DP Photos.
In a vast ocean, there is one species of fish I regret feeling superior to, yellowtail.
For this image I wanted to focus everything on the slate, clean, smooth, and glossy skin of this great species of fish.
Photo taken with iPod, 5.
For this image I wanted to focus everything on the slate, clean, smooth, and glossy skin of this great species of fish.
Photo taken with iPod, 5.
In this image the excess water chop that came from the boat slicing through the sleek, liquid ocean, defeats gravity and begins to progressively fly into the direct sunrise along the SoCal Coast.
This image was meant to keep the view looking.
Photo was taken with iPod, 5.
This image was meant to keep the view looking.
Photo was taken with iPod, 5.
Bonita? Skipjack? Sprinkler? A portable sprinkler head that cleans the fish, keeps the fish cold, and waters your lawn. I'll take twelve.
This image was a intended to grab the viewer and interest them into the idea of a fish sprinkler.
Photo taken with iPod, 5.
This image was a intended to grab the viewer and interest them into the idea of a fish sprinkler.
Photo taken with iPod, 5.
Twenty miles out, in a bare ocean, a lonely halibut earns his strike.
Photo, taken by GoPro Hero 3+.
Photo, taken by GoPro Hero 3+.
Many people, lool for decency in something thats perfect. In my opinion I find that the things around us tend to be more significant when looked at from a different angle.
Photo, taken with GoPro Hero 3+.
Photo, taken with GoPro Hero 3+.
If there has been one thing that I've learned while fishing, it is that respect is key to slaying the ocean.
Photos taken with iPod,5.
Photos taken with iPod,5.
As ambitious as night is, it seems to hide the gray and show the color in an image. The San Diego bay, may be the most horrendous, part of our waters here in San Diego during the day but at night, its one of the most gorgeous.
Photo taken with Flip phone.
Photo taken with Flip phone.
Book Critiques.
Befor & After
Book/Critique
Nolan, Andru, McGuire
October, 15, 2014
Mr, Aguirre
The book Ender’s Game was the type of book I would enjoy reading over and over again. Orson Scott Card, the author, did an extraordinary job at catching the reader, hooking them and reeling them to shore. In my opinion Ender’s Game was not only a book that caught the reader's attention but one that caused them to take a deeper look into text, and dig deep to find what happens at the end of the book. If I were to recommend this book to anyone there wouldn't be such of a thing as “if I were”, the book Ender’s Game was such an extraordinary book in my point of view I would recommend the book to almost anyone.
Orson Scott Card, the author of Ender's Game did an amazing job at starting out the book. The book Ender’s Game started out on earth, where young ender begun to take his place. In the beginning of the book, two unnamed people begin to talk about a young boy and his two young siblings. The two men come to a conclusion that the young boy Ender is the one who will save mankind from buggers “Extraterrestrials”, but he will not be able to begin saving the world until he qualifies through intense training. Which resulted in a path of success for Ender. I feel like Orson Scott Card’s writing style was like a black hole. In a good way. I feel like Orson Scott Card sucked the reader in and kept them hunting for what was coming next. Which is why I believe this quote connects. “Too willing to submerge himself in someone else’s will. […] So what do we do? Surround him with enemies all the time?” (1.4-6) - Ender.
Ender’s Game has a unique twist when it comes to categorizing the book. From my point of view Enders Game falls under the genre of action, and drama. The main reason why I consider this book an action, drama book is because in the beginning of the book and part of the end, Ender has intense drama with many of his cabin mates. Here is a quote that supports my point. "In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him. I think it's impossible to really understand somebody, what they want, what they believe, and not love them the way they love themselves." (13.127-129)- Ender. For an example in the beginning Ender gets picked on by Stillson, and it gets to the point of ender cannot take his abuse anymore. So Ender break’s Stillsons arm, and later on kills him.
The book Enders Game allowed me to reach a stepping stone that would lead me to a path of intuitive reading. One of which that opened a door to many possibilities. Reading is a subject that has taken away from my inner peace. Growing up reading was something I enjoyed tremendously but as the years flew by I begun to grow less and less interested. When I was young I was able to relieve my emotions by reading a book and connecting with the characters that laid amongst the pages. But now that I'm older reading has become more of a chore than a passion, with the exception of Enders Game. Which is why I believe this quote connects with how I fell. “Human beings are free except when humanity needs them.” (4.81)- Ender. The reason why I believe this quote connects is because Ender is bluntly saying that we can have our own achievements and live as we please but when needed by others we must obey and believe.
