describes the purpose, and provides an example, of the following elements for educators

• Goals
• Activities/action
• Expected outcomes/evidence of completion
• Resources
• Reflection
• Timeline

Identify health education and promotion intervention components that can be applied to theories and models.

Your response must be at least 300 words in length.

What is program sustainability? Discuss key factors of program sustainability. Explain why each factor is essential to program sustainability.

Your response must be at least 200 words

The idea of Paleolithic humans giving a tangible visible representation to intangible symbolic imagery they were “seeing” in their heads through altered states of consciousness (visions, dreams, hallucinations, trance). We have a better understanding of our brain’s visual mechanics in our own time but we as humans still routinely tap into altered states of consciousness, whether it’s through daydreaming, roleplaying (ex. Cosplay) meditation, dance, substance use, or escapism into virtual worlds such as video games, movies, music, art, social media.

-WHAT, IN YOUR OPINION, IS THE APPEAL OF AN ALTERED STATE OF CONSCIOUSNESS FOR US AS HUMANS?

-If you find yourself wanting to “unplug” from reality in an altered state, what feeling are you after and is there a visual component to it?

-How can we relate our own state of altered consciousness in modern times, back to the Paleolithic humans and their interest in recording visions they saw in their heads on the walls of caves?

Please write down your response after reading the paragraph. (At least 5 sentences long. 150-200 words)

Ethically, autonomous cars mixed together on the roads with human-operated cars raises a scary picture in my mind. If autonomous cars are running on the mindset of saving the greater good, and human operated cars are also on this roadway with the mindset of saving their own self… I am unsure of how that would turn out. It is a bit frightening to think about. It is also frightening to think about being a passenger in an autonomous car. As a passenger, you would be putting your faith and life into the hands of a machine, designed by humans, which may be prone to some type of error. Yes, the machine would not make human mistakes as to drink and drive or to text and drive, but there is still the chance of some type of error on the machine's part. As the speaker said, society needs to determine which trade-offs they are willing to make.

Please write down your response after reading the paragraph. (At least 5 sentences long. 150-200 words)

The idea of a driverless car in our modern day and age at first sounds very pleasant, if one does not think too hard about it. Much like how Iyad Rahwan mentions in his TED talk, about 1.6 million people die every year in traffic accidents, and oftentimes because of human error. If human error was taken away, wouldn’t this drastically decrease the number of accidents occurring? However, there are many ethical dilemmas that one must consider: should you allow your car to decide that it should kill you if it were to save five pedestrians as a result? There are an infinite number of factors that could change your answer immediately: what if you were driving with a family member or your significant other on the passenger seat? What if swerving meant running into an unsuspecting mother with a baby carriage? Like Rahwan mentioned, would society even allow driverless cars with such risks, however small? With everyone having different opinions on the risks they’re willing to take, I believe society as a whole will never be able to come to a complete consensus on such a matter. However, I do think that most would avoid driverless cars as a result to avoid such a situation.

Personally, I believe in Bentham’s view of the situation; minimizing harm by choosing to kill one life over five others. However, Kant’s belief that you should allow the car to take its course is also a very valid argument. Who are we to choose who lives and who dies in a society in which one believes every human being is created equal? In addition, if one of my family members was with me in the car, and crashing would put their lives at risk, would I be willing to make that sacrifice just to save five people that I don’t know? As such, this is a very difficult ethical dilemma to consider.

Please write down your response after reading the paragraph. (At least 5 sentences long. 150-200 words)

In my point of view, I believe that driverless car will definitely be the trend of technological development. Meanwhile, 100 percent security will be the target for all related companies. If those cars are mixed into human driven cars in the future, the outcome will be horrible. Even if the technique is well developed, the traffic in the real society is not expectable. There will be so many uncontrollable factors. For example, some pedestrians probably will not walk through zebra crossing, and driverless car must have the ability to deal with corresponding situation.

Moreover, driverless cars will probably meet the situation of ethical dilemma, like what was said in the video. “Kill the passenger or five pedestrians”, it is a difficult question and there will be much more similar questions like this. The people who should be thinking this problem are designers of driverless car, and then they just need to input it as a program into the car. From the ethical aspect, it is better to sacrifice one life for saving five more lives. However, humans are selfish. If I am the passenger, I rather let those five pedestrians die, because I don’t wanna die and I believe most people will have the same idea as me.

