Writing in university is very different from the writing I used to produce back in high school. The variation comes from the amount of information to be included in a report or essay. The style of writing is also dissimilar in terms of professionalism. There were two main points that I had to improve on so that I could produce work that was on par with university standards.
The first and main aspect of my writing that I had to change was the amount of solid hard evidence in my writing. I used to express my opinions and relied more on creativity rather than stating the plain facts. I learnt that in university, it is the hard evidence that counts, and not your style of writing. To improve this I had to do more research in finding proper evidence and restrict my opinions to a certain limit.
The second point that I had to improve on was my organization of ideas. When writing university work, one has to organize their writing in the easiest and most chronological way possible. This makes it easier for people to efficiently read through your work without getting lost. This is a good practice for future reports that I have to produce when working. Improving this was the most time consuming for me, but was the most rewarding, as it significantly improved my grades. To develop my organization of ideas I had to write my ideas on a rough paper, organize them chronologically and relevantly before writing the actual draft.
The methods to continually improve my writing techniques is to keep in mind the lessons I learnt during EG1471, and to always ask what the goal of the report or essay really is. The key is to never drift from the topic and to always present relevant sources in a chronological way.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
Grammar Mistakes
All throughout my school years, English has been my primary language, but even so I still make mistakes. One can never truly master a language, but with continuous practice one can improve their skills. The reason why I was enrolled into EG1471 was because of my inadequate knowledge of English grammar. Three of the most common grammar mistakes I tend to make are transitions, prepositions and run-on sentences.
I sometimes mix-up between which transitions I should use when connecting sentences. An example includes:
The scientists argued that the prototype was not ready and the boss refused to listen.
This sentence should be:
The scientists argued that the prototype was not ready but the boss refused to listen.
The reason why ‘but’ should be replaced by ‘and’ is because we are not adding information here but rather showing contrast.
I also find prepositions tricky when trying to describe positions of objects relative to other objects. An example of such:
The boy was leaning by the wall.
This sentence should read:
The boy was leaning against the wall.
Here we are not referring to whether the boy is standing beside the wall. We are saying that the boy is leaning on to the wall, with his body in contact with the wall.
The most common error I usually make out of the three has to be run-on sentences. I usually mix up between using commas and semi-colons. An example of the following is:
The professor looked at his watch, and it was time for the exam.
The sentence should read:
The professor looked at his watch; it was time for the exam.
We should not put a comma and the word ‘and’ because if you use one it is not grammatically correct to use the other. Furthermore, these are two different sentences that should be separated.
Hopefully by the time I finish (and I pray) pass my EG1471 course; the practice would have increased my skills in English grammar substantially. It is just like how the saying goes: “Practice makes perfect!”
I sometimes mix-up between which transitions I should use when connecting sentences. An example includes:
The scientists argued that the prototype was not ready and the boss refused to listen.
This sentence should be:
The scientists argued that the prototype was not ready but the boss refused to listen.
The reason why ‘but’ should be replaced by ‘and’ is because we are not adding information here but rather showing contrast.
I also find prepositions tricky when trying to describe positions of objects relative to other objects. An example of such:
The boy was leaning by the wall.
This sentence should read:
The boy was leaning against the wall.
Here we are not referring to whether the boy is standing beside the wall. We are saying that the boy is leaning on to the wall, with his body in contact with the wall.
The most common error I usually make out of the three has to be run-on sentences. I usually mix up between using commas and semi-colons. An example of the following is:
The professor looked at his watch, and it was time for the exam.
The sentence should read:
The professor looked at his watch; it was time for the exam.
We should not put a comma and the word ‘and’ because if you use one it is not grammatically correct to use the other. Furthermore, these are two different sentences that should be separated.
Hopefully by the time I finish (and I pray) pass my EG1471 course; the practice would have increased my skills in English grammar substantially. It is just like how the saying goes: “Practice makes perfect!”
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Summary of the three roundtables
On the 9th of March, three interesting roundtable discussions took place in class. The groups discussed pressing issues that could affect our world in one way or the other. Each group had two teams and a moderator; one team supporting the topic while the other was against it.
