A collection of symbols governed by rules and used to convey messages between individuals is referred to in the chapter as language true or false

what: when quoting a source, use the author’s words verbatim, or word-for-word. this means you shouldn’t change any grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc. put quotations around the words to tell your reader where the quote begins and where it ends.

you also need to acknowledge the author. for example, if using mla format for your research paper, you should have in-text citations with the author’s name and page number listed at the end of each quote.

when: use quotations to provide concrete examples to support your claims. using direct quotations is a great way to build your credibility on the subject. it’s also a good idea to quote your source when the author states things in a powerful way. if you think he or she said it best, then use the exact words to share the ideas.

example: in the short story “a jury of her peers”, mrs. hale compares mrs. wright to her caged bird, saying “she—come to think of it, she was kind of like a bird herself. real sweet and pretty, but kind of timid and—fluttery. how—she—did—change” (glaspell).

paraphrasing

what: paraphrasing differs from quoting because you restate the passage in your own words. since you don’t use the author’s words, you don’t need to use quotation marks. however, you still need to acknowledge the author for his or her ideas.

when paraphrasing a text, you should communicate the full meaning of the text; don’t change the meaning. it can be a condensed version of the text, or it could end up being longer than the source it’s paraphrasing.

when: you use paraphrasing when you take notes, or explain a chart or diagram to someone. paraphrasing highlight the important parts of a larger text. it also allows you to simplify the ideas for your readers.

example:

original: “it was no ordinary thing that called her away–it was probably further from ordinary than anything that had ever happened in dickson county. but what her eye took in was that her kitchen was in no shape for leaving: her bread all ready for mixing, half the flour sifted and half unsifted” (glaspell).

paraphrase: as mrs. hales walks around mrs. wright’s home, she notices that the kitchen is in disarray as if she was in the middle of baking bread (glaspell).

yes as the core issue is an ever increasing majority of human workers   will become permanently unemployed as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines inevitably replace more expensive human workers with each passing year.

economic growth now and in the future requires that fewer jobs are created for human workers. this is the desirable inevitable consequence. the automation of the jobs of human workers is the most profitable economically productive activity on the planet.

so as a global society we need to have a plan to deal with this inevitable change.

automation has been, is and will always be a friend to human society if human society on a global basis is prepared to deal with the inevitable consequences.

what is key is that automation killing all jobs is only a matter of when not if.

the real question is can we get past the now invalid assumption that most humans can work for a decent wage going forward.

i spent my working career increasing automation and increasing efficiency. this consequently reduces the hours worked by humans while increasing the output economic goods and services at an ever decreasing price.

why not have ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines create the vast majority of required economic goods and services as opposed to human workers?

why not have most human workers working less and retiring earlier?

there is much more to life than working forever.

fortunately, automation has been going on for decades and will continue as an irreversible process as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines permanently replace more costly human workers.

i write this answer for the people that have an open mind and are not living in the past this is what i feel most effectively deals with the tractable issues that automation creates.

the question at hand is how we deal with automation going forward as a society.

automation is only a threat because society has yet to acknowledge automation is happening let alone effectively a having a plan to address it.

a conservative libertarian free market idea where individuals choose what economic goods and services are produced in the free market as the free market supply will respond to free market demand. this is not a centrally planned communist economy.

it is yes as the core issue is an ever increasing majority of human workers   will become permanently unemployed as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines inevitably replace more expensive human workers with each passing year.

economic growth now and in the future requires that fewer jobs are created for human workers. this is the desirable inevitable consequence. the automation of the jobs of human workers is the most profitable economically productive activity on the planet.

so as a global society we need to have a plan to deal with this inevitable change.

automation has been, is and will always be a friend to human society if human society on a global basis is prepared to deal with the inevitable consequences.

what is key is that automation killing all jobs is only a matter of when not if.

the real question is can we get past the now invalid assumption that most humans can work for a decent wage going forward.

i spent my working career increasing automation and increasing efficiency. this consequently reduces the hours worked by humans while increasing the output economic goods and services at an ever decreasing price.

why not have ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines create the vast majority of required economic goods and services as opposed to human workers?

why not have most human workers working less and retiring earlier?

there is much more to life than working forever.

fortunately, automation has been going on for decades and will continue as an irreversible process as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines permanently replace more costly human workers.

i write this answer for the people that have an open mind and are not living in the past this is what i feel most effectively deals with the tractable issues that automation creates.

the question at hand is how we deal with automation going forward as a society.

automation is only a threat because society has yet to acknowledge automation is happening let alone effectively a having a plan to address it.

a conservative libertarian free market idea where individuals choose what economic goods and services are produced in the free market as the free market supply will respond to free market demand. this is not a centrally planned communist economy.

hope this

a lion king of the jungle he watch's his pray and watch out and go hunting for food and go fight   other animals to protect his cubs from getting hurt