Engelsk

er den 100% clean? :D

05. maj 2010 af Magnus22 (Slettet)

Jeg har afleveret en engelsk stil i skolen og nu har jeg fået den tilbage, dog uden rettelser, men karakteren 7. Er der en som vil rette den så jeg kan lære noget af det? :D

If you have nothing to hide, you do not be concerned about increased surveillance - or what...?

You can say that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, but conversely, if you have nothing to hide, why then surveillance?
People changes behaviour when they know they are under surveil-lance, and endeavour to be similar and not to be different from other people, which hinder the creativity and diversity.

Everyone have in addition needs to withdraw from the community and get peace to be alone without any surveillance.
People don’t think about all the sur-veillance, we already have in the society. Most of the surveillance is invisible. It takes place at the inter-net and mobile phones, through da-tabases and public records, and therefore it’s hidden to the nation in the everyday life.

Even the cameras in public rooms are placed so high and discreet that only few people notice them.
We are being supervised a lot of places as we not think about in the everyday life, I will draw attention to a few examples:
When we log into our Hotmail, then all our email and Internet traffic be-come registered. It would in princi-ple correspond with all our letters were handed out to the police where they opened and registered them, before we got them to see.
And when it turns up with cameras everywhere, it would in principle correspond with, that the state or-dered all the curtains in all private dwellings down.

When telephone companies watch over mobile calls and SMS, then it’s corresponds with the state demands delivery of our personal diaries, notes on private agreements, dates, etc.

The next will be when we are in and out of the country, border controls in e.g. Kastrup will look through us with a special machines who ”dress of" and shows our bodies totally na-ked on a screen. (Such a machine is already being tested in England behind the name "The Naked Ma-chine"!).

Of cause we can’t avoid all surveil-lance completely, because this would result in terrorist attacks and much more crime, but I don’t think that we need more surveillance than we already have.

The meaning with my article:
I’m totally opposed to too much surveillance, because I think we all need privacy once in a while. I base my introduction up, by providing an augmenting for and against surveil-lance to make it more exciting.
In the rest of my article I do not come with arguments against sur-veillance, but I inform the receiver in a way that might get the receiver to see the reason against too much surveillance. I support my opinion with facts, which makes my position appear stronger. Moreover, I come with examples of everyday things that you might just not have thought about and perhaps your opinion will change, when you read my article, because you get to know how much you are under surveillance!


 


Brugbart svar (1)

Svar #1
05. maj 2010 af Stygotius

Alt med fede typer er dårligt.

Du skal være mere end lykkelig for at have fået 7 for denne tekst. Det er langt over hvad den er berettiget til.

Dit sprog er mere  danglish end det er  engelsk.

Jeg ville måske have givet 02 for den hvis jeg var i meget  gavmildt  humør, men også kun måske.

02 er en bestået-karakter, og jeg er ikke sikker på at denne tekst bør bestå.

..............................................

 If you have nothing to hide, you do not be concerned about increased surveillance - or what...?

You can say that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, but conversely, if you have nothing to hide, why then surveillance?
People changes behaviour when they know they are under surveil-lance, and endeavour to be similar and not to be different from other people, which hinder the creativity and diversity.

Everyone have in addition needs to withdraw from the community and get peace to be alone without any surveillance.
People don’t think about all the sur-veillance, we already have in the society. Most of the surveillance is invisible. It takes place at the inter-net and mobile phones, through da-tabases and public records, and therefore it’s hidden to the nation in the everyday life.

Even the cameras in public rooms are placed so high and discreet that only few people notice them.
We are being supervised a lot of places as we not think about in the everyday life, I will draw attention to a few examples: 
When we log into our Hotmail, then all our email and Internet traffic be-come registered. It would in princi-ple correspond with all our letters were handed out to the police where they opened and registered them, before we got them to see.
And when it turns up with cameras everywhere, it would in principle correspond with, that the state or-dered all the curtains in all private dwellings down.

When telephone companies watch over mobile calls and SMS, then it’s corresponds with the state demands delivery of our personal diaries, notes on private agreements, dates, etc.

The next will be when we are in and out of the country, border controls in e.g. Kastrup will look through us with a special machines who dress of" and shows our bodies totally na-ked on a screen. (Such a machine is already being tested in England behind the name "The Naked Ma-chine"!).

Of cause we can’t avoid all surveil-lance completely, because this would result in terrorist attacks and much more crime, but I don’t think that we need more surveillance than we already have.

The meaning with my article:
I’m totally opposed to too much surveillance, because I think we all need privacy once in a while. I base my introduction up, by providing an augmenting for and against surveil-lance to make it more exciting.
In the rest of my article I do not come with arguments against sur-veillance, but I inform the receiver in a way that might get the receiver to see the reason against too much surveillance. I support my opinion with facts, which makes my position appear stronger. Moreover, I come with examples of everyday things that you might just not have thought about and perhaps your opinion will change, when you read my article, because you get to know how much you are under surveillance!


