The answer is a matter of opinion, and you're going to get different answers from different people. Here's <u>my</u> take on it:
The writers, producers and advertising sponsors of these shows certainly don't think they're boring. And <em><u>definitely</u></em> neither do the TV networks that decide which ones to broadcast.
I'm not trying to say "The experts don't think they're boring, so you must be wrong". I'm trying to say that different people have different opinions about the same shows, and in <em>your</em> case,<em> you</em> find them boring.
My conclusion is this: I think you're finding TV shows boring nowadays because you're growing as a person. You've grown, developed, and matured to the point where you're above the level of audience that the shows are pitched for. That's a very good thing !
You're sad because you used to get pleasure and entertainment from TV, and now it doesn't give you those things. That's like losing an old friend, that you used to have such fun playing with, but he just doesn't do it for you any more.
Now that you've grown up, you've made new friends. With them, you do things that you wouldn't even understand with your younger friends. And you develop new interests, like ... I don't know ... books, movies, hobbies, your church, your profession, learning new things, developing new skills, exercising your brain, writing, volunteer work, ham radio, building fine furniture, singing, learning to write music, raising tropical plants, sculpture, politics ... whatever turns you on. Some people never grow past the stage where staring at the tube is all they need in life, because they don't have what it takes to be interested in anything else. Those are the people that TV is aimed at. But you have more, and that's why TV isn't enough for you.
There are other possible reasons why TV bores you. But until I know more about you, I think it's a very, very good sign.
When a body is projected, the body experiences an acceleration in the vertical axis that is proportional to the acceleration due to gravity of the earth, which is equal to 9.81 m/s^2. In this case, the acceleration acts to stop the vertical motion of the paper plane, and hence is a deceleration, which explains the negative vertical acceleration.
<span>The best and most correct answer among the choices provided by the question is the second choice. The temperature of the substance is directly proportional to the average kinetic energy of the molecules. </span><span>I hope my answer has come to your help. God bless and have a nice day ahead!</span>
“I think it’s about putting yourself in the students’ shoes and seeing how a first-time student, maybe someone who hasn’t even taken chemistry before, is looking at it.”
—Valerie Taraborelli, undergraduate chemistry student, University of Arizona1
“In some ways, I think the people who are the most successful as teachers are the ones who are able to remember what it was like being uncertain and not knowing. When you become an expert, things are easy. So the idea is to try and see where [students] are coming from and why they’ve developed this misconception and what you can do to specifically address it.”
—Dee Silverthorn, biology professor, University of Texas2
