THE PRESENT CRISIS IN HUMAN AFFAIRS BY H.G. WELLS

The world is undergoing immense changes. Never before have the conditions of life changed so swiftly and enormously as they have changed for mankind in the last fifty years. We have been carried along -with no virtues of measuring the increasing swiftness in the succession of events. We are only now beginnig to realize the force and strength of the storm of change that has come upon us. These changes have not come upon our world from without . No huge meteorite from outer space has struck our planet; there have been no overwhelming outbreaks of volcanic violance or strange epidemic diseases. The changes have come through men themselves. Quite a small number of people, homeless of the ultimate consequence of what they did, one man here and a group there, have made discoveries and produced and adopted inventions that have changed all the conditions of social life.

We are now just beginning to realize the nature of these changes, to find words and phrases for them and put them down. First they began to happen, and then we began to see that they were happening and now we are beginning to see how these changes are connected together  and to get the measure of their consequences. We are getting our covers so clear about them that soon we shall be able to deceive and explain them to our children in our schools. We do not do so at present. We do not give our children a chance of discovering that they live in a world of universal change.

THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV BY FYODOR DOSTOEVSKY

Here is perhaps the one man in the world whom you might leave alone without a penny, in the centre of a unknown town of a million inhabitants, and he would not come to harm, he would be fed and sheltered at once; and if he were not, he would find a shelter for himself, and it would devour him no effort or humiliation and to shelter him would be no burden, but, on the contrary, would probably be looked on as a dip.  He did not finish his studies at the gymnasium. A year before the end of the course he suddenly announced to the ladies that he was going to see his father about a plan which had occured to him. The journey was not an expensive one, and the ladies provided  him with money and even fitted him out with new clothes and linen. But he returned half the money they gave him, saying that he intented to go third class. On his arrival in the town, he made no answer to his father's first inquiry why he had come before completing his studies, and seemed, so they say, unusually thoughtful. It soon became apparent that he was looking for his mother's tomb. He practically acknowledged at the time that was the only object of his visit. But it can hardly have been the whole reason of it. It is more probable that he himself did not understand and could not explain what had suddenly arisen in his soul, and drawn him infintely into a new, unknown, but inevitable path. Fyodor Pavlovitch could not show him where his second wife was bried, for he had never visited her grave since he had thrown earth upon her coffin, and in the cours of years had eternally forgotten where she was  buried. 

JUST PUT YOUR HAND IN YOUR COAT-PERFECT

Everyone knows the 1812 portrait of Napoleon painted by Jacques-Louis David: there he stands, looking like the emperor he is, in his study at the Tuileries Palace-with his hand in his waistcoat. Over the years, lots of people have speculated as to why Napoleon's hand is there:he had a stomach ulcer, a deformed hand , or a itchy skin disease; in his area it was impolite to put your hands in your pockets; painters cannot stand painting hands ; and so on . The first three of those theories, though, would not explain the fact that this 'hand-in-waistcoat' appears all over the place beginning the century before, only starting to disappear subsequent to David's portrait of the French leader. So what about those other theories? Well, whether or not it was impolite to put your hands in your pockets at that time, the fact is that Napoleon has no pockets in the portrait. As for painters not liking to paint hands, that ,too, may or may not be true- but David had painted dozens of hands an his earlier paintings ( not to mention one hand in this pinting ). So, why on earth Napoleon's hands tucked inside his waistcoat like that? The answer is quite simple, though much less interesting than all those wild theories: in those days, the stance was seen as a mark of a mark of well -mannered gentelman. It dated all the way back to classical Greece, when Aeschines, the ounder of a school of rhetoric, stated that speaking with one's arm outside of one's toga was considered bad manners; he thus recommend keeping at least one hand inside the toga while giving a public speech. Much later, when Neoclassicist artists were turning to the ancient Greeks and Romans for ideas, Aeschines ' advice was taken up by portrait painters-with appropriate adjustments for the different style of clothing, of course....    

WATCHING FILMS

    Before televisions were common, people used to go to the movie theater. However, they have the chance of watching films in their houses, now. Due to this factor, the number of people going to the movie theater declined but there are still many people going to the movie theater. In fact, there are some similarities between them. However, differences are more dominant than similarities.

     There are many differences between watching films at home and watcing films at the movie theater. First of all, if you do not like a film while watching it at cinema, you can not change it. In contrast to this, if you do not like a film while watching it at your house,you can change it. Second, watching film at the movie theater is a different  activity because being at home continuously can disturb you and you want to do a different activiy.Third, while the number of people watching movies at home is limited, many more people can watch  films at the movie theater.

    There are a few similarities between watching films at home and watching films at the movie theater . Firstly, you watch the same kind of films which can be watched at the movie theater, too. Secondly, if you want to watch films at darkness, similar to the movie theater, you can do it by watching switching off lampes.Thirdly, you can eat pop-corn,chocolate,etc. while watching films at the movie theate.In the same way, you can eat them at home during film, too.

       In conclusion, there are many differences and similarities between watching films at home and watching films at the movie theater .I think watching film at the movie theater is more entertainting than watching film at home because going to the movie theater and waiting for movie with your all friends are more exciting and colorful activities.  

LIVING WITH REALITIES

    People live with their families for a long time. They spend a great amount of their lives with their families. When they have the chance to live without their families, they do not usually reject it.Most university students choose to live with their friends, not their families. There are some differences and similarities between living in the dormitory and living at home with family.However, similarities are fewer than differences.

