Can a robot ever replace a human teacher?

Can you imagine listening to a boring monotonous voice of a robot teaching you daily about your daily studies such as mathematics and chemistry? Wouldn't it be very weird? First of all, it would not be able to see your emotions, hence it would not know if you do not know how to do a question. Second of all, since robots are made up of machinery, what will happen if it would to malfunction one day and being unable to teach? It would disrupt the lesson and impede the learning progress.

In addition, if you have any troubles or woes, you can talk to the teacher, but NOT to the robot, as the robots would not be able to express any emotions, hence there is a barrier created between the robot and the student. Therefore, the student would feel that he is just talking to a non-living monotonous boring thing, and it does not reduce the emotional burden inside the student at all. I feel that there is totally no benefits at all if one lets a robot teach. Is the robot programmed so as to detect someone raising his hand as someone wanting to inquire something? It would indeed be very hard to program such a function. A human teacher is much much better as she has emotional responses and feedback about our progress. If you have troubles, you would also feel at ease talking with the teacher too.

After listening to the song,"Where is the love?" by Black-Eyed Peas, I felt that the society has changed drastically from last time. Indeed, now the society is corrupted, filled of people full of greed and deception. Articles of unspeakable crimes such as rape, bribing and deceit fill the newspaper everyday. There are more political conflicts arising now, such as the one in Egypt, and people would start rioting once they are dissatisfied with something, and they would not stop until they got what they want. Chaos reigned in politically conflicting countries, and innocent people got harmed and injured every time this happens. What has become of our world? Why is our world becoming such a place?

Terrorists now roam the streets, causing catastrophic disasters to occur wherever we go. Colossal bomb explosions happening in trains, buildings and hotels. In addition, there is racism in everyone, and everyone goes about judging others by one's "purity of skin colour", claiming that people with coloured skin are evil; they claim that," they(the coloured people) are the ones commiting the sins, not us. People are having an insatiable lust for money, and would risk anything just to get it. This shows that people are now different, totally without a shred of warmth, not caring for others, only taking care of themselves. Students speaking vulgarities wherever they go. Teenage gangs going on streets to attack people, to imitate the action-packed moves of the avatar they see on their violent computer game. What is happening? Why has human beings changed so greatly? Where are all the virtues that are inculcated in us?

The world has become a totally different place.

If a gangster says what he does is right, is he really right? What is really the definition for righteousness?

That day, I was, as usual, going online on face book and I saw this very interesting post my classmate, Shuin Kang, had put there: Tell me what right is, and why right is." He also brought up an example: if a gangster says he is really right, is he really right? Well, I feel that righteousness is, to put it simply, not to commit any sins or wrongful actions. The law has been set to enforce righteousness in the first place, and while there are undeniably certain loopholes in the law itself, it states clearly the principle of not committing sins, of not do actions that are clearly against moral value and conscience. Hence, I feel that the reason why we should even obey the law in the first place is not because we do not want to be punished by the higher authority, it is we, as humans, want to live side by side in peaceful harmony, and not go around doing wrongful actions that affects others negatively

I decided to bring up a quote from Shuin Kang himself," What is right is unchanging. How can you persecute someone and later claim that he is right? No. Right does not change. People change. What they think is right change. Right is free from error, and free from humans." I agree with him only partially, as I feel that this statement is, in a way (at least, only to me), very pessimistic. What is right, indeed is unchanging, and when people change, to be more selfish and greedy, their definition of right changes correspondingly too. I don't really agree that right should be free from humans though (no offence shuin kang XD). Righteousness has been displayed by certain noble people, who spend almost all their lives trying to benefit mankind (like Thomas Edison),and hence this shows that right is a virtue that is displayed by people (though sadly, not all), hence it is, therefore, associated with humans.

In fact, right does not have a real definition, right is just shown through examples such as God, who goes around helping others and does not commit sins. We should just try our best not to commit as many sins as possible, as I believe that one would soon have his own punishment and retribution if he goes around doing sins.

Bribing--causing one to end up in jail

As I was reading the newspapers again, another newspaper article caught my eye, and this time it titled,"Illegally-modified vehicles: he turns a blind eye, end up in jail". A former principal vehicle inspector who accepted bribes to turn a blind eye to illegal vehicle modifications, who also accused of endangering the public safety on the roads through his actions. Motor vehicles must be sent to be inspected first before being allowed to drive on the roads.

I felt what he did was not only selfish as he endangered other people's lives on the road, but he also have inevitably embarrassed the STA inspection totally, and have also cast doubt on "the integrity of the regulatory framework as a whole." And it is only through his selfish and embarrassing actions that led people not to trust, rely and believe in the STA Car Inspection anymore. This further shows that he was the troublemaker who had made the downfall of the pride and credibility of the STA Inspection, and ought to be responsible for his own actions.

Unbelievably, he even pleaded leniency by claiming that the amount of bribes collected was only a small sum. I feel that he should have thought of the eventual yet dire consequences he will face should he commit an offence to violate the law, and the small amount of bribes he was receiving was just an excuse from saving himself from punishment. He was needless to say, still caught by the long arms of the law and is now facing charges against him for corruption. Senior District Judge Liew Thiam Leng agreed with the conviction and said the implication is that public safety is at stake hence actions must be taken against him. I totally agree with him. The inspector's greedy heart has caused the public safety to be endangered due to the eventual increase in car accident thanks to the illegally-modified vehicles,hence he has to be punished for what he has done

Parents picking up their children late persistently??

On the 8th of February, I was reading the newspaper when an article on the first page caught my eye. It titled,"PCF kindergarten ready to fine parents who pick up their children late".It stated that the kindergarten had had enough of parents who were consistently late despite countless warning from the staff to parents. I feel that they are very irresponsible as they themselves were responsible for their own children, and that they should make arrangements beforehand so as to fetch their children on time.

While some people have valid reasons such as being stuck and traffic, it would most likely only occur once in a while. However, there have been instances of parents who have being persistently late, some even being later then an hour. Those parents are not only irresponsible, they are also very selfish and ignorant to the difficulties and troubles they created to the staff members and teachers as well. For example, The teachers' lunch break would of course be cut off as a result, and even teachers who are going on course in the evening may have to forgo their dinner because they have to rush to attend their classes.

I feel that this problem may not be necessarily be solved by using a fine. If only it gets too serious should a fine be imposed. There are other ways, like talking to the parents first and make them understand their difficulties. Parents, on the other hand, also have split views of this rule. Some say that some circumstances were beyond their control, especially those with more than one child, but others say that some parents were taking advantages of the situation instead, seeing that the principal and teachers stay behind to look after the child.

Blog Prompt 7/2/2011.

Today, as I was reading the newspapers in class, an interesting article caught my eye. It states that parents need not have to study to a high degree to have outstanding children. In my opinion, I feel that this is true indeed, and also feel that if the parents would be able to coach, motivate and encourage the child effectively, it will allow them to cope bothe academically and mentally. Having rich and highly-educated parents does not neccessarily mean that the child would grow up to be as outstanding as his parents. Instead, the parents might even unintentionally spoil the child and he would grow up being a spoiled brat who would not be as excellent as the parents.

Indeed, most students from Hwa Chong Institution and Raffles Institution have parents who are university graduates. However, I do not feel that having smart 'genes' is essential for people to succeed in life.Indeed, people from neighbourhood school also have an equal chance to succeed together with students who study in elite schools. The students just need to put in more effort to strive hard, and they would all be able to succeed