读趣百科

The extent to which people are influenced by advertisements can be measured in terms of the high sales of popular consumer goods, many of them being unnecessary or completely useless. Mainly through the media, advertisements on products and services are able to penetrate the public mind with half truth and half lying. In many cases, consumers are becoming so greedy that they are not only buying things they really do not need but also spending the money they do not have.

Although advertising gives people a chance as consumers, actually most advertisements tend to cause them to desire for something worthless. Under such circumstances, it is easy to change people's need into greed. So much so, they are constantly encouraged to want things--want this and want that. This human behavior is haunted by the media from all fronts: on radio, on television, and online, not to mention printed circulations such as newspapers and magazines. Obviously, a great number of "impulsive" buyers are persuaded under the illusion that new products or services could make a difference in their lives. Despite all the benefits of the free market economy, the effects of unreliable advertising are particularly negative in that the power of advertising does not reflect the real needs of the society in which products and services are sold.

Worse still, many consumers are convinced to waste money they do not have. Surrounded by advertisements, people are too unwise to perform a balanced act between income and expenditure. Increasingly, what seems to be good for economy begins to backfire because advertising is misleading consumers deeply into commercial debts which they probably could not afford to pay in due time. Thus, instead of improving people's lives, advertising may be considered as a "necessary evil" in modern time. Furthermore, as manufacturing and service companies are competing to have a larger share of the market, it is next to impossible to expect the media to reduce the amount of dishonest advertising. Besides, when it comes to making money, companies and the media are in the same religion.

After all, greed being a human instinct, consumers have only themselves to blame for their foolishness toward advertisements. Since outlawing commercial advertising is out of the question, people should educate themselves to be more prudent in buying and spending behaviors. As for consumers, what better measures can be taken to protect themselves other than self-control?

As can be argued, government rules can easily become obstacles to scientific achievements. Usually, most of the world's headline-making scientific discoveries do not come through governmental establishments, admitting that fiscal funding is often essential to helping such success to happen in the private sector. It is false to suggest that the government should carry out and control scientific research because the issue is not only about money but also brains.

Just because public funds matter, it does not follow that the government should restrict that kind of freedom of thinking which is vital to imaginative minds. Apart from that, nothing is more naive than for the government to play the role of police and rule research activities. Yes, freedom--that is how scientific breakthroughs are born. It goes without saying that probably billions of government's money may be needed to carry out research projects in various scientific fields, but it must be considered that great scientists tend to ignore, or even go against the rules. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how many scientific discoveries could have been missed as a result of unnecessary regulations. To put it strongly, control is the death of scientific research.

Scientific research should not be forced in any event. It is because a research problem is less likely to be solved by any apparatus which money can buy than to be solved by the brains of a free head that money cannot always buy. Thus, it does not seem proper for official amateurs to "know" what on earth scientists are doing. Otherwise, it would not be called "research" in the real sense of the word. Trying to heavily monitor scientific brains is perhaps a dangerous attitude since the consequence is always too much foliage and too little fruit. That can explain in part why the government ought to shift most of the pledged fiscal spending from the public to the private sector.

All aspects taken into account, scientific research is two things: billions and brains. With little doubt, the success in a country's scientific discoveries relies on both sufficient funding from the government and on creative minds from private companies in which pure research is worth every penny it costs. All the government has to do is grant money and expect that somewhere, something incredible is going to be known. (Created by Jeenn Lee Hsieh)

When visiting foreign countries some people think that it is advantageous to learn their cultures and traditions. How do you think people can learn other cultures and traditions? Why do you think that some people are interested in learning those traditions and cultures while others are not? Give reasons for your opinion and include any relevant examples from your knowledge or experience

It is common to experience culture shock when visiting other countries with different traditions and customs, particularly for an extended period of time. Some visitors are interested in adapting to foreign cultures and effectively manage culture shock; some people are not. There are several reasons why we can better enjoy travelling with an open mind and develop an appreciation for cultural differences across the world .