 


Svar #2
05. maj 2010 af Magnus22 (Slettet)

kan godt se der er meget. :s kan jeg få dig til at komme med forslag til hvad der ellers kunne stå? så ville jeg nemlig kunne lære en hel del af det :D


Brugbart svar (1)

Svar #3
05. maj 2010 af Stygotius

 Desværre, -det er et meget stort arbejde og det har jeg ikke tid og kræfter til.

Desuden er det hele heller ikke klaret med at rette nogle få ting. Der skal en generel genstart af dit engelske sprog til.


Svar #4
05. maj 2010 af Magnus22 (Slettet)

hm. kan jeg godt forstå. men ville simpelthen blive super glad hvis du gad alligevel, så ville jeg nemlig lære rigtig meget, af det. Du behøver ikke gøre så meget ud af det.. please :D


Brugbart svar (0)

Svar #5
06. maj 2010 af Kinh

Right, then. And here we go...


Brugbart svar (0)

Svar #6
06. maj 2010 af Kinh

Right, then. And here we go...

 If you have nothing to hide, you do not have to be concerned about increased surveillance – or what...?
You might say that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. But, conversely, if you have nothing to hide, why then surveillance?
  People change behavior when they know they are being watched, and strive to blend in, to be as inconspicuous as possible, which hinders the individual from being openly creative and unique.
In addition, everyone has the need to withdraw from time to time, to get their peace, to be alone without anyone watching or listening in.
  I find that people don't think about all the surveillance we already have in our nations and communities. Most of it is invisible. It happens on the internet, and whenever you use your mobile phone; registered in databases and public records; and so it's unobtrusive, hid away from the public in everyday life.
  Even the cameras in public places are placed so high and discreetly that just a few people notice. We are being observed in a number of places and situations we do not normally think about. (Supervision implies guidance or teaching, as when a doctor is present when a medical student attempts to diagnose a patient).
  I will give a few examples: when we log into our Hotmail, then all our email and internet traffic is registered. The equivalent of this would in principle be that all our private letters were handed over to the police, opened, read, and registered even before we got to see them. And when cameras turn up everywhere, this is in principle corresponding to the state ordering all curtains in all private homes taken down (and all the houses built of glass, I presume). When telephone companies register our calls and text messages, it is the same as if the state demanded to read our personal diaries, notes on private meetings and the dates they took place.
  Upcoming is a device nicknamed the “The Naked Machine”, being tested now in Britain, that will virtually undress a person, showing them up naked on a computer screen. (The use of 'they' as gender neutral singular is correct English). This is to be put to use in airport body scanners, at border controls etc.
  Of course some surveillance is unavoidable, since its absence would result in terrorists and criminals having a wide open field. But I don't think we need more than we already have. (And perhaps it is already gone too far?)

The message of my article: I am totally opposed to too much surveillance, because I think we all need privacy. In my introduction I provide arguments for and against surveillance. (In actual fact you don't. You do it here at the end, but at the beginning you only mockingly suggest that the innocent have nothing to fear from it). I do this to spice it up (make it more exciting). In the rest of my article I do not come up with arguments against surveillance. (But in fact you do, don't you?) I inform the recipient (a receiver is a kind of radio without an amplifier) of the implications of surveillance, to get them to see the dangers of excessiveness in this regard. I support my opinion with facts, to state my case the stronger. Moreover, I give examples from everyday life that you just might not have thought about, and perhaps you will come to realize just how much you are already being monitored.

 That said, I have a few comments as to the content. While I agree with your general conclusion, and it is true that telephone and internet companies monitor and log your activities, it is still required by law in democratic nations that the police and other authorities must show probable cause before a judge, and get a court order or warrant to access these files. In a totalitarian state like China things are of course very different. And the “Naked Machine” is designed to blur facial and other recognizable features. This was required by British authorities in relation to their approval of the testing. At least according to my source, the magazine New Scientist. They are, after all, looking for guns and bomb material, not looking to post your naked butt all over the internet, and such use would constitute a violation of the law and their mandate.
Furthermore, the sheer amount of data being generated makes it a virtual certainty that no one will ever actually see this mostly trivial information. Agencies like the NSA or MI5 use automated search engines to look for conspicuous phrases; say if you put the words “assassinate” and “the President” in the same email. Then they might take a closer look. But otherwise, my man, I think you're good to go...

 Oh, and my English is American. The Brits tend to spell things a bit differently (US 'color' for UK 'colour'; behavior – behaviour, realize – realise, etc.). Plus they have different idiom (talemåder).