In conclusion, Enders Game has allowed me to reconnect with books. Orson Scott Card did an extraordinary job at catching the reader, hooking them and bringing them to shore. Reading this book not only taught me the flaws in life but the fact that you can recover from them. I am more than glad that I had the opportunity to read this extraordinary book and would refer it to anyone. Hopefully my journey to read many books begins here.
"Of course I mind, you meddlesome ass. This is something to be decided by people who know what they're doing, not these frightened politicians who got their office because they happen to be politically potent in the country they come from." (8.22) - Ender
Book critique “Empathy”
Nolan, Andru, McGuire
February, 11, 2015
Mr, Aguirre
The book Empathy, was the type of book I would enjoy reading over and over again. Roman Krznaric, the author of Empathy did an extraordinary job at catching the reader, hooking them and reeling them to shore. In my opinion Empathy was not only a book that caught the reader's attention but one that caused them to take a deeper look into text, and dig deep to find what happens at the end of the book. If I were to recommend this book to anyone there wouldn't be such of a thing as “if I were”, the book Empathy was such an extraordinary book in my point of view, I would recommend the book to almost anyone.
- What is the author's argument? What evidence, does he/she use?
2. What would another perspective be?
After reading Empathy I dreamt up several questions. A few of them involved the thought of what Roman Krznaric was thinking of while he was writing this book as well as what the final outcome of the book would have been if it was written from a different perspective. If the book Empathy was written from a different perspective many things could have happened. A few of them resulting in complete annihilation of the book or complete success of the book. Another perspective that the book couldve been written from is the perspective of an anti empathetic person. If the book Empathy were to be written from the perspective of an anti empathetic person, the story line as well as the complete book would be changed drastically. In a matter that would ruin the book in several ways, and this quotes proves this dramatically. “ It is quite possible to show a willingness to remove your mask, or to be an excellent listener, but still take a self-centered and utilitarian approach to conversation by putting your personal interests before anybody elses ” (119-119).
Although there are several possibilities of what the book would be like if it were to be written from a different perspective, it would never be like the original. In my opinion I believe that the book Empathy is a perfect example of a self motivating nonfiction book. One that can prepare, motivate and teach young readers about the social life that surrounds us. Empathy not only motivated me to become a better person but a more reliable help to the society around me. Empathy is something I now chairish more than ever and hopefully something that will stay with me forever.
3. What are some possible consequences put forward by the author?
Roman Krznaric, is an incredible author, and every incredible author has there own flaws. In my opinion the one thing that Roman Krznaric failed to impress me on, was the fact that I wasn't to sure if the majority of his ideas were even relevant to empathy. The reason why I say this is because throughout two thirds of his book he only writes in metaphors. For an example “If the diver always thought of the shark, he would never lay hands on the pearl,’ said Sa’di, a Persian poet from the thirteenth century.” (46-47). Metaphors are an incredible skill to have when writing, but they are also the number one thing that can bring an author down when writing. Because Roman Krznaric used so many metaphors I easily lost track of when he was speaking in his own words or describing another metaphor. Although Roman Krznaric writing contained this minor mistake I was still extremely impressed with the book Empathy.
4. What values seem to be put forward by the author?
In conclusion the book Empathy, was the type of book I would enjoy reading over and over again. The book Empathy, defines empathy as, the art of imaginatively stepping into the shoes of another person, understanding their feelings and perspectives, and using that understanding to guide your actions. Overall Roman Krznaric, the author of Empathy did an extraordinary job at catching the reader, hooking them and reeling them to shore. In my opinion Empathy was not only a book that caught the reader's attention but one that caused them to take a deeper look into text. If I were to recommend this book to anyone there wouldn't be such of a thing as “if I were”, the book Empathy was such an extraordinary book in my point of view, I would recommend the book to almost anyone.
Work log/ Reflection.
Work log:
Wednesday 3-11-15: Today my partner and I designed and finished the logo for our film. We started out with a few ideas, of but many of them were too detailed for the guidelines we were required to follow. For the most part I was the one who drew the logo, designed it and colored it. In the end our logo came out a little bit different than we were expecting.
