Marvel used to wholly welcome such work; Jack Kirby, oft-called “The King” and the best comic artist of all time, got his wonderful status from his works being enjoyed in a larger medium, without Marvel adding text and advertising to the piece.

Even still, these commissions are not even a part of a Marvel artist’s contract; as far as we are aware, at least.  In fact, whether they are contractual or not does not matter:  If they were, Marvel could not take any action as they would be paying the artist for this purpose, and if they are not contractual and in no way cause Marvel any grief, the case itself should not be occurring.  These are entirely free-lance pieces made for someone’s love of a character.  Yes, a slight profit made without legal use seems to be slightly more than bending the rules, but caricature and parody artists have the ability to draw literally anything without lawsuit risk.  A comic artists doing the same thing at a show is no different, and it should be more accepted as they actually get payed to draw that character any other time.

Vague details kill all when copyright comes into play, and creators are usually the victims.  It is quite difficult to see how the Copyright Office can boast that they promote creativity in instances like this, when the one thing that is being robbed from an artist is his ability to be creative.  Copyright secures the rights of a creation in the grasp of a company to produce how they see fit and make a profit, not for the purpose of creativity.

WORKS CITED

“Worth A Thousand Words: The Images Of Copyright.” Harvard Law Review 125.3 (2012): 684-759. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Mar. 2012.

“No More Unauthorized Artwork.” Murphy, Sean Gordon. DeviantArt.  http://seangordonmurphy.deviantart.com/journal/No-More-Unauthorized-Artwork-285030622  14 Feb. 2012

“Complete version of the U.S. Copyright Law, December 2011.” U.S. Copyright Office (2011) Title 17.  http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ Dec 2011

In June 1971, President Richard Nixon declared a “war on drugs.” This movement has been fundamentally flawed since the very inception of its name, and it has accumulated more human casualties than many wars against enemy nations. His actions were sparked by a steady increase in drug use and drug arrests through the 1960’s, and surely his purpose was to lessen the damage done to the people of our nation by drugs and drug-related violence, but unfortunately it has led to massive bloodshed and sustained international organized crime. Thus far, our government has spent trillions of dollars and the lives of tens of thousands of citizens on regulations and enforcement measures that have been at best ineffective and wasteful and at worst dangerous and counterproductive. As I have mentioned in my previous posts, the number of drug-related deaths has fairly steadily increased since the inception of the war on drugs.

There are several categories of drug-related deaths, but the two main categories are overdoses and drug-related violence. There are people killed by drug users, drug users killed by police, police killed by drug users/dealers, drug dealers killing each other in territorial disputes, drug-funded gangs killing each other, and that’s not even considering what’s happening outside U.S. borders. Counterintuitively, the war on drugs actually causes more drug-related deaths to occur. It seems that the harder our government tries and the more money they spend to enforce drug laws, the more people die.An extremely low estimate of drug related deaths in this country for 2007 is 15,223 (Richardson). As I said, this is an extremely low estimate, it even excludes the roughly 60% of overdose deaths caused by prescription drugs. About 6,487 (Richardson) of these deaths are caused by drug-related violence.

Most drug violence is rooted in and perpetuated by the war on drugs and the legislation on which it is based. Our government has regulated drugs through prohibition since the 1930’s, and it has not and will never work. Just as the failed experiment of alcohol prohibition created massive black-market enterprises and put money in the pockets of violent criminals, the  war on drugs has only worsened and deepened the drug problem. The drug trade is simply an issue of supply and demand. Our government currently employs mostly supply-oriented efforts, such as arresting drug dealers and going after cartel leaders in Mexico. The harsh reality is that there will always be a huge demand for drugs in this country, and as long as drugs are prohibited here they will be supplied illegally from somewhere.

The only way we can hope to remedy the drug problem and save tens of thousands of lives from drug violence is legalization and regulation of drugs. Other drugs should be treated just like alcohol, legally available to adults, quality controlled by the government, and regulated in their usage. This type of legislation would effectively crash the value of drugs and eliminate demand for illegal foreign drugs. No drug user would want to buy illegal drugs from some shady guy in an alley when he could simply go to a government-regulated store and buy drugs of guaranteed and  consistent quality and purity without risking arrest and jail time. With no demand for illegal drugs, drug violence would nearly disappear. Drug dealers would be put out of business, police wouldn’t have to arrest responsible users, and the Mexican cartels would dwindle significantly. Regulation of legal drugs would also dramatically decrease the number of overdose deaths. Many overdoses happen because drug users don’t know the quality or purity of the substances they are obtaining, so they have no standard on which to base their dosage. Like alcohol, legal drugs could be required to label their potency so that the user can make an informed decision based on real knowledge of exactly what he is putting into his body.