Brugbart svar (0)

Svar #7
06. maj 2010 af Stygotius

Ja, -det var jo en selvsikker revision, og den udgjorde da virkelig en mærkbar forbedring,  meeen alligevel.

....................................................................

  If you have nothing to hide, you do not have to be concerned about increased surveillance – or what...?

You might say that if you have nothing to hide(,) you have nothing to fear. But, conversely, if you have nothing to hide(,) why (then) surveillance?
  People change behavior when they know they are being watched(,) and strive to blend in(,) to be as inconspicuous as possible, which (hinders) stops  the individual from being openly creative and unique.
In addition, everyone has the need to withdraw from time to time, to (get their) be left in peace, to be alone without anyone watching or listening in ............double entendre !.
  I (find) believe that people don't think (about) of all the surveillance we already have in our (nations and communities) different societies. Most of it is invisible. It happens on the (i)Internet, and whenever you use your mobile phone; registered in databases and public records?????; and so it's unobtrusive, hidden (away) from the general public (in everyday life).
  Even the cameras in public places are placed so high and discreetly that (just a) few people notice them. We are (being observed) watched in (a number of) places and situations we do not normally think of (about). (Supervision implies guidance or teaching(,) as when a doctor is present when a medical student attempts to diagnose a patient).
  I will give a few examples: when we log into our Hotmail(, then) all our email and (i)Internet traffic is registered. (The equivalent of this would (in principle) be) This equals a situation where (that) in principle all our private letters were handed over to the police, opened, read, and registered even before we got to see them ourselves. (And wWhen c)Cameras (turn up) everywhere(, this is in principle corresponding to) is no better than the state ordering all curtains in (all) private homes taken down (and all the houses built of glass, I presume). (When t)Telephone companies registering our calls and text messages(, it is the same as if) is just as offensive  (to) as  the state demanding(ed) the right  to read our personal diaries, notes on private meetings and the dates they took place.
  Upcoming is a device nicknamed the “The Naked Machine”, now being tested (now) in Britain, (that) which will virtually undress (a person) people, showing them up naked on a computer screen. (The use of 'they' as gender neutral singular is correct English   -ikke rigtig her). This is to be put to use in airport body scanners, at border controls etc.
  Of course some surveillance is unavoidable(,) since its absence would result in terrorists and criminals having a wide open field. (But) I don't think, however, that we need more than we already have. (And perhaps it (is) has already gone too far?)

The message of my article: I am (totally) absolutely  opposed to too much surveillance(,) because I think we all need privacy. In my introduction I have provided arguments for and against surveillance. (In actual fact you don't. You do it here at the end, but at the beginning you only mockingly suggest that the innocent have nothing to fear from it). I do this to spice it up (make it more exciting). In the rest of my article I do not come up with arguments against surveillance. (But in fact you do, don't you?) I inform the recipient (a receiver is a kind of radio without an amplifier, -yes, "recipient" in the postal services, but in communication theory we speak of  "sender" and  "receiver") of the implications of surveillance(,) in order to get them to (see) realise/recognise  the dangers of excessiveness in this (regard) field. I support my opinion with facts(,) to state my case the stronger. Moreover, I give examples from everyday life that you just might not have thought (about) of, and perhaps you will come to realize just how much you are already being monitored.

 That said, I have a few comments (as to) on the contents. While I agree with your general conclusion, and it is true that telephone and internet companies monitor and log your activities, it is still required by law in democratic nations that the police and other authorities must show probable cause before a judge, and get a court order or warrant to access these files. In a totalitarian state like China things are of course very different. (And t)The “Naked Machine” is designed to blur facial and other recognizable features. This was (required) stipulated by British authorities (in relation to) for their approval of the testing(. A), at least according to my source, the magazine New Scientist. They are, after all, looking for guns and bomb material, not (looking) wanting to (post) circulate your naked butt all over the internet.(, and) In addition such use would constitute a violation of the law and their mandate.
Furthermore, the sheer amount of data being generated makes it a virtual certainty that no one will ever actually see this mostly trivial information. Agencies like the NSA or MI5 use automated search engines to look for conspicuous phrases; (say) if you put, say,  the words “assassinate” and “the President” in the same email. (Then t)They might take a closer look then,(. B)but otherwise, my man, I think you're good to go...

 Oh, and my English is American. The Brits tend to spell things a bit differently (US 'color' for UK 'colour'; behavior – behaviour, realize – realise, etc.). Plus they have different idiom (talemåder).

 

Brugbart svar (0)

Svar #8
07. maj 2010 af Kinh

Nice. Thanks. But one does post on internet forums...


Skriv et svar til: er den 100% clean? :D

Du skal være logget ind, for at skrive et svar til dette spørgsmål. Klik her for at logge ind.
Har du ikke en bruger på Studieportalen.dk? Klik her for at oprette en bruger.