Thursday 3-12-15: Today was by day for me when it came to the film. I didn't really work on anything that was relevant to my film. The reason why I did this was because I wanted to get caught ahead in other subjects, such as physics, humanities, and math.
Friday 3-13-15: Today my partner and I started the synopsis for our film. When we were first given the assignment we didn't really take it as serious as we should have of. Instead of writing out the plan for our film, we collected and gathered, many writing pieces about taco salad from previous reflections and stitched them all together. In the end we turned in a reflection that was not even close to being relevant to a synopsis.
Saturday 3-14-15: Today I am going to go back through the synopsys and edit it. Overall today is not going to be a day that I work on my film. I am going to be going fishing, and enjoying my saturday.
Sunday 3-15-15: Today I plan on starting the real synopsys for our film. Although we did not take it seriously on friday I plan on doing so today. Overall this is going to be a relaxing sunday.
Monday 3-16-15: Today we took another try at our synopsys after it was shot down like we were expecting. When we turned in the synopsys we were not expecting it to get signed off, but we were hoping to get a good laugh out of it with our teacher, Mr Aguirre. Now that it was shot down we knew that had to get into game mode, and actually write our synopsys. So we got to writing, and after an hour of writing we were done with our synopsis.
Reflection Main:
Prompt:
If you could change the way your partner works. what would you change. What struggles did you have, and how did you overcome them.
Reflection:
Why did it seem that, doing this film practically alone was difficult when in the end I feel like I achieved more by doing it alone.
Did I learn more from, practically doing this film alone?
Why did it seem so difficult working on the film alone?
When is enough, to just be done?
How did I complete this?
Should I have devoted more time into talking to my partner for help?
Why did my partner work like this?
Am I the reason why I did this alone?
If so what did I do?
These are several questions that have been haunting my thoughts since this past weekend. It seemed that I have been working my hardest, pushing myself to the limit in order to make the film the best I could make it, yet in the end what I thought was a partnership project was really a solo project. It started out as a stressless project, where we could work during class, and still enjoy our free time. It started out like this because of the ongoing vision I had. The vision of it being a partnership project, where the work would be split evenly amongst both of us. As I seemed to marinate on this vision I knew I couldn't assume, I just had to wait and see. As time went by what I was wishing to be true was nothing but a lie. It turned out that I was working on the film alone, and my partner was enjoying his free time. Unfortunately from this project, I feel like I never want to work with my best friend again. Not because he's a bad guy or because he prioritised fun time over work time, but because he wasn't a serious, honest, and reliable person to work with during this project. It seemed that I stayed up late on the weekends and on weekdays, just to get our film to where it was supposed to be, and personally even then it didn't feel like it was enough. If there was one thing that I could change about my partners work ethics it would be actually working. Overall all of these struggles got to me, but I knew that I could overcome them by doing the right thing. So I attempted to talk to my partner but I couldn't seem to get to him, which resulted in me carrying the project alone for the majority of the time period. In the end I worked on this film alone about ninety percent of the time, and what was supposed to be called a partnership film, I can barely call now.
Essay / Grammar.
Befor & After.
Melian dialogue essay
By: Nolan, Andru, McGuire
October, 27, 2014
Mr, Aguirre
The Melian dialogue is set writing piece by Thucydides, which regards the debate between the Melians and Athenians. It was written around 460-405 BCE, close to when the first Peloponnesian War started. It took place in Melos at the Melian harbor, where the generals of the Melian council and the Athenian army meet and talk about the fate of the Melian people. The main reason why the Athenians are arguing with the Melian’s, is because the Athenians wanted the Melians to pay a tribute (tax). The tribune would allow the Melians to join the Athenian empire, which came with protection. Although the Melians wanted to keep their insurance and freedom with the Spartans. Overall the Athenians were not justified with their treatment towards the Melians.
The Athenians are arguing with the Melians wanting them to pay the tribute. Claiming that the Melians need to pay the tribute because the (Athenians) are the one and only that are allowed to define what justice is really is, and they can do this because they are a lot more powerful. The reason why the Athenians are a lot stronger is because, they have an army of over 3,000. Where the Melians have an army of just over 500. Because the Athenians say that they are the only ones who can justify or define what justice really is, the Melians are left with accepting the truth, which is how they respond to the Athenians. “Then in our view since you force us to leave justice out of account and to confine ourselves to self-interest - in our view it is at any rate useful that you should not destroy a principle that is to the general good of all men” (90). This clearly shows that Melians are agreeing with what the Athenians are saying, just because they are stronger which is completely false. Justice should be justified by its true meaning which is right behavior and treatment.
