aveno

Thanks for your suggestions and u'r valuable time dude. Now, I am aware where I am committing blunders.

Thanks a lot dude for a valuable comments..... :)

Thanks dude for your valuable comments :)

Critique please on a scale of 6.0 “Technologies not only influence but actually determine social customs and ethics.” Technology is the driving force of mankind. It is because of technology that we are leading a comfortable and peaceful life. On the other hand ethics and customs have had it’s influence on us right from eons of our time. These tell us what is righteous and what is not. They have been a guide in driving us. I strongly feel that technology has not only influenced, but also has a great impact on our social customs and ethics. Admittedly, technology has changed the way people perceive and do things in their life. In the bygone days people used to fear the natural forces such as thunders, lightning’s and volcano’s, contemplating that it was due to wrath of gods. They even used to do sacrifices thinking that it would propitiate the gods as a part of their mores. But with the advent of technology people know the root cause for all these and it has also changed their conceptions. Another example, in the agriculture sector people used to follow the good old methods to plough, sow, cultivate and harvest their lands. This used to consume a lot of time and on top of that the productivity was not that great either. Technology has revolutionized the agriculture sector. Hybrid seeds, pesticides, tractors and harvesters have made the job of the peasants very smooth and have also increased the productivity three folds. Meteorological reports are also benefiting the peasants in many ways. Technology has changed the face of our customs and ethics. Till the start of this century some people in the Indian villages used to go for superstitious treatments for curing their ailments, though the success ratio is very less. They are not to be blamed for as they are just following the path laid by their progenitors. But now they are much aware of the consequences of this quack treatment through media and are going to registered doctors. One more example I would like to quote in this regard, in the past, in most of the societies women were limited to menial kitchen work and weren’t allowed to work or participate even in the public gatherings. They didn’t even have the right to suffrage. This was a part of their customs and ethics. Technology has opened the doors for women through various programs in the television, radio and internet. These programs have given women a catholic view of the world outside and opportunities that behooves them. Now they are also enjoying the same prerogative as the opposite sex and are no longer enthralled to scullion. Moreover, technology has supplanted some of the deeply rooted customs and ethics. For instance, in the past people suffering from chronic diseases were ostracized thinking that they were anathemized by gods and could cause harm to the people around them. With technology on the rise they have become matured enough to correct where they have flunked. Now they are very much aware of these diseases and know even the cure with the advances in the medical technology. These traditions are practiced no more. In sum, technologies like the internet, print and visual media have been transferring news and information to the remote part of the world enriching everyone with the advances taking place. People are constantly changing the mores and ethics with time, if not they feel that they will be crushed by their own ignorance, not able to compete with the pace the world. These changes are definitely due to technological advancements.

Guys, Please critique this argument..... Thanks in advance, Aveno “A new discovery warrants a drastic change in the diets of people living in the United States. Two scientists have recently suggested the omega-3 fatty acids (found in some fish and fish oils) play a key role in mental health. Our ancestors, who are less saturated fat and more unsaturated fat, including Omega-3 fatty acids, were much less likely to suffer from depression than we are today. Moreover, modern societies-such as those in Japan and Taiwan - that consume large quantities of fish reports less depression rates than the United States. Given this link between Omega3 fatty acids and depression, it is important for all the people in the United States to increase their consumption of fish in order to prevent depression.” Depression is one of the worse psychological disorders that people are facing in the world today. Recently, an article appeared in the health magazine regarding depression.It seems that depression was due to greater saturated fat and less of unsaturated fats which includes omega-3 fatty acids. The article also suggests that increase in consumption of fish reduces depression as it is a rich source of Omega-3 fatty acids.However, the argument is quite fallacious as it is based on some unwarranted assumptions and questionable evidence. Firstly, the argument assumes that Omega-3 acids play a vital role on the mental health.It is an unwarranted assumption as there is no direct relation between food and mental health. Depression is a psychological malady; it may be due to disappointment, failure and non-fulfillment of desires. It can no way be reduced with the intake of Omega-3 fatty acids found in fish and its derivatives. Secondly, the argument is based on a analogy between the ancestors and modern residents of America. It is stated that our former generations were free from depression because they consumed less of saturated and more of unsaturated foods. The coincidental co-existence of food habits and absence of depression is a casual relationship. It holds good if the things compared are relevant to each other in all aspects. It is quite obvious that the socio economic conditions are very much different now and than. In addition to these assumptions, it compares Japan and Taiwan citizens to one’s in the U.S. Though they are modern societies they have their own mores, ethics and ways of living. Because of this the possibility of depression may be less. It is quite natural that in these island countries sea food is a common diet. Taking these things into consideration, it is highly unlikely to compare these unrelated factors. After considering all these factors, it can be conducted that advising the U.S. residents to consume more fish in order to reduce depression is illogical. The argument would have been cogent if it would have provided concrete factors such as the accreditation of the experimental results, life style and habits of the people apart from food habits and established a proper relation between Omega-3 and depression.