The first group’s discussion, about green chemistry, debated about the possibility of Singapore replacing regular plastic bags with bio-degradable ones. The team that supported such an act gave an example of how New Water was implemented in Singapore and was successful. They concluded that if such a case was possible then the same could be done for bio-degradable plastic bags. They also pointed out the fact that the process of manufacturing bio-degradable plastic bags emitted less greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The team against bio-degradable plastic bags argued that since it was not subsidised by the government, it would be expensive. People would prefer to use normal plastic bags since they were cheaper.
The second group’s discussion revolved around carbon capture storage (CCS). The group supporting CCS, talked about how it was a convenient way to curb greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. Since carbon dioxide would be stored underground or underwater, not much space would be taken on land. They also said that it was a very safe system because it possessed a so called “leak system”. The group against such an act pointed out that it was not feasible, because of the size of storage needed every single day. They also pointed out that small countries would not benefit from such a system. They never did release that much carbon dioxide, compared to larger countries, and there would not be enough underground space to store that much.
The third group discussed about the possibility of bio-diesel replacing normal car fuel. The group that supported such an act explained that the process of making bio-diesel was relatively simple and could be made from recycled cooking oil. They also mentioned that it was more environment-friendly. The group against pointed out that bio-diesel could in fact damage a car’s engine if bio-diesel was constantly used without proper engine cleaning. They also mentioned that bio-diesel has a high melting point, which meant that in colder countries; it would actually freeze and damage the car’s fuel system.
In conclusion, each one of the topics discussed had their pros and cons. If anyone of them was to be implemented, some sacrifice would have to be made, either by the government or by the people using such technologies.
The first group’s discussion, about green chemistry, debated about the possibility of Singapore replacing regular plastic bags with bio-degradable ones. The team that supported such an act gave an example of how New Water was implemented in Singapore and was successful. They concluded that if such a case was possible then the same could be done for bio-degradable plastic bags. They also pointed out the fact that the process of manufacturing bio-degradable plastic bags emitted less greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The team against bio-degradable plastic bags argued that since it was not subsidised by the government, it would be expensive. People would prefer to use normal plastic bags since they were cheaper.
The second group’s discussion revolved around carbon capture storage (CCS). The group supporting CCS, talked about how it was a convenient way to curb greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. Since carbon dioxide would be stored underground or underwater, not much space would be taken on land. They also said that it was a very safe system because it possessed a so called “leak system”. The group against such an act pointed out that it was not feasible, because of the size of storage needed every single day. They also pointed out that small countries would not benefit from such a system. They never did release that much carbon dioxide, compared to larger countries, and there would not be enough underground space to store that much.
The third group discussed about the possibility of bio-diesel replacing normal car fuel. The group that supported such an act explained that the process of making bio-diesel was relatively simple and could be made from recycled cooking oil. They also mentioned that it was more environment-friendly. The group against pointed out that bio-diesel could in fact damage a car’s engine if bio-diesel was constantly used without proper engine cleaning. They also mentioned that bio-diesel has a high melting point, which meant that in colder countries; it would actually freeze and damage the car’s fuel system.
In conclusion, each one of the topics discussed had their pros and cons. If anyone of them was to be implemented, some sacrifice would have to be made, either by the government or by the people using such technologies.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Summary on Genetic Engineering
Our DNA, located within our chromosomes, is made up of genes that have been passed on to us from our parents. Every single cell in our body possesses it. It acts like the basic instructions of life. Genes carry the instruction code specifying the time and techniques for building different types of proteins in our body. These proteins perform man vital functions, some of them eventually defining our physical traits.
Genetic engineering is the alteration of an organism’s genes, to produce a specific protein that alters the organism’s physical abilities or capabilities. Many areas have embraced genetic engineering to help enhance medical, economic and industrial potential. The most promising of these areas have proven to be medical research, where scientists can study the different types of diseases and methods of prevention.
With genetic engineering we can generate the different types of proteins to cure certain diseases or even create limbs for handicap people. Progress is still in the initial stage but developments have been made in the stem cell, tissue engineering and gene therapy technology. One area which has sparked much controversy is the genetic engineering of one’s unborn child. This is forbidden in many countries due to the complications which could arise, but it provides hope for the children of people suffering from genetic diseases.