The Peloponnesian War was more than excessive. It seemed that the Athenians not only brutally defeated the Melians but were stuck with assuming they had the power to justify what rules they had to abide by. The Melians didn't want to abide by the Athenians but were left with no other choice except for listening to them. The Athenians were more than excessive towards the Melians. The Athenians knew that because they had power the Melians would have to abide by the Athenians, rules, which unfortunately resulted in the Melians abiding by the Athenians. The Athenians were not justified with their treatment towards the Melians.
The Melian dialogue was not only a valuable piece of learning but it was also an extraordinary way to connect with many of the things that happen in everyday life. For example, everyday life around the world, society works just like the Athenians. The powerful people always claim that they are the ones who should decide what is justified, and unfortunately they are the ones who get to decide and make the majority of the decisions. Everyday life somehow connects with the Melian dialogue in more ways than acceptable. This quote connects with Melian dialogue stronger than the bond between a newborn and there mother. “Then surely, if such hazards are taken to keep your empire and by your subjects to escape from it, we who are still free would show ourselves great cowards and weaklings if we failed to face everything that comes rather than submit to slavery” (100). It seems as if the human race, has not grown distant from its past.
Overall the Athenians were not justified with their treatment towards the Athenians, although the (Melians) may be looking at the situation between the two from a different angle, than the Athenians. If someone were to make the argument that the Athenians were justified with their treatment towards the Melian’s, it wouldn't scare the Melians, nor change the opinion of them. If somebody were to attempt to get me to look at it from a different angle, I would automatically disagree. The reason why, is because this quote from the Melian dialogue backs up the argument, that the Athenians were not justified with their treatment towards the Melian’s. The Athenians said. “No, not if you are sensible. This is not a fair fight, with honour on one side and shame on the other. It is rather a question of saving lives and not resisting those who are far too strong for you” (101). The Athenians are explaining to the Melians that no matter what they must back down because they are stronger, and the stronger always wins. This section of the Melian dialogue, not only shows the advanced connection with modern day life, but the fact that maybe were just repeating it. As history is claimed to be made, maybe were really just repeating the past.
In conclusion, it is more than obvious that the Athenians are not justified for their treatment towards the Melians. The Peloponnesian War between the Athenians and the Melians was clearly unfair. The Athenians held an army of over 3,000 strong where the Melians had an army of just over 500, which resulted in complete slaughter to the Melians. The Athenians showed a lot of guilt throughout the Melian dialogue, especially after slaughtering the Melians. The Athenians really presented it in a way to make the Melians stop fighting, become slaves, and pay the tribute. Although, the Melians kept the battle going through with the thought of the gods and the Spartans on their way to help them depheat their battle with the Athenians, they did not have any willpower to stand up. So the Melians were held down and put into a three sided corner, and were forced to back down. In the end Melians had to bow down and obey the Athenians because they had more power. Through the rough path of life itself the Melian dialogue connects with modern day life in more ways than comprehendible, and shows that although the Melian dialogue was hundreds of years ago, were still connected more than we think. As history is claimed to be made, maybe were really just repeating the past.
Drones, against the 4th Amendment
Nolan, Andru, McGuire
April, 16, 2015
Mr, Aguirre
The United States Constitution was ratified on September 17, 1787. The Constitution is “The supreme law of the United States of America. The Constitution, originally comprising seven articles, delineates the national frame of government” (U.S Constitution). The Constitution is made up of seven articles, which are normally called, the Bill of Rights. Inside of the Bill of Rights there are seven amendments, all of which conclude, and regulate, the majority of laws in the United States. Although there are seven amendments in the Bill of Rights, only one holds more significance than the others. The Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment is “The right of the people to be secure in the persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things” (U.S. Constitution). The Fourth Amendment was created, so the people of america had the right to privacy and the right to be secure. Whether or not drones violate the Constitution and or the Fourth Amendment, is unclear. Here is some proof supporting the fact that the government is not violating the Constitution, and or the Fourth Amendment.
