Ten to fifteen questions that I have about my topic of choice are as follows;
1. What, if any, proof is there that some dinosaurs may have been warm blooded?
2. What is the main opposition to that notion?
3. What research if any has been done in the pursuit of determining the factors for endothermy?
5. What is it that would prevent a dinosaur from being endothermic?
6. What species would have been the most likely to be warm blooded?
7. Is the condition based solely on environmental conditions during the time period?
8. Would there be any other energy efficient forms of heat generation, that would have been successful in cooler climates for animals with no exterior insulation?
9. How and why was the theory of dinosaur endothermy introduced?
10. Do the arguments being made seen to make vast logical jumps or are they well thought out?

The article that I found that answers most of these questions comes from science magazine shortly after the discovery of dinosaurs that would have been living in cold climates. Here is the link, http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=1095-9203(20020101)295:5557%3C979:PEPD%3E2.0.TX;2-P&origin=EBSCO.

In the article entitled "Polar Dinosaurs" by Thomas H. Rich, Patricia Vickers-Rich, and Roland A. Gangloff, it is argued that new findings and research in places such as Australia and Alaska may have a one time been the homes of dinosaurs capable of surviving cold weather climates. Within the article many things are covered, such as the inhibiting logistics of digging for dinosaurs in places like Alaska, and how many of these "cold weather dinosaurs" would migrate seasonally for a temperature norm. Through much research into the fossils of these dinosaurs has also led to the discovery that many of these higher latitude dinosaurs possessed larger optic nerves giving them better vision in clear and adverse weather conditions.The article ends with the statement that several species have been found at these higher latitudes but none that are new to science. Other than of course their adaptations to their living environment.

After listening to the radio show by NPR on "Digital Sampling: Creativity or Criminality," and the reading the article "Plagiarism Lines Blur for Students in Digital Age," I have to separate conclusions on both. For the digital sampling radio dialogue that we as a class listened to everything seemed to boil down to wether or not someone who held the copyrights was getting paid for people using them or not. More than once it was brought up during these arguments, that it wasn't the artists themselves who were being outraged by sampling but the corporations who own the copyrights to the sample in question. Therefore I have ultimately concluded that the real issue here is not wether it is ethical to use a digital sample or not but wether or not a big wig somewhere will be able to profit off of it. As it was also stated in one of the several arguments throughout this segment, sometimes sampling actually helps revitalize the career or individual from whom which the original track came.
 In the article "Plagiarism Lines Blur for Students in Digital Age," an entirely different point was being made. The general meaning behind this article seemed to be that the definitions and general academic awareness of what plagiarism is and what constitutes an act of plagiarism seem to be becoming more loosely applied by the younger generations of students. In several examples the writer shows how the morality or plagiarism seems to be nothing more than something lazy students snicker at as they rush to finish research papers that require adequate recognition of other peoples work. It should be noted that the evidence provided in this article seems to heavily imply that the lack of proper citation is due to students becoming increasingly lazy and not simply that more often than not they are expected to know how to properly cite works that are not their own.