In 2001, the first genetically engineered babies were born. This process used DNA from the father, the mother and another woman. This was because the mother possessed a small amount of unhealthy DNA, which was substituted by the other healthy woman. The results were perfectly healthy babies. Other techniques can be used to select whether the baby is fit to be born or not, such as amniocentesis (foetal cell testing for genetic diseases) or “designer baby”, this technique allows for the selection of healthy babies that were made by IVF (in-vitro fertilization). Although forbidden in many countries, the “designer baby” technique can be used to choose what physical traits your child will possess in the future.
The right to terminate an unborn child fuels the reason to ban such techniques, but as a trans-humanist, one should be allowed to upgrade their body or even their child’s body. If such techniques actually do work safely, this could bring an end to many different diseases. This could actually turn out to be cheaper than present techniques used to cure certain diseases. People would also use such techniques to make their children beautiful, but this could end up reducing the diversity.
Genetic engineering will eventually allow us to choose our fate and to evolve. Since nature intended for us to die, why not fight against nature and choose our life path? Although the techniques involved are not fully developed; but if they were, why not change ourselves with the changing pace and environment?
APA Citation:
Magalhães, J.P. (2006). Genetic Engineering. Retrieved March 3, 2009. http://jp.senescence.info/thoughts/genetics.html
Evaluation:
The author gives a good explanation of some of the words he uses. He also describes how certain techniques are performed and gives many different cases to support his argument. I find that he is more on the pros than the cons in his argument. He does not take into consideration certain ethical issues such as religion and the consequences of much less diseases. These consequences could include and sharp increase in the already exponentially growing population leading to a lack of food.
Definitions:
Proteins: Large molecules composed of one or more chains of amino acids joined together in a specific order according to it’s corresponding DNA sequence.
Trait: A distinguished feature of a person or a genetically determined character or condition.
Stem cell: One of the human body's cells that can develop into any one of the body's more than 200 cell types.
Gene therapy: Insertion of normal or genetically altered gene into cells to replace faulty genes, especially in the treatment of genetic disorders.
Trans-humanist: People who believe in using technology to enhance human abilities.
Genetic engineering is the alteration of an organism’s genes, to produce a specific protein that alters the organism’s physical abilities or capabilities. Many areas have embraced genetic engineering to help enhance medical, economic and industrial potential. The most promising of these areas have proven to be medical research, where scientists can study the different types of diseases and methods of prevention.
With genetic engineering we can generate the different types of proteins to cure certain diseases or even create limbs for handicap people. Progress is still in the initial stage but developments have been made in the stem cell, tissue engineering and gene therapy technology. One area which has sparked much controversy is the genetic engineering of one’s unborn child. This is forbidden in many countries due to the complications which could arise, but it provides hope for the children of people suffering from genetic diseases.
In 2001, the first genetically engineered babies were born. This process used DNA from the father, the mother and another woman. This was because the mother possessed a small amount of unhealthy DNA, which was substituted by the other healthy woman. The results were perfectly healthy babies. Other techniques can be used to select whether the baby is fit to be born or not, such as amniocentesis (foetal cell testing for genetic diseases) or “designer baby”, this technique allows for the selection of healthy babies that were made by IVF (in-vitro fertilization). Although forbidden in many countries, the “designer baby” technique can be used to choose what physical traits your child will possess in the future.
The right to terminate an unborn child fuels the reason to ban such techniques, but as a trans-humanist, one should be allowed to upgrade their body or even their child’s body. If such techniques actually do work safely, this could bring an end to many different diseases. This could actually turn out to be cheaper than present techniques used to cure certain diseases. People would also use such techniques to make their children beautiful, but this could end up reducing the diversity.
Genetic engineering will eventually allow us to choose our fate and to evolve. Since nature intended for us to die, why not fight against nature and choose our life path? Although the techniques involved are not fully developed; but if they were, why not change ourselves with the changing pace and environment?