As visitors in foreign lands, we are probably in for the feeling of disorientation, insecurity and anxiety in unfamiliar situations. altogether known as culture shock. This phenomenon is understandable because values, behaviors and social customs we routinely take for granted no longer serve us in different surroundings. Of course, it takes time to learn a 'do-as-Romans-do' attitude, but it is always advisable to keep an open mind. We ought not to give in to the temptation to isolate ourselves into the comfort of what is familiar. Perhaps, all we need is a little more patience to understand the new environment in its historical and social context. In all events, the right thing to do is to observe objectively, and not to judge automatically as if anything different is 'wrong' or 'negative'.

To better appreciate differences culture-wise, it is also important that we learn beforehand enough background information about a country we are ging to. In case we know close to nothing about that country, it means that we might have no interest in its culture, so why should we visit there in the first place? For visitors, a little bit of knowledge about a foreign culture tends to be misleading. But it doesn`t have to be that way. For instance, making an effort to learn the local language and social customs can increase communication skills and proper behaviors, both being of great help to demonstrate an interest in a different culture as well as integrating with the local community. In fact, before travelling it pays to learn something of many things about a foreign country's culture and tradition, ranging from the greetings to the clothing to the before-meal ceremonies.

Visiting a foreign country can be a rewarding experience if we are open-minded and knowledge-conscious toward any different culture. It seems necessary to reduce the negative impact of culture shock so that the entire visit would become pure fun. After all, when we come across a new environment, we don't expect to experience everything exactly like back home, do we?

In some major cities in my country, China, heavy traffic becomes increasingly problematic to commuters. This situation can be due to the fast pace of urban development.

The migration policy in China leads rural peasants to big cities. Also the convenient modern facilities and business opportunities in urban areas attract young generation in smaller towns seeking a reasonable career. While cities are expanding, the travellers have to cover further distance than they used to. Unluckily the public transport system built years ago is not well functioning. It is at this point that car purchase sounds reasonable. On top of this, the political will of enhancing economy should be responsible for various urban issues including traffic congestion. In order to stimulate domestic consumption, the public are encouraged to own their private cars, but in metropolises with dense population, such lifestyle is hard to be sufficiently supported.

To deal with traffic issue, some actions can be taken. Firstly, satellite cities can be a pragmatic approach to decentralize urban resource, thereby reducing urban population density. These satellite cities featuring self-sufficient can largely reduce daily travel if people are encouraged to live near their workplace or their school. Exclusive avenues for cycling can be set so that short-distance travellers would like to choose riding a bike instead of squeezing in a bus.

Public transport should be improved in terms of route, timing, comfortableness and service courtesy so as to encourage commuters to take. The larger capacity of public vehicles compared with private cars can effectively ease the traffic pressure on city roads.

In contrast, private cars should be discouraged from using for short distance travel. The approaches include charging a high parking fee, more expensive petrol or restricting in driving days.

In many countries, museums used to be free for visitors to enter. But recently, admission fee is introduced due to a cut in funding from the government.

There are reasons for such proposal. Firstly, charging admission keeps a museum run healthily because it provides museums some funding for maintenance and expansion. As we generally know, building a museum with special characters and functions costs substantially more money than an ordinary residential building. Operation spending including security, staff salary and enriching the collections also need constant financial support. If all this cost has to come from taxation, that would be unfair to some taxpayers who do not visit museums at all. Also charging admission can compensate publicly funded museums for cuts in subsidy granted by the government and do not drop their service quality and security. Meanwhile this would not threaten other independent competitors which rely on their income from entry fees.

However, some people disagree with charging entry because they are convinced of some adverse impacts on the society. It is true that a museum is a venue about learning and enjoying as well. It is the access to vivid presentation of knowledge and local culture and history, and charging admission would decrease the number of visits, hence undermining the inspiration for knowledge and cultural heritage preservation and transmission. Another concern about charging admission of a museum is that a museum, as an important educational resource, may lose its educational function because some students in a disadvantaged position would be deprived of a museum tour.

In conclusion, although free access to a museum can promote culture and education, it leads to financial pressure on a museum. Accordingly students should be given a preference treatment and this can be effective with the government’s constant funding for student museum visit. Adults should be charged of admission to a museum. A virtual museum can be another promising option for those less well-off because it is much cheaper to build and run, and therefore can be provided free.