Now current day, most people are under the impression that drones are constantly hovering in the privacy of our homes, and private airways violating our privacy and causing unneeded mayhem. Which is unfortunately false. Drones are not allowed to be flown in private air ways, but are allowed to be flown in public airways. Although they are unable to collect information in private air ways they are allowed to collect information in public airways, and the reason they are allowed to collect information, is because of the Plain View doctrine. The Plain View doctrine allows law enforcement officers to search or seize contraband, when it is visible from their viewpoint (plain view). This means that any drones in public airspace are allowed to collect and keep permitted information, and the government official/s conducting the drone/s is permitted to use this information as evidence in court.
A significant example of this is the Supreme Court case of California vs Ciraolo. In this case, an aircraft, plane, drone etc, was caught flying over a private house and with live footage of the owners growing marijuana. The pilot immediately notified the police, explaining that he saw marijuana growing in someone's “Ciraolo” back yard. Once he notified the police, the police arrested Ciraolo without hesitation. When Ciraolo went to court he pleaded the exclusionary rule, meaning that the police violated his right to privacy, and did not get a warrant to search, view, and or seize any of his property. Incredibly the police did not get a search warrant, and won the Supreme Court case over Ciraolo. During this same case, the Supreme Court ruled that aerial searches in fenced in areas are legal due to them being in public airspace.
Current day, most people are under the impression that drones are violating their personal space, hovering over their yards snapping pictures of them, spying on them in the comfort of their own home. Now there have been some cases where this has happened, but very rarely this is so. Drones, are everywhere, but not literally everywhere. Drones are/can be used in almost any situation, and because of this they are vastly growing into more of a career than a hobby. Around three years ago, a few companies realised that they were going to be training people for career paths in drones(Embedded developers). When the media heard of this they took it and ran. As soon as the media heard that drones were going to become a career, they grew feared. Attempting to stir up trouble, they caused hundreds of Americans to grow an on growing hatred for drones. The idea of drones or UAVs being used everywhere unregulated begun to scare many Americans. Because of this many privacy issues and personal issues involving drones begun to come to light.
As drones tend to grow, the question “Are Drones violating the Fourth Amendment” is a question almost every american is thinking. Do drones violate the Fourth Amendment? According to the constitution, and all ten amendments that lie in the constitution, using drones, does not break nor stretch any of the amendments in the Constitution. In other words, using drones in navigable air space is not breaking the law. Although this is true, there is one way that people could argue that the use of drones are illegal. The fact that they are violating their personal privacy. Even if the people argue that drones violate their personal privacy, the government can/could immediately use the Plain View doctrine. The Plain View doctrine allows the government/law enforcement officers to search or seize contraband, when it is visible from their viewpoint (plain view). In other words if any law officer or person of the law could see any form of contraband from air space, they are allowed to use it as evidence against the defendant in court.
Drones are not only beginning to stir up problems within the media but the government as well. For an example the drones that the government are using are, stealthy, and most of the time surveillance and or predator drones. Also the drones that government are using are, extremely different than the drones out on the market, for the public. For an example the drones that the government are using look extremely similar to a commercial planes, and the drones that the public are using are usually some sort of a quadcopter, tricopter, etc.
The drones that the government and or the public are using, could be violating our personal privacy. Although there is plenty of proof backing up the fact that they're not, there are several loopholes that suggest the use of any drones are violating people's privacy. For an example, the drones that the government are using are either stealthy predator drones, or stealthy surveillance drones. The stealthy surveillance drones, are drones that have eyes on almost every body in world whenever they want. The surveillance drones that the government are using have the technology to not be detected by any ground operations, while maintaining the ability to have an eye on anybody. The stealthy predator drones that the government are using are a lot more immense. For an example the the stealthy predator drones have the capability, of killing a town from miles up without being detected by any ground operations. On top of that they are both UAVs so neither of them are putting any Americans in harm's way. Although both of them are considered legal to the US, they also both seem extremely illegal.
In conclusion drones do not violate the constitution nor the Fourth Amendment. The use of drones, from the government, are completely different than the public. The government are using drones as privacy invading, life consuming pieces of modernized technology. The public are using drones as a hobby. Although the use use of drones by the government seem to be invading people's privacy rights, there is not a single piece of evidence proving that they are breaking the laws that lie in the constitution nor the Fourth Amendment. Overall drones are being conceived as a single use of privacy invading technology. From all of the evidence the world/internet has to offer, there is not a single piece of evidence that proves drones are being illegally used. Overall drones do not violate the Fourth Amendment.