APA Citation:
Magalhães, J.P. (2006). Genetic Engineering. Retrieved March 3, 2009. http://jp.senescence.info/thoughts/genetics.html
Evaluation:
The author gives a good explanation of some of the words he uses. He also describes how certain techniques are performed and gives many different cases to support his argument. I find that he is more on the pros than the cons in his argument. He does not take into consideration certain ethical issues such as religion and the consequences of much less diseases. These consequences could include and sharp increase in the already exponentially growing population leading to a lack of food.
Definitions:
Proteins: Large molecules composed of one or more chains of amino acids joined together in a specific order according to it’s corresponding DNA sequence.
Trait: A distinguished feature of a person or a genetically determined character or condition.
Stem cell: One of the human body's cells that can develop into any one of the body's more than 200 cell types.
Gene therapy: Insertion of normal or genetically altered gene into cells to replace faulty genes, especially in the treatment of genetic disorders.
Trans-humanist: People who believe in using technology to enhance human abilities.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Lecture on 30th January
We as people face many different problems every single day. Some problems we manage to solve while others linger on for a while. One problem that has stayed with us for more than four decades is global warming. Countries have gone back and forth re-prioritizing this problem every year but have never managed to find a proper solution. Global warming is the trapping of infra red radiation, due to the build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
In the third lecture given, it was explained how greenhouse gases are produced and how they build up the thickness of the atmosphere, trapping infra red radiation. The lecturer explained that because of the build up of heat in the earth’s atmosphere; countries will start to experience many different types of disasters. The lecture was very similar to a movie made by former vice president Al – Gore. It made me think to myself, what will become of the countries that will be submerged by the rising seawater in a few years time? What will happen to its civilians and where will they go?
The first lecturer described the different techniques of fighting global warming. Some of his solutions included switching to alternative power sources such as solar power, wind power and fuelling of power plants by natural gas instead of coal. I was very intrigued by the methods that can be used to store carbon dioxide underwater. The most interesting of which was the “sausage” method. This method is used to store carbon dioxide in bubble like structures in the depths of the ocean. He also explained why this would be impractical because of the enormous amount of carbon dioxide we produce every day.
The second lecturer showed us the psychology behind using technology. Some people are just so used to certain types of technology that they would not be able to survive without it. Without electricity or the Internet I personally would not be able to survive. In the lecturer’s case study about the automobile, he showed us how commercials and publications can cause people to make choices that would harm our planet. The fact that there were electrical cars before fossil fuel cars puzzled me greatly!
There are many different techniques we can apply to save our planet. All we need is a little initiative and a good head start. If we don’t start acting now, who knows what disasters we will experience in the future.
In the third lecture given, it was explained how greenhouse gases are produced and how they build up the thickness of the atmosphere, trapping infra red radiation. The lecturer explained that because of the build up of heat in the earth’s atmosphere; countries will start to experience many different types of disasters. The lecture was very similar to a movie made by former vice president Al – Gore. It made me think to myself, what will become of the countries that will be submerged by the rising seawater in a few years time? What will happen to its civilians and where will they go?
The first lecturer described the different techniques of fighting global warming. Some of his solutions included switching to alternative power sources such as solar power, wind power and fuelling of power plants by natural gas instead of coal. I was very intrigued by the methods that can be used to store carbon dioxide underwater. The most interesting of which was the “sausage” method. This method is used to store carbon dioxide in bubble like structures in the depths of the ocean. He also explained why this would be impractical because of the enormous amount of carbon dioxide we produce every day.
The second lecturer showed us the psychology behind using technology. Some people are just so used to certain types of technology that they would not be able to survive without it. Without electricity or the Internet I personally would not be able to survive. In the lecturer’s case study about the automobile, he showed us how commercials and publications can cause people to make choices that would harm our planet. The fact that there were electrical cars before fossil fuel cars puzzled me greatly!
There are many different techniques we can apply to save our planet. All we need is a little initiative and a good head start. If we don’t start acting now, who knows what disasters we will experience in the future.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Policies of my government that help reduce global warming
In recent years, global warming has become an all too common word used in the news. It is the result of greenhouse gases trapping heat within the earth’s atmosphere. The earth’s atmosphere is naturally made up of molecules of ozone, but with the increasing dependence on fossil fuels, this is slowly changing. With this change, a lot of problems are unfolding.
