Event #2
FYS
I had attended one of the last soccer games of the year. The Elmhurst soccer team faced off against Wesleyan University, at home. I knew a few kids on our team and my first cousin, who is my age, plays for Wesleyan, so I thought this would be a good game for me to watch. I never watch soccer, simply because I never liked the soccer players at my high school and I actually never like any soccer players, I never hung out with anyone who was a soccer player.
I like to watch the world cup. The people who play in the world cup are so amazing with that ball. I love to watch what the players can do with that soccer ball; I can not believe how far they can kick it. The soccer players that were playing in the game that I was watching were not any where close to the players in the world cup, but they are professionals so it is understandable. I still find it amazing how that ball just moves so smoothly and they can run while keeping the ball so close to them. After watching the game I went and tried to do some of the things they do with the soccer ball and I could not ever run with it. The players know exactly where the ball is without even looking at it. It does not even look like they hit the ball as they run with it, but they do and they make it so hard for someone to steal it from them.
The game was good, we won even though I think last time we faced them we had lost.
One thing that I thought was cool, was that I was watching a kid in one of my classes, John, go one on one with my cousin. John did not know that that was my cousin, but the two looked like they were pretty evenly matched. The coolest part about that was that both of them are freshmen that start on the varsity team. My aunt and uncle never shut up about it and brag so much about how good their little Scotty is. I know it is my cousin so I was cheering for him, but I want Elmhurst to run over Wesleyan so that next time I saw my aunt and uncle I would have something to rub back in their face. Like I said before I never really watched or liked soccer, but I kind of enjoyed this one, because it was a little personal.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Our Sixteenth President
Event #1
FYS
Schade Lecture
Lectures have never been my cup of tea. I really have to be interested in order to pay attention to a lecture. I picked a lecture that I thought would be the most interesting to me so that I can write this. Abraham Lincoln has always been one of my favorite presidents, I do not know why; maybe it is because I liked top hats when I was little. There are not too many presidents in which I know what number president they were, but almost everyone knows he is our sixteenth president.
The name of the lecture was “Abraham Lincoln and the permanent Campaign,” by Richard Norton Smith. I felt that this lecture was more a life story about Abraham Lincoln and I liked it, even though there may have been a few times I was not paying attention. Abraham Lincoln was a great man and many people liked him, but some people will tell you that he was not all that smart. Smith says how he was a man that learned a lot from his mistakes and was still building up to his presidency. This tells me that Lincoln may not have been ready to be president and if that was the case than he could possibly survived a lot longer. Even though Lincoln did not serve as president for very long he still had a great impact on everyone. This could just be me, but Lincoln seems to be one of the most popular presidents and if you were to ask someone to name some presidents Abraham Lincoln would be one of the first ones. I think that Richard Smith was a very good talker and he really seemed to have everyone eager to hear more about the great Abraham Lincoln. He would keep the audience listening, especially with jokes. When people just stand there and talk, I can not focus, but I listen to almost everything Smith had to say. Smith seemed like an extremely intelligent person with a lot of knowledge that I do not know. I liked this talk about
FYS
Schade Lecture
Lectures have never been my cup of tea. I really have to be interested in order to pay attention to a lecture. I picked a lecture that I thought would be the most interesting to me so that I can write this. Abraham Lincoln has always been one of my favorite presidents, I do not know why; maybe it is because I liked top hats when I was little. There are not too many presidents in which I know what number president they were, but almost everyone knows he is our sixteenth president.
The name of the lecture was “Abraham Lincoln and the permanent Campaign,” by Richard Norton Smith. I felt that this lecture was more a life story about Abraham Lincoln and I liked it, even though there may have been a few times I was not paying attention. Abraham Lincoln was a great man and many people liked him, but some people will tell you that he was not all that smart. Smith says how he was a man that learned a lot from his mistakes and was still building up to his presidency. This tells me that Lincoln may not have been ready to be president and if that was the case than he could possibly survived a lot longer. Even though Lincoln did not serve as president for very long he still had a great impact on everyone. This could just be me, but Lincoln seems to be one of the most popular presidents and if you were to ask someone to name some presidents Abraham Lincoln would be one of the first ones. I think that Richard Smith was a very good talker and he really seemed to have everyone eager to hear more about the great Abraham Lincoln. He would keep the audience listening, especially with jokes. When people just stand there and talk, I can not focus, but I listen to almost everything Smith had to say. Smith seemed like an extremely intelligent person with a lot of knowledge that I do not know. I liked this talk about
Monday, December 3, 2007
Wikipedia vs. Britannica
Ben Salabura
December 3, 2007
FYS
I have looked up coal on both Wikipedia and Britannica. In Wikipedia there are whys people can contact the authors and editors of the information that is on this site. There is ways to communicate with them online such as email and on Britannica there is no real way to contact the authors. On this web site they show some authors and they tell a little something about the authors; what’s their profession, where they went to collage.
