Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles

American has been seeking independence from foreign for some time. Many alternatives have been explored including ethanol, biofuel, and electric vehicles, but one bright alternative that could be a game changer is waiting on the horizon. This alternative is hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. They are extremely environmentally friendly as its only by-product is water. Yes, water. Scientists have made great strides in this technology in its relatively short life.

Car manufacturers expect hydrogen fuel cell vehicles to be competing with traditional vehicles in cost sometime within the next few years. Today, such a vehicle would cost about $50,000. This price is certainly not within most Americans’ budgets, but when the price gap inevitably narrows, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will give traditional vehicles a run for their money. With any luck, traditional vehicles will be completely replaced.

The blog that I found at "http://www.h2carblog.com/?p=215" was extremely interesting to me, because I find new technology to be fascinating. I would recommend this blog to anyone. Alternative fuel is one of the issues of our day on which every person should be educated. Government officials make decisions regarding alternative fuels that affect us all. Voters must know if a candidate will be good for the country. An informed decision is impossible if the voter is not educated on the issues. This is often the responsibility of the voter. Sadly, most do not take the time to educate themselves.

The design for the blog is clean and easy to read. The page is devoid of annoying advertisements, which contributes to the aforementioned cleanness of the blog. This particular post includes a picture, which is a definite plus. Also, there is a list of related links toward the bottom of the page if you are interested in any further reading (which I was). Overall, the blog seems very professional, whether it actually is or not.

Electronic Books

In Why There Are Pages and Why They Must Turn, Robert Bringhurst essentially outlines the change in medium that writing and storytelling have experienced throughout history. He identifies pros as well as cons, but his tone towards electronic books is notably skeptical throughout the article. He argues that the “tangible form of a book” is “rewarding” because it “stands for an intangible reality alive in the heart and mind” (Bringhurst and Bay 2). To anyone who has read a printed book, this point rings true. Something about turning a page in a book cannot be duplicated by simply scrolling down a computer screen. However, at this point I would argue that Bringhurst might not feel the same way today. E-Readers have gained a great deal of popularity in the past two years, and many of these devices mimic the “feel” of a book quite well. The user can swipe the screen, which then mimics a page turn. The lack of the page turn was one of the most fundamental differences between print and electronic books.

Bringhurst’s position on electronic writing seems clear in light of what he says about electronic writing: “The result may be typographically inept; in fact, it may be downright ugly, as most things typed on computers now are—and it may or may not have literary value” (Bringhurst and Bay 5). It seems obvious that the intrinsic value of a book is not determined by the medium in which it is developed but by the content and meaning of its words. I fail to see how something beautiful that is typed on a computer is somehow less valuable than the exact same thing written on a page. Admittedly, I may be missing the point. Bringhurst could simply be arguing that writing a print book is more difficult than writing an electronic work. Therefore, the number of low quality electronic books is inflated. If so, I would argue that many poorly written or ugly books have been printed over the years. The quality of the work is determined by the skill of the author.

Even though electronic books may still not be able to mimic the experience of printed books, electronic books have not developed completely. Even in the short two years since this article was written, electronic books have evolved to some degree. I believe that this change is not over yet. We will continue to see development in the near future. So will electronic books ever truly replace printed books? I do not know, and I cannot know until the electronic book is fully realized.

WORKS CITED

Bringhurst, Robert; Bay, Heriot. “Why There Are Pages and Why They Must Turn.” World Literature Today 82.5 (2008): 20-26. Web. 18 February 2011.

Slanderous Blogging

Blogging is a tool that is used in different ways by different people. I have begun to see this in the short five years that I have been exposed to it. In early high school, my peers primarily used it as a sort of online journal. Often times, they would say harmful things that were directed at other students. I believe that this is because of the emotional state in which most of my peers tended to blog. I almost never saw a completely levelheaded blog. The writer was usually extremely happy, deeply sad, or exploding with anger. Those same feelings were often directed at or attributed to some person or thing. Rumors were frequently spread through blogging as well.

