Should countries undertake space research?
Recently, there is a growing tendency that more and more countries give priority to space research, such as exploring the universe with space shuttle, satellite and space station.As far as I am concerned, this trend may bring both advantages and disadvantages.
First of all, it is universally acknowledged that aerospace technology promotes the pace of space research.In addition, the development of aerospace technology makes contribution to the progre of fundamental science fields, for instance, materials engineering, nuclear physics, engineering mechanics and so forth.As a consequence, the modern industry will gradually improve, which is beneficial to the whole society.What is more, doing space research such as exploring new planets, universe space analysis and observing the black holes, will give us a opportunity to get knowledge of more information about the universe.The moment found we a new planet which is similar with the earth, maybe we would solve the problems about inadequate resouces.
However, space research also has some unfavorable effects.So large is the cost in that researching which is invested by the government that the budgeting in other aspects, education and public welfare for instance, will be decreased relatively.Provided these money were spent into public welfare, the life standard of people would more or le increase.
Further more, to explore the universe, we need to send a variety of
satellites and space shuttles constantly.And yet, all those machines have certain working lives.Consequently, they will fall into the seas or float in the outer pace after they finish their miions, which leads to sea and outer space pollution.
In conclusion, we should think about both the merits and the demerits of space research and make this technology been applied correctly and reasonably.
Many newspapers and magazines feature stories about the private lives of famous people.We know what they eat, where they buy their clothes and who they love.We also often see pictures of them in private situations.Is it appropriate for a magazine or newspaper to give this kind of private information about people?
Nowadays, there are a increasing number of celebrities in all walk of life.They are the top runners in their specialized fields and most of them own outstanding characters and personalities.And thus, the ma media give priority on all their details of life.Some paparazzi follow the famous people and take photos in special ways to yield the curiosity of the public.
Personally, I would state my objection to this iue after analyzing the following three reasons.
First of all, everyone owns the right to enjoy their spare time and private time even if they are famous people.After finishing their work, they could spend their time with their family and friends, go shopping, travel and do sports for instance.People need private space to deal with personal stuffs which do not want to be disturbed.So numerous are contributes the celebrities have made to our society that they deserve to be respected but not try to expose their details of personal lives.
What is more, the growing curiosity to privacies of famous people leads to a phenomenon that a new kind of journalist which is named Paparazzi comes into being.All those people need to do is track the celebrities stealthily using whatever ways.As far as I am concerned, they lose the main spirit of a journalist that is to report the event and significant things to public.To some extent, they infringe the privacy right of famous people, which can not be acceptable.
In conclusion, I maintain that it is not appropriate for a magazine or newspaper to report the private information of celebrities.We fans should support them via normal ways.
Unlike other countries the police in the UK do not carry guns.Some think this leaves citizens unprotected, while others consider it reduces the overall level of violence in society.Give reasons for both sides of argument and state your own opinion.
Recently, it becomes a controversial iue that whether or not the police in the UK should carry guns.Some people aert that the police could protect the residents better with taking guns.Neverthele, others hold the view that it may avoid the violence accidents without bringing guns, to some extent.Generally speaking, I prefer to the former side.On one hand, despite of the fact that the crime rate is on the decrease these years, it does not mean entire disappearance of crimes.The police should take the responsibility to deal with them, such as murder, rape and robbery cases.Provided they had guns on hand, it could be relatively succeful to arrest the criminals.For instance, if the criminal takes a hostage and he is extremely aggreive, the sniper who takes a special gun within a certain distance could shoot him to death.So that the police are able to protect the citizens effectively.
On the other hand, some people insist that carrying no guns contributes to the decrease of violence in society.For one thing, when criminals see the policeman putting a gun to them, they may become desperate and out
of mind, and even do anything without considering the result, which may result in unexpected innocent hurts.This would not happen if policeman does not carry a gun.For another, no one can guarantee that a policeman does not shoot the paerby by mistake when he is hurriedly chasing a criminal.
As far as I am concerned, in the condition of no abuse or misuse of guns, policeman should be well trained and carry guns so that they could do their best to protect the residents efficiently and succefully.
Some people believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime.Others, however, argue that the circumstance of an individual crime, and the motivation for committing it, should always be taken into account when deciding on the punishment.
Discu both these views and give your own opinion.
Recently, it becomes a controversial iue that whether or not the uniform punishments should be applied for every sort of crime.Some people insist that it is wise to fulfill this policy, whereas others maintain that considering the circumstance of a certain crime and its motivation before making a decision of punishment is more reasonable.As far as I
am concerned, I am inclined to be on the side of the latter one.
For one thing, the initiating and surroundings of a crime, which have a variety of types, usually lead to different levels of crimes.And thus taking each factor into consideration is neceary and helpful to establish and ensure justice and equity.Provided that we treated every crime with the same punishment, there would be a large of number of innocent people involved.For instance, if a hobo steals bread in a shopping center due to hunger, it would be sorrowful that he is forced into serious punishment.For another, if we handle individual crime with considering each aspect, it is significant to establish complete relative laws and regulations, which has rules and example cases we can obey, so that each crime could be treated fairly and equitably.In addition, our society will be beneficial from that and will make a progre steadily.
Neverthele, to some extent, fixed punishments may also have positive effects on the security of the society.For example, if individuals get knowledge of that they will receive a certain severe punishment, they may think over before they commit a crime, which maybe contributes to decrease the crime rate.
In conclusion, fixed punishments own some merits indeed, while it is fairly more appreciate to give criminals the punishments they deserve with taking every factor into account and obeying the laws and regulations.