The information on Wikipedia seem to update several times a day, the earliest one was only a few hours ago and it was extremely easy to find. Britannica on the other hand did not have any source that I could find that would show when it was last updated.
Wikipedia has references and a bibliography and it has a lot of them, but Britannica has none. There are references that are clickable on the website, but they all just seem to lead straight to another website that was used to get the information from, but Wikipedia also has books, magazines, and things of that nature that are used too. Wikipedia has about forty of these different website that can be reach through this site. All of the websites that I clicked into were good, none of them did not come up, where as Britannica they just tell you how to site their work when we use it and none of this stuff is on the site. Britannica seems to just think because they are an encyclopedia they do what they want and they do not have any sort of a bibliography any where on the website.
The two websites have basically the same information in them and they are both what I would say to explain coal. Britannica’s information was better, I thought, because it was to the point and exact. Wikipedia had the same stuff, but their information was too much than they need everything they said. I did like the chart that Wikipedia had though; it was a little something that Britannica did not have.
I found that Wikipedia has a thing called talk and there are like group discussion people can have about any of the subject in Wikipidia. In discussion, which is a little tab at the top of the site, they have one long page of just little side notes that people wrote that could be added to the definition of coal and things that could be changed. These discussions are not all real accurate though. They are not cited and they are just people’s opinions. There is nothing of this talk on Britannica, I do not know why, I like it and I think it should be added in.
I like Wikipedia more than I like Britannica. People do not like Wikipedia because people can put what ever they want on there. This is true, but the definitions are current, they have their work cited and they were all legitimate websites. Britannica had all them same stuff even though it is an encyclopedia and they are all facts. I like how people can put things on the website that they want, not only because it gives us our right to freedom of speech, but it is fun to see want other people have to say. Wikipedia has a lot of information and can be extremely helpful teachers should not band students from using it.
December 3, 2007
FYS
I have looked up coal on both Wikipedia and Britannica. In Wikipedia there are whys people can contact the authors and editors of the information that is on this site. There is ways to communicate with them online such as email and on Britannica there is no real way to contact the authors. On this web site they show some authors and they tell a little something about the authors; what’s their profession, where they went to collage.
The information on Wikipedia seem to update several times a day, the earliest one was only a few hours ago and it was extremely easy to find. Britannica on the other hand did not have any source that I could find that would show when it was last updated.
Wikipedia has references and a bibliography and it has a lot of them, but Britannica has none. There are references that are clickable on the website, but they all just seem to lead straight to another website that was used to get the information from, but Wikipedia also has books, magazines, and things of that nature that are used too. Wikipedia has about forty of these different website that can be reach through this site. All of the websites that I clicked into were good, none of them did not come up, where as Britannica they just tell you how to site their work when we use it and none of this stuff is on the site. Britannica seems to just think because they are an encyclopedia they do what they want and they do not have any sort of a bibliography any where on the website.
The two websites have basically the same information in them and they are both what I would say to explain coal. Britannica’s information was better, I thought, because it was to the point and exact. Wikipedia had the same stuff, but their information was too much than they need everything they said. I did like the chart that Wikipedia had though; it was a little something that Britannica did not have.
I found that Wikipedia has a thing called talk and there are like group discussion people can have about any of the subject in Wikipidia. In discussion, which is a little tab at the top of the site, they have one long page of just little side notes that people wrote that could be added to the definition of coal and things that could be changed. These discussions are not all real accurate though. They are not cited and they are just people’s opinions. There is nothing of this talk on Britannica, I do not know why, I like it and I think it should be added in.
I like Wikipedia more than I like Britannica. People do not like Wikipedia because people can put what ever they want on there. This is true, but the definitions are current, they have their work cited and they were all legitimate websites. Britannica had all them same stuff even though it is an encyclopedia and they are all facts. I like how people can put things on the website that they want, not only because it gives us our right to freedom of speech, but it is fun to see want other people have to say. Wikipedia has a lot of information and can be extremely helpful teachers should not band students from using it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)