While the benefits of legalization are very clear to me, I realize that it will not solve the whole drug problem. People will still die of overdoses, and drug addicts will still commit crimes, possibly violent ones, to feed their habit. Using a small fraction of the money that we currently spend on the war on drugs, we could fund a comprehensive drug treatment program to help people overcome their addictions, or at least a better version of the current methadone clinic program that gives addicts enough to keep them sane and sated.

WORKS CITED:

-http://drugwarfacts.org

-http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/drug-war-facts-090109
“A Radical Solution to End the Drug War: Legalize everything” by John H. Richardson

Steroids could result in a multitude of benefits for baseball. They will increase the number of home runs from sluggers. They will also help some stud pitchers throw faster and possible result in an increase of no hitters or perfect games. The use of anabolic steroids in baseball will make it a more flashy and interesting sport.

It is no secret that an increase in home run production will excite fans more and more. Anabolic steroids can make this happen. Taking steroids causes you to gain more muscle mass. A gain in muscle mass results in faster bat speed. When a batter has a faster bat speed it causes the batted ball speed to increase. It is obvious that an increased batted ball speed will end in more home runs. Some people may say that allowing steroids will not increase home run production because it will allow pitchers to throw harder, making it harder to hit. But, this is not always the case. A pitcher needs more than just muscle mass to throw a hard fast ball. Even with steroids a pitcher needs solid mechanics and good execution to throw the ball harder. This means that steroids will not necessarily make it harder to hit. Only the already ace pitchers will benefit from steroids. For your just average run of the mill pitchers steroids may cause them to throw harder but that will just result in more home runs. The harder the ball comes in, the faster it goes out. With the increased bat speed that steroids cause it will allow the hitters to capitalize on pitchers mistakes and even with faster pitching they will be able to catch up to the ball.

Along with the benefits will bring to the sluggers of baseball comes the benefits to the aces. Stud pitchers have a lot to gain from taking anabolic steroids. Taking steroids will allow pitchers to throw harder than they ever could before. This increase in speed will give some pitchers an edge over batters. For instance, if someone like Cliff Lee took steroids and could throw even harder he may be not hittable. This would result in more no hitters or perfect games from aces around the league. These things will cause fans to be excited and just add to the fan base of baseball. Although, increased speed in pitches is not the only benefit a pitcher receives from taking steroids. Throwing a baseball is extremely straining an unnatural on a pitchers arm. Using steroids will enhance tissue repair so a pitcher will feel better the day after pitching. This is a huge benefit to pitchers and will result in stud pitchers being able to pitch more often and reduce soreness to their arms.

Both pitchers throwing more shutouts and no hitters and batters hitting more home runs will benefit baseball massively. Critics may say that the benefits for pitchers and hitters will wash out and actually not increase homerun production. Anyone who has played baseball before or a serious fan would know this is not true. Steroids will increase a players bat speed which will allow players will a good technique and nice swing hit more homeruns. Though pitchers may throw faster it will not be helpful unless they have good placement on their pitches and other effective pitches. Other than aces throwing a good games and being nearly not hittable which may result in a no hitter, steroids will cause more home runs. In either case it will benefit baseball by having a more interesting game and more plays that shock fans. Critics may also say that hitting home runs more often could make it less exciting when someone hits a homerun. This is also not true considering the fact that a homerun hit in any close game is always exciting. Also, it will result in more intense home run races that bring millions of fans to baseball. Anabolic steroids will make the chances of having another epic home run race like Sammy Sosa and Mark McGuire had more likely. One more thing critics may say is that fans will not be interesting in baseball if steroid use is legal because it is cheating. But, this argument can be put to rest very simply. If steroid use is legal than it wouldn’t be cheating at all. If fans actually had a serious problem with steroids they would already be against baseball since it has become apparent that many of baseball’s recent all-stars have used steroids.

The tons of player that brought so many fans to possible and have used steroids just add to the proof that steroids benefit baseball. Manny Ramirez, was suspended for steroid use, brought tons of fans to baseball for years before he retired. Jason Giambi and Gary Sheffield, who both admitted to using steroids, both brought interest to baseball and were many people’s’ favorite baseball players for a long time. These are all just specific cases and proof of how steroids have already added fans and interest to the sport of baseball.