Guys, grade this issue on a scale of 6.0.... Thanks in advance, Aveno “A news report suggests that men and women experience pain differently from one another, and that doctors should consider these differences when prescribing pain medications. When researchers administered the same dosage of kappa opioids a pain killer to 28 men and 20 women who were having their wisdom tooth extracted, the women reported feeling much less pain than men, easing of pain lasted more for women.This research suggests that kappa opioids be given to women during pain a medication is required, whereas men must be given different kinds of medication. In addition, researchers should reevaluate the effects of all medications on men versus women.” The news report came out with news regarding the pain experienced during medication by men and women. It suggests that men and women experience different orders of pain and accordingly medication should be done and also reevaluation of all effects medications on men versus women should take place. However, the argument is quite fallacious as it is based on some unwarranted assumptions and questionable evidence. Firstly, it concludes the change in the medication on all the people based on a research on a few. The conclusion drawn is of universal nature and must be done on a whole range of people, and according to the strict norms of experimentation. Generalizing based on a small experiment in regard to extracting the wisdom tooth is hasty. It also fails to give the description of the people in the experiment. The men considered for the experiment may be of younger age and women may be of older age and so the latter were able to bear the pain. Sometimes other psychological factors are also at work. Habitual use of drugs, alcohol, cigarettes and taking of tobacco reduces the effect of anesthesia. For example, a alcoholic needs more dosage of anesthetic compared to a sober. Based on these factors dosage of painkiller should be given disregarding the individual differences. Moreover, the argument assumes that men and women are not identical in all aspects and so Kappa should not be given to men. It is illogical. In terms of medical sciences, the physiological structure is almost similar enough to have same medication for all the diseases. Thus the argument ignores the very basic similarities between men and women or should we say human beings. Having considered all the factors we conclude that giving different medications for men and women is quite fallacious and unscientific. The argument would have been cogent if the validity of the research, description of the people on whom the experiments were conducted, and any other experiments were conducted to test this phenomenon were provided.

Guys, Critique this issue and do grade on a scale of 6.0 Aveno “Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development” Human beings are one of the most important learners of nature having a greater intelligent quotient. It is this intellect that had made humans to think in different perspectives and imagine multitude of things. The desire to make this imagination into practicality has given rise to research. The argument concedes that government should place restrictions on scientific research and development. Some people argue that such a restriction impedes the innate thought process and finally impacting the society. On the other hand others feel such a restriction ensures concord in the society. However, I feel that there shouldn’t be any restriction on research as it is a step towards the development of archetype. But restriction should be applicable during the development phase, whether to produce or bar it based on its usage. Admittedly, research is the driving force of mankind and due to it we are leading a serene and salubrious life. If we look into any field research has made its impact in broader way. In the domain of science there are been tremendous improvements due to research. Many theories, laws and models like the Newton’s laws of gravitation, Einstein’s theory of relativity, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Bohr’s model of atom, to quote a few have come into life. Research has changed the face of medicine. For instance, till the start of this century people used to operate crudely. In the mid of this century concept of anesthesia came into picture which was given to the patient to soothe him from pain, but there was a negative impact i.e., it used to affect the entire body. Now-a-days local anesthesia is given which affects only a particular tissue which is to be operated on, such is the impact of research. Average life expectancy has also accrued. Every single thing we do has its own pros and cons; same is the case with scientific research and development. For instance, cloning was done to improve the productivity of livestock’s which is its brighter side of its usage and cloning of human beings is the murky side of it which is against the ethics. Another instance that I would like to put up is the use of nuclear technology. If we use it for domestic purpose it reduces our dependency on fossil fuels and enhances our quality of living and on the other hand if used to produce weapons of mass destruction will be deleterious to the entire ecosystem. Moreover, it is the duty of the government to curb if the outcome of a particular research is put into detrimental development. If we retrospect many bills and acts were passed by the governments to restrain such a development. “Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty” and “Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty” stand as a paradigm. Another instance that I would like to quote is the bill passed in the U.S against human cloning. These initiatives ensure that scientific research and development are on the right track. In sum, I would like to conclude that “Today’s world is on a run due to yesterday’s research”. Research is like an abyss. The more you delve the deeper you go and more benefits you get. Research should be like water flowing smoothly through a conduit without any checks. On the other hand, by incorporating apposite laws any untoward scientific development can be controlled.