Behavior like this takes place in schools all across the country and has for many years. The only thing that has changed is the form that it has taken. Bullying is something that goes as far back as the public school system itself. Although cyber-bullying in particular is relatively new, bullying has been around for a great deal of time. The question that the reading asks is this: does the First Amendment protect blogging? First off, I would like to say that there seems to be a common misconception about what free speech really means. It does not mean that one can say whatever, whenever with absolutely no consequences. There are some exceptions (although they are very rare). Furthermore, the first amendment was not intended to protect all speech at all times in all places. It is important to note the spirit of the law as well as the letter.

I think that this article fails to address the true problem. The problem is bullying, not cyber-bullying. I admit that my experience could be different from the norm, but no one that I know personally has been bullied anonymously online. However, I have seen many people be bullied anonymously without any interaction with the Internet whatsoever. I am not a bully myself, but I can think of many ways to bully someone anonymously without going near a computer. The problem may be that cyber-bullying is almost impossible to prevent. Teachers and students cannot know when someone will be slandered next, and they cannot hope to prevent it unless students know that cyber-bullying will have consequences. They must know that what they say online carries the same weight as what they say in everyday life. I firmly believe that if a bully wants to bully, he or she will find a way. Of course, this is not to say that we should give up the fight. The consequences for cyber-bullying should be more severe if it is more harmful. I do not believe that blatant bullying was meant to be protected from any consequence by the first amendment. If it goes against a policy of the schools, and it hinders the educational process than it should definitely be punishable.

Peer Response (Jason Cherry)

Jason Cherry made many good points in his blog response to George Orwell. I made some of the same points myself. He made the point that some writings intentionally use bigger words to raise the perceived intelligence level of the author. True intelligence does not always produce bigger words, it produces words that are more precise in conveying the intended meaning to the reader. I have seen many people misuse big words in normal conversation in an attempt to sound intelligent. This works out exactly as Orwell said (and Jason pointed out); it simply causes confusion. I also would like to expand on a point that Jason made in closing. Sometimes it really is better to keep it simple. What is the point of speaking or writing if your audience does not understand what you are trying to say to them?

"Politics and the English Language"

In “Politics and the English Language” George Orwell argues that “modern” English is vague and lacks the vivid imagery that “good” English consistently uses. He seems to be arguing that “modern” English is so concerned with sounding scientific that it lets the words that are used warp the intended meaning. Although I cannot think of any specific examples, I have seen this happen many times. An author is tempted to use popular phrases in writing. In so doing, they let the words that they use shape the meaning of their work because the vast majority of the time, the phrase is not entirely appropriate in the context that it is used. The result is that the final product does not produce the desired effect on its readers.

I am inclined to agree with Orwell. At least, I am inclined to agree with his argument as I interpreted it. His argument uses specific examples, and he picks them apart in detail. As I read the examples provided, I was not picturing what the author was trying to say. There was simply no visual element them. This is truly an atrocity because the English language easily possesses the potential to paint a vivid mental picture in the reader’s mind.

Language, by definition is an evolutionary principle. The meaning of many words changes, even in the relatively short history of American English. For instance, the word “gay” used to mean “happy” (more or less). More recently, it has been used to describe homosexual people. Today, it is used sometimes even used to express one’s dislike for something. This change seems harmless and is a natural part of what happens to language over time. Still, not all change is good change, and not all change is that natural, harmless change that I explained above. Orwell is essentially calling English speaking people to resist harmful changes to our language so we may still use words to incite vivid mental images. The loss of such an essential component of language would certainly not be beneficial, and he is right to fear this.

I wonder if his stance toward popular phrases is a bit too harsh. Admittedly, there are many times when these phrases are misused, causing a change in meaning as he says. It seems like he is saying that they should be abandoned altogether. In this respect, I would have to disagree with him. When used in the proper context, these popular phrases create an instant connection to the reader. They know exactly what the author is talking about without delay. My point is, there is a proper context for popular phrases, and if we are careful in our use of them they can be extremely helpful.