In conclusion, there are multiple benefits of allowing anabolic steroid use in baseball bring. If steroids can benefit baseball so much while it has been illegal, making it legal will just add to steroids helping baseball and make it less controversial. Therefore, we should allow professional athletes who are all adults and capable of making decisions for themselves decide whether or not they want to use steroids. It is no different then an adult deciding to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, or anything else that has benefits and negative effects.

Works Cited

1. “Baseball’s Steroid Era.” Baseballssteroidera. Web. 07 Mar. 2012. http://www.baseballssteroidera.com/list-mitchell-report.htm.

2. “ESPN The Magazine.” WHY PITCHERS USE. Web. 07 Mar. 2012. http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3246463.

3. Nathan, Alan M. “The Possible Effect of Steroids on Home Run.” Webusers. University of Illinois. Web. http://webusers.npl.illinois.edu/~a-nathan/pob/BRJ-Steroids-v3.pdf.

Marriage

Marriage by definition is a social union between people that creates kinship.  It is commonly thought of as simply a romantic commitment between two people, but it is so much more than that.  Marriage is a legal and financial agreement as well.  Such a commitment is composed of business and economical transactions. In order to formalize a marriage, the two individuals who wish to create the union typically do so via a wedding ceremony, which is also called matrimony.  Once a marriage has been instituted, the two people involved are held to several legal obligations.  So what would actually motivate someone to commit to a marriage?

Marriage is not a premise for two people living together and having a relationship.  Often, the reasoning behind why two people choose to get married or not has a lot to do with finances and the economy.  In certain situations, couples living together do not wish to be recognized as married, on the grounds that pension or alimony rights from a previous marriage are negatively affected.  However, in many countries today, each marriage partner has the choice of keeping his or her property separate or combining properties. If a couple does choose to combine property, called community property, when the marriage ends by divorce each persons owns half.  Marriage typically leads to the formation of a new household comprising the married couple in the same home.  When two people commit to a marriage, they agree to share income, housing and commonly other daily activities like cooking dinner.

Marriage laws vary throughout the world, but commonly it is not so that just any two people can get married.  Restrictions from age, to race, to social status, to consanguinity, to gender are placed on marriage by society for reasons of passing on healthy genes, benefiting the children, maintaining cultural values or just because of prejudice and fear.  Societies have commonly placed restrictions on marriage to relatives, as such social unions between parents and children or between siblings have been regarded as incest and are forbidden.  This is a requisite law as marriage between relatives is immoral and could lead to inbreeding, which commonly results in offspring having birth defects and receiving deleterious traits.  But why are there restrictions and laws that are in place that, in reality, are not protecting anyone from harm or danger?  For example, same-sex marriage is illegal, as it is not identified or recognized by the federal government.  Same-sex marriage is recognized at state law though, as several states offer alternative legal certifications that at least acknowledge same-sex relationships.  These laws give marriage-like rights to these couples, and are referred to as domestic partnerships or civil unions.  It’s apparent that marriage is not a right to all, but rather a privilege given to certain people mandated by the government.

Just as the economy greatly affects businesses, it affects marriages as well.  A 2002 Census Bureau Wealth Study found that the median net worth of married-couple households was $101,975. For single men, median wealth was $23,700 and for single women, $20,217.  In fact, a 15-year study of 9,000 people found that, during that time, people who married and stayed married built up nearly twice the net worth of people who stayed single.  In general, people who are married and stay married build tremendously more wealth than single people, making marriage a decent business relationship in itself.

Works Cited:

The Economics of Love and Marriage

Marriage is a Business

Wikipedia contributors. “Marriage law.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 24 Feb. 2012. Web. 8 Mar. 2012.

Marriage Law

Wikipedia contributors. “Marriage.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 7 Mar. 2012. Web. 8 Mar. 2012.

Marriage

Wikipedia contributors. “Same-sex marriage in the United States.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 6 Mar. 2012. Web. 8 Mar. 2012.

Same-Sex Marriage

In this short paper I will attempt to distinguish between the terms “embryonic stem cell” and simply “stem cell” in order to aptly define all the terms I will use in my research paper.  The addition of a single word has some serious implications.  Embryonic stem cells, as one might guess are derived from a human embryo.  However there is some confusion surrounding the precise definition of “embryo” compared to a fertilized cell, also known as a zygote.  A zygote is the single cell that forms the instant of fertilization commonly called conception.  An embryo is formed from the process of cell division as the fertilized egg (zygote) matures.  In humans the zygote forms an embryo thirteen days after fertilization (Campbell 1034).  In short an embryo is a multi-celled zygote.  As we can see a fertilized egg and an embryo are not the same but they are very similar but, in the thirteen days of maturation the zygote undergoes subtle changes that make the embryo so valuable in the field of regenerative medicine.