Guys, please grade on a scale of 6.0. So I can know where I stand Aveno. “All students should be required to take courses in sciences, even if there have no interest in science.” The author argues that science is a must for each and every course though students aren’t interested in it. It is true that science is a way of understanding the nature in a pragmatic way. It has helped the mankind in fighting against the forces of nature. Some argue that science is a foundation for students to perceive things going round his milieu and must be made compulsory. On the other hand people argue that science is not everything and there is something beyond it. However, in the final analysis, I feel that taking up of the courses be it science or any, should be left to the discretion of a student and not to be made compulsory. Education won’t be effective if we require students to take a particular stream they are not interested in. For instance, consider a student who has great aptitude in arts, politics and literature. If he or she is required to take science as a part of the course curriculum it would surely deter his or her performance. Students may even flunk in the exams. They may even get affected psychologically due to stress involved in the academics. On a whole it will ruin the career of the student. Moreover, it doesn’t benefit the student in an angle. Take for example a student who has a sole ambition of becoming a lawyer. Though he or she is required to study science as a part of the course he or she will never make use of it anywhere in future as his career or job doesn’t desire to do so. In the aforementioned paradigm science and law are on the opposite extremes. There is one more issue out here; students not interested in science never devote their full concentration and time on the subject. They just read for the sake of passing the exams without getting into the pith of the subject. In sum, it is foolhardy to make science obligatory in all the courses. Science should be required in courses which depend on it. This ensures a healthy education. Students also will have joy in learning because what they are wanting is what they are getting.

Guys, Please grade this issue on a scale of 6.0. Thanks a ton, Aveno “Education will be truly effective only when it is specifically designed to meet the individual needs and interests of each student” Humans as we all know develop mental and intellectual skills over a period of time by experience and guidance. Education is the best guide for acquiring knowledge. It enhances our thought process through ratiocination. The author concedes that education is effective only if it suits particular interests of each student. I feel that customizing education to each individuals need doesn’t make it effective. Effective education is which in addition to knowledge imparts social and moral values.If education is personalized there is a definite chance that people avoid subjects which they detest most, but this definitely impacts their growth at a later point. For instance, consider a student who is very good in the field of chemistry and despises math. Throwing the ball in his court he would choose chemistry, but surely he will regret at a later point of time because many of the problems have a close relationship with math. It is too late at this point to catch up what he has missed. Satiating the needs of each and every individual interest is a very difficult task. If we try to do so, its brunt will be felt by our future generations. As a result of this universities will never have a fixed curriculum; it keeps wavering according to needs of each student. The staff also will become “Jack of all trades master of none”. This is because there is a chance that students interested in a particular subject in this year may not be interested in the next. It will also become difficult for the students to judge better universities. It will result in a total chaos and confusion. Moreover, universities and colleges offer curriculums in various disciplines taking into account the current trends, moral values and on top of all the interest of majority of students. The syllabus is also thoroughly revised various panels to remove setbacks, if any. So it is up to the student to do the necessary homework like short listing of various universities offering his or her area of interest and picking the right one. Doing so definitely makes the education sought by the student effective. In sum, it is left to the individual to choose from available multiple sources to make his or her education effective and not by making the universities and colleges tune to his or her individual needs or interests. If not, it will cast a devastating effect on the generations to come.

Thanks for your comments dude..... Hey I didn't get what u meant by this "I think 4ish if you don't make any changes." Aveno

12 views and no comment :( Guys, just tell me whether is good , average or bad...... So that I can atleast do what I can..... Thanx, Aveno.

12 views and no comment :( Guys, just tell me whether is good , average or bad...... So that I can atleast do what I can..... Thanx, Aveno.

Guys, Please critique this issue ...... Atleast tell me whether it is sticking to the topic or digressing ....... Thanx a ton, Aveno “All students should be required to take courses in sciences, even if there have no interest in science.” The author argues that science is a must for each and every course though students aren’t interested in it. It is true that science is a way of understanding the nature in a pragmatic way. It has helped the mankind in fighting against the forces of nature. Some argue that science is a foundation for students to perceive things going round his milieu and must be made compulsory. On the other hand people argue that science is not everything and there is something beyond it. However, in the final analysis, I feel that taking up of the courses be it science or any, should be left to the discretion of a student and not to be made compulsory. Education won’t be effective if we require students to take a particular stream they are not interested in. For instance, consider a student who has great aptitude in arts, politics and literature. If he or she is required to take science as a part of the course curriculum it would surely deter his or her performance. Students may even flunk in the exams. They may even get affected psychologically due to stress involved in the academics. On a whole it will ruin the career of the student. Moreover, it doesn’t benefit the student in any angle. Take for example a student who has a sole ambition of becoming a lawyer. Though he or she is required to study science as a part of the course he or she will never make use of it anywhere in future as his career or job doesn’t desire to do so. In the aforementioned paradigm science and law are on the opposite extremes. There is one more issue out here; students not interested in science never devote their full concentration and time on the subject. They just read for the sake of passing the exams without getting into the pith of the subject. In sum, it is foolhardy to make science obligatory in all the courses. Science should be required in courses which depend on it. This ensures a healthy education. Students also will have joy in learning because what they are wanting is what they are getting.

