Thursday, September 24, 2015

PLN #5


Summary


In the article “You Will Be Able to Watch the CNN Democratic Debate in Virtual Reality” by Maya Rhodan they are talking about a new way to watch tv almost as if you’re there. CNN came out with an idea “to offer you a front-row ticket to look around the studio during its upcoming Democratic presidential debate, and you won't even have to leave your couch.” You just need a Samsung phone to get access to virtual reality. This concept will be open to the public on October 13 for the Republican debate. Since the debate is a really big and a lot of people will be watching CNN thought this will be a good time to launch the idea since there is 4.5 million streams. However, to get the whole virtual reality experience, you have to wear a big headset and they refer to it as “living in the Matrix.”

Response 

I think that it is a good idea for CNN to try this new idea of virtual reality. Technology is starting to grow in many ways ranging from phones where the screens wrap around to the sides, 3D tvs, and much more. Virtual reality in my idea sounds really cool because it’s like you’re right there at the event taking place. But I also think that they should make it available to more types of phones than just the Samsung phones. It’s also a smart idea for CNN to launch this new idea to a lot of people for a presidential debate. Since a lot of people watch it, a lot of people will get to experience it get or even hear more about it. They tried it earlier this year on some networks and shows such as ABC news, MTV, a soccer match, and the NHL and it seemed to be a hit. You can just be laying in your bed, sitting on a couch, or even swinging on a hammock and be able to watch the debate. It’s a really cool concept and it could change technology and the way you watch tv forever.

Thursday, September 17, 2015

PLN #4

Summary

In the article “Child Nutrition -- Start to a Virtuous Circle” by Bjørn Lomborg they are talking about how your nutrition growing up can affect the rest of you life. Children that don’t get the necessary amounts of food are shown that they are lower than the expected height and fall behind in developing their cognitive skills. In Brazil, a study showed that 1% height increase raised average adult earnings by 2.4%. As people’s kids start to grow older, they realize that just spending a small amount of money on providing nutritional supplements and having a balanced diet can really pay off in the end for their children. In Indonesia, people have realized that they get back up to $166 of benefits for every one dollar spent.


Response
I believe that children really do need a good nutrition and diet while growing up. The types of foods you eat can really form your learning or appearance when you get older. As it says in the article, “the first 1,000 days of a child’s life -- from conception to age two -- are vital for proper development.” I completely agree, because as you’re getting older and everything is growing. It is important to eat the right things, sleep enough, and take care of yourself. I can believe that kids don’t eat the right things don’t develop their cognitive skills, because think about it, your brain might not get fully developed or something else. I think it’s really important to give your child’s early ages everything you’ve got since it can affect them in the future.  It also says that “Stunted children do less well at school and lead poorer adult lives.” In my opinion, it’s worth it to spend $150 for healthy baby food for about a month. As it is said in the story, Professor Susan Horton from University of Waterloo and professor John Hoddinott from Cornell have concluded that “every dollar spent on nutrition in the first 1,000 days of a child's life can give a saving of an average $45 and in some cases as much as $166.” What do you think about a child’s nutrition?

Thursday, September 3, 2015

PLN #3

Summary 
In the short story, “High School, Only Shorter” by Sue Shellenbarger from The Wall Street Journal, students are starting to finish classes early, so they can graduate early. They want to finish college and start making money in a full time job so they can start planning for their future. One example was Nicholas Meyers, a student at Ball State University, graduated his junior year from high school, and started college a year early. However, as amazing as that sounds, he did miss his senior year prom and a trip to New York City with the finance club. Now others are finding ways to let middle schoolers take high school courses, and high school students to have the option of taking college courses. In 2002, 2.9% of high school students that were sophomores graduated in 3 years or less. Another example are people like Luke, who start to lose their love for learning and run out of classes to take at their high schools. However, to get into an Ivy league or a good school, Luke had to work extra hard and take many tests to catch up with everyone else in college if he wanted to end his high school experience at just 3 years. There are so many kids that graduate early, and seem to enjoy the change of lifestyle in college, but ultimately it’s their personal preference and choice.

Reflection 
 I believe that it is not the best idea for students to graduate early. Honestly, it’s not only just about the academics, colleges look at many more things such as extracurricular activities and involvement with your school. Also, you should have fun in high school. From personal experience, my cousin who attends Harvard University, says the best times of her life were in high school. In the story, it says Nicholas Meyers missed his senior prom and a school trip. Personally I wouldn’t want to miss those things, because you can never go back and relive them. I think it would be more fun to graduate with your class and all your friends, spend the last years of high school having fun on the school sports teams, attending the dances and games, or even being involved in a club. In the article, it says critics question whether students are "emotionally or otherwise ready to enroll in college full-time at the age of 17,” says Ms. Zinth. “Many people think four years is necessary." I completely agree with her. In college, you have so much stress and the challenge of meeting new people and there’s not a bell to tell you to when to attend class, you have to be paying attention. But at the same time, I can see why students want to graduate early. As said in the article, Luke by his third year of high school, had run out of math and science classes to take. When students are so advanced there should either be other classes for them to take, or they should just graduate early. I mean the students do miss out on the full high school experience, but it’s good that they’re eager to further their education. The students are obviously thinking more about their future rather than just the present. In the first part of the article Nicholas Meyers says, "If I get out a year early, that's a year extra of pay, and that's a year earlier of retirement. That's a whole year of my time that I can do whatever I want—make some money, invest some money or just relax." I can see where he is coming from, wanting to start early and end earlier. As you can see, there is different takes on whether you think students should graduate early or not, but in my opinion there is no right or wrong answer. Do you think a 3 year high school should become a regulation?