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.

Module 04 Written Assignment - Consumer Patronage

In a 1-2 page paper based upon the article The effects of website designs, self- congruity, and flow of behavioral intention.

https://content.learntoday.info/eq/b422c/week_04/The%20Effects%20of%20Website%20Designs.pdf

1) What can you do to increase the likelihood of consumer patronage?

2) How would you implement the modifications into your website?

Research the current state of marijuana laws and how these laws can/will affect the hiring of new law enforcement recruits. Where do you stand on marijuana use prior to law enforcement employment and why?

Do you believe that the protesters are purposefully inciting a riot, or are they protesting peacefully? Do you see any possible third options to explain student behavior during these events?

What is environmental justice? What are some of the factors contributing to environmental justice?

Exploring HMS Terror and HMS Erebus
What were the ships elements, view various artifacts found after the disappearance of the ships?

Please explain what Protesting and the Black Lives matter can deal with Social Learning and Strain Theories

In Plato's work, Euthyphro, Socrates questions Euthyphro's definition of "piety" (or goodness). However, Socrates wants to know what the "essence" of goodness is, not merely an "example" of something good. Ultimately, Euthyphro states that "goodness (or piety) is that which is loved and commanded by god." Socrates responds by asking a two part question:

1. Is "goodness" good because god loves and commands it? If so, then "goodness" is left to the decision of god and not to our ability to reason. Therefore, goodness is an arbitrary concept.

2. Is "goodness" loved and commanded by god because it is already good? If so, then why do I need god to command something that is "always-already" good? Therefore, god is an arbitrary concept.

In your DB response, discuss in 150-200 words: (1) what are some issues that arise if a person is only able to account for "goodness" in light of what they believe god has commanded (through various religious texts); and (2) are there any issues that are relevant today that some individuals believe that god has commanded (in various religious ideas) to be "bad" that one's reason may think otherwise?