Guys, Please critique and grade this issue.... Thanks in advance, Aveno “Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development” Human beings are one of the most important learners of nature having a greater intelligent quotient. It is this intellect that had made humans to think in different perspectives and imagine multitude of things. The desire to make this imagination into practicality has given rise to research. The argument concedes that government should place restrictions on scientific research and development. Some people argue that such a restriction impedes the innate thought process and finally impacting the society. On the other hand others feel such a restriction ensures concord in the society. However, I feel that there shouldn’t be any restriction on research as it is a step towards the development of archetype. But restriction should be applicable during the development phase, whether to produce or bar it based on its usage. Admittedly, research is the driving force of mankind and due to it we are leading a serene and salubrious life. If we look into any field research has made its impact in broader way. In the domain of science there are been tremendous improvements due to research.Many theories, laws and models like the Newton’s laws of gravitation, Einstein’s theory of relativity, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Bohr’s model of atom, to quote a few have come into life. Research has changed the face of medicine. For instance, till the start of this century people used to operate crudely. In the mid of this century concept of anesthesia came into picture which was given to the patient to soothe him from pain, but there was a negative impact i.e., it used to affect the entire body. Now-a-days local anesthesia is given which affects only a particular tissue which is to be operated on, such is the impact of research. Average life expectancy has also accrued. Every single thing we do has its own pros and cons; same is the case with scientific research and development. For instance, cloning was done to improve the productivity of livestock’s which is its brighter side of its usage and cloning of human beings is the murky side of it which is against the ethics. Another instance that I would like to put up is the use of nuclear technology. If we use it for domestic purpose it reduces our dependency on fossil fuels and enhances our quality of living and on the other hand if used to produce weapons of mass destruction will be deleterious to the entire ecosystem. Moreover, it is the duty of the government to curb if the outcome of a particular research is put into detrimental development. If we retrospect many bills and acts were passed by the governments to restrain such a development. “Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty” and “Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty” stand as a paradigm. Another instance that I would like to quote is the bill passed in the U.S against human cloning. These initiatives ensure that scientific research and development are on the right track. In sum, I would like to conclude that “Today’s world is on a run due to yesterday’s research”. Research is like an abyss. The more you delve the deeper you go and more benefits you get. Research should be like water flowing smoothly through a conduit without any checks and on the other hand, apposite laws should be imposed to harness any untoward scientific development. .

Guys, Grade and critique this issue..... Thanks in advance, Aveno “Education will be truly effective only when it is specifically designed to meet the individual needs and interests of each student” Humans as we all know develop mental and intellectual skills over a period of time by experience and guidance. Education is the best guide for acquiring knowledge. It enhances our thought process through ratiocination. The author concedes that education is effective only if it suits particular interests of each student. I feel that customizing education to each individuals need doesn’t make it effective. Effective education is which in addition to knowledge imparts social and moral values.If education is personalized there is a definite chance that people avoid subjects which they detest most, but this definitely impacts their growth at a later point. For instance, consider a student who is very good in the field of chemistry and despises math. Throwing the ball in his court he would choose chemistry, but surely he will regret at a later point of time because many of the problems have a close relationship with math. It is too late at this point to catch up what he has missed. Satiating the needs of each and every individual interest is a very difficult task. If we try to do so, its brunt will be felt by our future generations. As a result of this universities will never have a fixed curriculum; it keeps wavering according to needs of each student. The staff also will become “Jack of all trades master of none”. This is because there is a chance that students interested in a particular subject in this year may not be interested in the next. It will also become difficult for the students to judge better universities. It will result in a total chaos and confusion. Moreover, universities and colleges offer curriculums in various disciplines taking into account the current trends, moral values and on top of all the interest of majority of students. The syllabus is also thoroughly revised various panels to remove setbacks, if any. So it is up to the student to do the necessary homework like short listing of various universities offering his or her area of interest and picking the right one. Doing so definitely makes the education sought by the student effective. In sum, it is left to the individual to choose from available multiple sources to make his or her education effective and not by making the universities and colleges tune to his or her individual needs or interests. If not, it will cast a devastating effect on the generations to come.