Now that the scientific definition of an embryo has been established, it is possible to examine the scientific differences between stem cells from an embryo and those harvested from other sources.   There are many methods by which stem cells can be obtained including those derived from adult cells, prenatal cells (umbilical cord), and bioengineered cells (produced in a lab).  The derivation of adult cells is accomplished through the removal of bone marrow or adipose (fat) tissues.  Prenatal cells are taken from the umbilical cord blood cells or amniotic fluid.  Bioengineered stem cells are created in a lab from somatic cells (almost all body cells) which undergo complex and arduous scientific techniques in the form of either cloning, or induced pluripotency.  Cellular potency is the term used to describe the ability of a stem cell to differentiate into its surrounding cells.  All of these methods require some form of alteration or procedure to yield usable stem cells, in the case of using adult cells it is often a very long and painful outpatient procedure.  Embryonic stem cells differ from these types of cells in three extremely important ways.  In contrast to these methods, embryonic stem cells are taken from the inner core of the embryo itself which requires little to no processing to obtain.  Secondly, the stem cells taken from a human embryo are more pluripotent than other stem cells.  This means that they are able to differentiate into different tissues faster and with greater accuracy.  Lastly, and most importantly, embryonic stem cells have the capability to differentiate into all tissues in the human body, no other type of stem cell has this unique ability.  Adult stem cells are only able to differentiate into a certain number of tissues depending on their origin and lab induced pluripotent cells still lack the pluripotency of embryonic stem cells.  (Zacharias, David G. et al. pg 637-638)

To put this into more understandable terms it is easiest to look at real world examples.  Adult stem cells taken from either bone marrow or adipose tissue are only capable of differentiating into either bone/cartilage cells or adipose tissue respectively.  Prenatal stem cells are often useful in several applications but again lack the range that embryonic cells offer.  Finally bioengineered cells can offer an alternative to embryonic stem cells, albeit an inferior alternative.  The field of induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells is far more complex than that of embryonic stem (ES) cells, which leads to a loss of efficiency in the final product cell as well as a decreased functionality as compared to ES cells.  It is most useful to use stem cells derived from an embryo because they are able to create any type of tissue found in the human body.

It is important to remember that the source of the stem cell affects its properties throughout the entire life of the cell.  Embryos are unique in that they contain the basis for each type of tissue in the human body, due to the fact that if they had been allowed to mature they would in fact eventually become a full human body.  The importance of embryonic stem cell research as compared to other stem cell research is exemplified in a quote from a Mayo Clinic Proceedings article: “iPS researcher Juan Carlos Izpisúa Belmonte, ‘ES cells are needed to understand the basic mechanism of pluripotency and self-renewal. As such, it is out of the question to even suggest phasing them out. We will be lost without them.’” (Zacharias, David G. et al. pg 637)

In defining the types of stem cells, the political and moral angles must also be addressed.  The issue that embryonic stem cells face morally and politically is that of defining exactly when a cluster of cells is called a human being.  This issue is similar to that of the abortion issue which was highly debated just a few years ago.  For example in almost all cases it is legal in the United States for a pregnant woman to receive a late term abortion, that is to terminate her pregnancy up to the 24^th week of pregnancy, sometimes even longer.  At this state of gestation limbs, eyes and organs are almost fully developed yet it is not deemed a human being and can be terminated (Campbell 1015).  But the government has decided to ban any research which destroys an embryo only 13 days from fertilization.   Morally defining an embryo is crucial because of the laws which initiated the ban.  With almost no development save for the production of a few membranes, an embryo should not be considered a human or living in any way.  With a redefining of an embryo, the government could lift its ban on embryonic stem cell research and open the gates to discovering cures for deadly diseases.

Works Cited

Zacharias, David G. et al. “The Science and Ethics of Induced Pluripotency: What Will  Become of Embryonic Stem Cells?” Mayo Clinic Proceedings (Jul 2011), Vol. 86 Issue 7 pgs 634-638 Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 Mar. 2012.

link

Reece, Jane B., and Neil A. Campbell. Biology. Eighth ed. Boston: Benjamin Cummings, 2011. Pgs (1015-1034) Print.