In the presentation entitled “The Inconvenient Truth”, they mentioned the numerous problems that could result from the increase in thickness of the atmosphere. Initially the earth’s atmosphere was supposed to protect us from ultraviolet and other types of cosmic radiation, but because of our excessive use of fossil fuels, it is now slowly turning against us. As a result, the oceans have become warmer creating more natural disasters, floods due to excessive rain, drought, more powerful hurricanes and typhoons.
In my country, Singapore, this can be disastrous. Singapore is just a tiny island that is only a few metres above sea level. If a flood or any other type of natural disaster hit us, we would have no place to escape to. Our homes would be totalled. Singapore has introduced some policies that indirectly reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. Most of these policies have been directed towards cars, which is a great contributor to greenhouse gases. The government provides people with many options of transportation including buses, MRT and taxis. They impose a hefty fine on anyone who wants to buy a car (C.O.E). They have put up a number of ERP gantries, which deduct a certain amount of money every time you pass under one with a vehicle. They also only allow you to keep your car for a limit of ten years. All of these are meant to discourage people from buying cars.
Singapore has also increased taxes on electricity bills and present awards to people with the lowest usage of electricity. This is to encourage people to use less electricity, which puts less demand on power plants to burn fossil fuels. Even the prices of fossil fuels are heavily taxed, preventing people from buying too much.
All of these policies aid people in making better choices for the environment. It is up to us to help put those policies in motion if we want to do our part to save our planet earth.
In the presentation entitled “The Inconvenient Truth”, they mentioned the numerous problems that could result from the increase in thickness of the atmosphere. Initially the earth’s atmosphere was supposed to protect us from ultraviolet and other types of cosmic radiation, but because of our excessive use of fossil fuels, it is now slowly turning against us. As a result, the oceans have become warmer creating more natural disasters, floods due to excessive rain, drought, more powerful hurricanes and typhoons.
In my country, Singapore, this can be disastrous. Singapore is just a tiny island that is only a few metres above sea level. If a flood or any other type of natural disaster hit us, we would have no place to escape to. Our homes would be totalled. Singapore has introduced some policies that indirectly reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. Most of these policies have been directed towards cars, which is a great contributor to greenhouse gases. The government provides people with many options of transportation including buses, MRT and taxis. They impose a hefty fine on anyone who wants to buy a car (C.O.E). They have put up a number of ERP gantries, which deduct a certain amount of money every time you pass under one with a vehicle. They also only allow you to keep your car for a limit of ten years. All of these are meant to discourage people from buying cars.
Singapore has also increased taxes on electricity bills and present awards to people with the lowest usage of electricity. This is to encourage people to use less electricity, which puts less demand on power plants to burn fossil fuels. Even the prices of fossil fuels are heavily taxed, preventing people from buying too much.
All of these policies aid people in making better choices for the environment. It is up to us to help put those policies in motion if we want to do our part to save our planet earth.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
How do engineers think?
Engineers are trained from the start to look at problems in different ways. They don’t just take the solution head on, but try to find the various ways and possibilities around it. They not only have been trained intensively with mathematics in order to strengthen their logic, but with many other science subjects. This allows them to analyze situations taking into consideration the different hazards and problems that could occur.
If an architect presents a group of engineers with a sketch or drawing; the engineers build what the architect asks for in the most feasible and safest way possible. When they eventually find a solution; they tend to solve it in steps. In doing so, this helps them amend or delete any unnecessary steps, making the process faster. It is an engineer’s job to look at the problem as a whole and try to solve it systematically. If solutions cannot be obtained, a compromise would be reached.
As an engineering student myself, I have seen the difference between school education and university education for engineers. Unlike school, where you were required to memorize most of the time, the engineering course requires you to understand and explain every aspect of a situation. Even when presented with a set of problems, we are trained to sum up all those problems into a single equation. There is also a lot more hands-on training where we get to experiment and test out different methods of finding solutions.
It is all due to the rigorous mental training that engineers have gone through. Many of today’s solutions have been further enhanced by the minds of engineers. This is proved by the amount of engineers employed in various non-engineering sectors, where they are required to design complicated working systems and plans. Without them some of the world’s greatest problems would not have solutions today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)