Please write down your response after reading the paragraph. (At least 5 sentences long. 150-200 words)

First of all, I would say the technology might not make 100% safety. Also, people should not be controlled by technology, and people should control technology because I think that only people, human, think molal. I want to respect moral for life. If I was in this situation weather driverless car kills me or five pedestrians, I would chose to kill myself and save other five people instead of my live. I know it is easy to say like that. Like he said in this video" It's still going to involve trade-offs, and trade-offs often require ethics.", this problem is very complicated and connected with ethics. People can think ethically in usual but in an emergency situation, they stop think ethically and tend to save themselves first, so people say easily "in this situation, should save five people" but they do not want to buy the driverless car to kill themselves. Therefore, I think that people should more consider about the moral and ethics.

Already, in Japan, it starts to test of dreverless bus in public road. However, even if the driverless bus, always one driver is sitting in front of the handle because if when the bus is not working normally, the driver can drive the bus. I think driverlass car is very convenient and develop our society but the driver has responsibility to drive the car. People can act for responsibility but the technology cannot understand responsibility. Therefore, I think that in the future, even if the technology can make 100% safety, people should keep driving by themselves.

Please answer the question after reading the short paragraph.

The Department of Transport estimated that last year 35,000 people died from traffic crashes in the US alone. Worldwide, 1.2 million people die every year in traffic accidents. If there was a way we could eliminate 90 percent of those accidents, would you support it? Of course you would. This is what driverless car technology promises to achieveby eliminating the main source of accidents -- human error. Now picture yourself in a driverless car in the year 2030, all of a sudden, the car experiences mechanical failure and is unable to stop. If the car continues, it will crash into a bunch of pedestrians crossing the street, but the car may swerve, hitting one bystander, killing them to save the pedestrians. What should the car do, and who should decide? What if instead the car could swerve into a wall, crashing and killing you, the passenger, in order to save those pedestrians? This scenario is inspired by the trolley problem, which was invented by philosophers a few decades ago to think about ethics.

Question: Should your driverless car kill you if it means saving five pedestrians? In this primer on the social dilemmas of driverless cars, Iyad Rahwan explores how the technology will challenge our morality and explains his work collecting data from real people on the ethical trade-offs we're willing (and not willing) to make. What are the possible outcomes of a society where these kind of vehicles are mixed into human driven cars? Think about the ethical issues when responding. (At least two paragraphs, a paragraph is at least 5 sentences long.)

Do you think the use and advancement of technology are essential to the criminal just system? Please describe and explain how technology has evolved the criminal justice system in law enforcement, corrections, and the courts. Also, please provide an example of a new technology that has been implemented in law enforcement, corrections, and the courts that you believe has been beneficial.

Please introduce yourself here. Share any information about yourself that would let us get to know you better.

This is criminal JUSTICE SUBJECT.

Characterize Plato's story of the Ring of Gyges. What is it meant to illustrate? What are Socrates' arguments for why one should be good, even if no one else witnesses it? Directly quote Socrates' words and interpret and explain them in your answer.

Please write down your response after reading the paragraph. (At least 5 sentences long. 150-200 words)

While it may be obvious to some that saving more lives would be minimizing total harm, it becomes difficult when we begin to consider the value of each life at risk. We cannot necessarily say the value of the driver's life is less than the lives of the pedestrians simply because of quantity. If the driverless car kills the driver, then it will be doing good for those pedestrians, not the driver, and vice versa. However, the challenge to our morality comes into play when we determine what the car's primary goal should be, to save the driver, or to save those in the surroundings. Right now, we all buy cars that will be safest for us as drivers and passengers, and I am not sure why this would change with the implementation of driverless cars. If these cars were to be implemented in society not everyone would have one, for one reason or another. Let us say that the driverless car runs a red light and crashes into a vehicle driven by a mother with her child in the back seat. If these two cars were driven by people, the person who ran the red light would clearly be punished. But now we are faced with a situation where blame cannot be directly placed on anyone. The issue now becomes, how can we get justice for the people who are impacted by the accidents of these driverless cars? While it may seem to be such innovative technology that makes life easier, the more our technology advances, the more we must advance to keep up with it and the issues that come as well.