The image of a thin American woman has only become a recent trend in society. Diets and workout videos have only recently started popping up as television commercials and the over all health of the population has just become an increasing trend. This new spike in keeping healthy began when Surgeon General David Satcher announced in 2001 that American obesity was becoming an epidemic and that the USA was the worlds most obese nation. Since then, there has been a rapid increase in the over all health of the American Public and a decline in the nations average body mass index (BMI). The BMI system measures the amount of fat a person has compared to their height and weight. Anyone with a BMI over 25 is considered overweight; according to a study conducted by one of the top medical journals, The Lancet, when national BMIs are compared, America is not even in the top 10. America has lost its perviously held number one spot to Nauru. Over the last decade or so, the push for government intervention and personal motivation to get fit, and healthy has paid off. While American men are rated 10th on the BMI scale, amongst men internationally, American women are ranked 36th with a BMI of 28.7. This is proof that, obesity can be sustained and maintained at its current levels and even prevented for the future.

One of the most important factors in fighting obesity is government intervention. Government intervention into the personal lives of the public is constantly being called into question: how far can they go? The government has already intervened into the every day lives of Americans; they have done this so much and so well that people hardly notice it anymore, and if they do it is pretty well accepted as the law. For example, traffic lights, curfew laws, and school curriculums. A major issue with the government trying to reduce the and maintain the current levels of obesity in America is the fact that their intervention would have to surpass laws and school curriculums. These laws would have to enter a new sphere of influence perviously untouched: the private sphere. The private sphere is a space known only to the person who possesses it; it contains their thoughts, desires and knowledge. Republicans feel that there should be little to no government involvement into this realm while Democrats feel that there should be a great deal of intervention. But with an issue such as obesity, something needs to be done.

A government official cannot sit down with every family during every meal to make sure good eating habits are being enforced and proper exercise routines are being followed.  One possible way of doing this, according Kersh and Monroe, is to create an even stronger sense of social disapproval. The idea is to alter social norms and have fast food chains and fattening foods be thought of as highly unacceptable. According to Kersh and Monroe, a step like this should be conducted similarly to the way things like marijuana and alcohol were deemed socially unacceptable and bad. Another way to influence public behavior is through medical-science which means allowing people to know facts about being overweight and what it means to be physically fit. However, according to the authors, the facts do not have to be entirely accurate; the idea is to convey the true message that being overweight is not good and will soon be socially unacceptable. Also, people should be able to get help outside of the gym, according to the authors, who want there to be group meetings similar to meetings set up for drug addicts. The demon user/ industry effect is to make Americans feel that people who eat poorly and industries that promote poor health habits are “demons,” or bad.

Surprisingly, it is easier than it seems to put a demonic spin on negative foods such as sugar. Sugar is the most toxic out of all the foods. Although there are positive sugars that come from eating whole grains, fruits and vegetables that will give off quick and healthy energy, most people receive negative, fatty sugar, allowing a toxic sludge to form inside of their bodies that make them sleepy and fat. Recently, it was proven that some artificial flavorings and sweeteners can cause early signs of cancer. Also, hard sugars, the sugars that make foods such as cakes and sodas taste delicious, increase calorie intake, allowing fat to marbleize into muscle and other body tissues, making it almost impossible to rid the body of its new found layering. Sugars also cause acne and have also been linked to attention deficit disorders. This fat not only makes way for America’s “obesity” problem, but it also creates social issues for children and teens. As it turns out, sugar is toxic to the body.

Following up with “toxic” sugar, a study produced by one of the top medical journals, The Lancet’s, the government should be responsible for making healthy foods cheeper and affordable. They should be easily accessible at both private and public schools along with universities. A large portion of American citizens that are overweight are underprivileged and cannot afford top grade foods, especially since the price of produce and lean meats has risen significantly with the current economic recession and the decline in the American agricultural industry. So, a possibility to increase health in the general public would be to produce cheeper produce and for the government to fund more home-grown produce, such as establishing new farms and giving money to already existing ones.

The truth is, it is very hard to influence the public and personal sphere of America. But, if it is reached, it is possible that obesity can be maintained at its current levels and even possibly decreased and one day stopped.

Works cited:

[Might edit it a little before tomorrow, and it turned out to be exactly 1000 words, not counting Works Cited]

In most research situations, an ideal experiment is not needed. Normally, many studies on a similar topic will conclude similar results, and a researcher can use those results as a point of comparison to judge other studies by. If writing a paper with a thesis that agrees with the results, it is simple for a researcher to support their thesis by citing these studies. If the opposite, a researcher still has a concentrated group of conclusions to try to find a fault with, and finding studies that don’t come to these results is still a fairly simple matter.