    Living in the dormitory has some different points from living at home with family. First of all, they learn to live without the support of their parents so they can understand the realities of life.While students who live with their families spend their money unconsciously, the other students who live in the dormitory spend it in a thrifty way. Due to being distant from their families, they could not ask for money from them frequently. Nevertheless, the students who live with their families ask for money from their families whenever they need. Secondly, students who live with their families have fewer responsibilities than others, for they do not have to cook meal and clean their rooms.Nonetheless,the students who live in the dormitory generally have to clean their rooms and  cook their meals themselves because they do not have a person who will do these duties.Thirdly,students who live in the dormitory have more powerful friendships than other students who live with their families because students living with their families do not spend much time with their friends. In contrast, students living in the dormitory are always doing everything together. As a result, they know each other well and they can have powerful frienships.

      There are some similarities between living in the dormitory and living at home with family. If you live in the dormitory, you have to obey the rules. For example, you must come to the dormitory at a certain time. Smilarly, you ought to be your home at a certain time,too.They think that being outside in late hours is dangerous for you,so they get worried about you. Therefore, they create some rules to protect you. Another similarity is the study environment.In dormitories, there are special rooms for students which includes studying desks, and these rooms provide students to work in a silent environment.Likewise, you have your own rooms to study silently in your houses,too.

     In conclusion,it is clear that there are some differences and similarities between living in the dormitory and living at home with families,but similarities are fewer than differences.We understand that living in the dormitory improves us in terms of gaining the spiritual responsibility and living at home with families needs to obey the rules like dormitories.I think living in the dormitory prepares us to life because we take more responsibilities.

MY HOMETOWN IĞDIR

 A GENERAL VİEW OF IĞDIR

        Iğdır is a province in eastern Turkey. This province is located along the border with Armenia,  Azerbaijan and Iran. According to the census of population done in 2010, Iğdır's population is 184,418. Turkey's highest mountain, Mount Ararat is located greatly in Iğdır.

       Iğdır plain is located in the North-eastern Anatolian Region,the coldest region of Turkey. The plain is hotter and it has lower rainfall when it is compared to the region, in which it is located.

Therefore, cotton even can be grown in Iğdır. In addition, there is Aras River in the border Armenia-Iğdır. The plain has salty soil because of alluvium carried by Aras River and materials from volcanic Ararat Mountain.

     
Previously cotton was main agricultural product in this area but in present fruit, sugar beet,

wheat, barley, leguminous seeds and various vegetables are cultivated.

Now, I will introduce you Iğdır's the most delicious meal:)

Firstly, I want to begin with Omaç Halva. Many kind of halva is cooked in Iğdır, but Omaç Halva is the most famous among them. I will tell you how to cook Omaç Halva.

Ingredients:

*2 cup floor

*1.5 cup sugar

*2.5 cup milk

*250 g margarine

*1 packet vanilla

 

     Let's do halva:)

Firstly, you need to be patient because it is not so easy as you guess...

Put flour and margarine into a saucepan and broil it at low heat for an hour.

 

 

After 35 minutes, halva begins to liquefy. At this stage, continue to mix up it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the color of halva becomes dark, it is time for adding milk. In addition, the mixture of margarine and flour must not stick the saucepan and spoon. According to my grandmother's recipe, If you put little broiled flour into a spoon of milk  and you hear ''cozzzz ''sound, ıt is time for adding milk.

Also,while flour is broiled in the saucepan, you need to put milk, sugar and vaniline into another plate and mix up it until sugar melts completely. After flour is broiled, add the mixture of milk and sugar into saucepan at a high heat because flour absorbs it in a short time. 

 

Mix up it quickly until absorbed. When it solidifies, you leave it for being steeped. you can range it to serving dish with the help of a spoon.

ENJOY YOUR MEAL... 

 

MY HOMEWORK

    Soccer — or football (or foosball or futbol), as it is called by the rest of the world outside theUnited States is surely the most popular sport in the world. Every four years, the world championship of soccer, the World Cup is watched by literally billions all over the world, beating out the United States professional football's Superbowl by far. It is estimated that 1.7 billion television viewers watched the World Cup final between France and Brazil in July of 1998. And it is also a genuine world championship, involving teams from 32 countries in the final rounds, unlike the much more parochial and misnamed World Series in American baseball (that does’t even involve Japan or Cuba, two baseball hotbeds). But although soccer has become an important sport in the American sports scene, it will never make inroads into the hearts and markets of American sports the way that football, basketball, hockey, baseball, and even tennis and golf have done. There are many reasons for this.

    Recently the New England Revolution beat the Tampa Bay Mutiny in a game played during a horrid rainstorm. Nearly 5000 fans showed up, which shows that soccer is, indeed, popular in the United States. However, the story of the game was buried near the back of the newspaper's sports section, and there was certainly no television coverage. In fact, the biggest reason for soccer's failure as a mass appeal sport in the United States is that it doesn't conform easily to the demands of television.

    Basketball succeeds enormously in America because it regularly scheduled what it calls "television time-outs" as well as the time-outs that the teams themselves call to re-group, not to mention half-times and, on the professional level, quarter breaks. Those time-outs in the action are ideally made for television commercials. And television coverage is the lifeblood of American sports. College basketball lives for a game scheduled on CBS or ESPN (highly recruited high school players are more likely to go to a team that regularly gets national television exposure), and we could even say that television coverage has dictated the pace and feel of American football. Anyone who has attended a live football game knows how commercial time-outs slow the game and sometimes, at its most exciting moments disrupt the flow of events. There is no serious objection, however, because without television, football knows that it simply wouldn't remain in the homes and hearts of Americans. Also, without those advertising dollars, the teams couldn't afford the sky-high salaries of their high-priced superstars.