Analyzing the effects of violence in video games does not follow the pattern shown above. It is a controversial subject, and for every study finding a link between violence in games and some negative effect is another claiming that no link exists. Even studies that agree on a general effect differ in concluding on the severity and length of this effect. In a case such as this, an idealized experiment is sorely needed, as it would allow a researcher a sort of template to compare any studies to, consequentially allowing them to separate the strong studies from the weaker ones. This idealized study cannot be found by comparing studies with similar results, for all that would lead to bias by the researcher; instead, only the methodology and the ways the studies interpret the results should be considered. Because the most debated effect of violence in video games is if it leads to increased aggression, I shall be contrasting several studies and trying to find which ones employ more stringent methods.

One vital aspect to consider when evaluating studies is how they measured increased aggression. For example, compare the study in Singapore by Sorick et. al. to the study on German adolescents performed by Moller and Krahe. In the first study, four different measurement scales and questionnaires are used; these scales have been in use for years and are thus believed to be fairly accurate. (Skoric). In contrast, not only did the second study only use two methods of measuring aggression, but one of those methods was taken from another of the author’s studies and had not been tested for reliability by an outside source. Both of these experiments used the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire, but the first study used all 29 questions and the second study only uses 7 questions mixed with another 7 questions from a scale used for measuring a completely different type of aggression (Moller).

The conclusions to be drawn from this comparison are fairly evident. A study should use as many tools for measuring aggression as is reasonably possible, for that lessens the chance for anomalous results. Additionally, these tools must be rigorously tested before being used. If one were to use unproven tools, the data gathered is circumspect due to the possibility of warping the tools to allow the tester to manipulate the results to match with his or her expectations. This applies equally to both studies seeking to prove or disprove any negative effects in violent video games.

Another vital variable to consider when judging the worth of studies is the timeframe involved. It would be logical to assume that studies with a longer timeframe, such as 3 weeks in the case of the aforementioned Singapore study or an additional 30 month check as in the case of the German one, would produce more reliable conclusions. However, there is a widely held belief in the theoretical model known as the General Aggression model, which states that “media violence exposure not only leads to an immediate increase in aggression in a particular situation but also contributes to the development of an aggressive personality of the game player over time” (Moller). Following the GAM model would mean that even studies done in only a few hours would be relevant because any increased aggression found there would carry over into a long term effect. The problem is that GAM is not certain to be effective, with one study — “Internet Fantasy Violence: A Test Of Aggression In An Online Game.”  – finding results that directly contradict it. Over a month, the testers found that there was no difference in result between the group who played the same violent game for at least 56 hours and the control group that did not, whereas the GAM method would only be validated if there was a increase in aggression observed over this time (Williams).

Conclusions to this variable are more difficult to come to. Though the GAM has some studies that find it does predict behavior, the lack of consensus on this issue leads me to believe that the effects of short term studies should not be extrapolated over longer timeframes. Interpretations of results that subscribe to the GAM theory should also be analyzed closely, because it could skew the author’s views. However, it is not necessary to disregard those results entirely; just the specific sections that predict an increase in aggression over time without their own appropriate data to validate this conclusion. This conclusion only applies to the studies seeking to prove a link between video game violence and increased aggression.

In conclusion, though I have not been able to come to any sort of template indicating an ideal experiment for studying violence in video games, I am able to make some generalizations about which studies are superior. In regards to time, due to the uncertainty of the reliability of GAM, studies over longer periods of time will be preferred to those that only measure the effects of one gaming session. Studies that gather results using well-known and proven tools will be preferred over studies that use personally created or modified tool. In addition to this, studies that gather data based on multiple scales are preferable to those that only use one scale. Though other significant methodological differences exist, assembling a reference base of studies that meet these criteria is the first step on truly understanding the issue of violence in video games.

Works Cited:

1. Skoric, Marko M. et al. “Grand Theft Auto IV Comes To Singapore: Effects Of Repeated Exposure To Violent Video Games On Aggression.” Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking 14.10 (2011): 597-602. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 Mar. 2012.

2. Möller, Ingrid, and Barbara Krahé. “Exposure To Violent Video Games And Aggression In German Adolescents: A Longitudinal Analysis.” Aggressive Behavior 35.1 (2009): 75-89. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 Mar. 2012.

3. Williams, Dmitri, and Marko Skoric. “Internet Fantasy Violence: A Test Of Aggression In An Online Game.” Communication Monographs 72.2 (2005): 217-233. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 Mar. 2012.