Social networking sites are now estimated to have over 700 million users worldwide. As users can create their own profiles, you might expect them to portray themselves in the best possible light. When putting up a profile, it would be (26) _____ for them to present flattering images, choose sophisticated and discerning interests, and carefully express their thoughts to appear more intelligent than in real life. (27) _____, according to a recent study conducted on 250 Facebook users, this is not the case. Far from being idealised versions of themselves, most users' profiles (28) _____ closely to what they are really like and show their true personalities including their both psychological weaknesses and natural physical flaws. It's not entirely clear why online profiles depict users' personalities so accurately. It could be that users want to portray themselves as they really are, or that people attempt to present an ideal image of themselves but fail to do so. One thing seems clear: social networking sites can in no way be considered a false online world (29) _____ is idealised and removed from reality; rather, they are simply (30) _____ way in which people choose to interact with each other.

Social networking sites are now estimated to have over 700 million users worldwide. As users can create their own profiles, you might expect them to portray themselves in the best possible light. When putting up a profile, it would be (26) _____ for them to present flattering images, choose sophisticated and discerning interests, and carefully express their thoughts to appear more intelligent than in real life. (27) _____, according to a recent study conducted on 250 Facebook users, this is not the case. Far from being idealised versions of themselves, most users' profiles (28) _____ closely to what they are really like and show their true personalities including their both psychological weaknesses and natural physical flaws. It's not entirely clear why online profiles depict users' personalities so accurately. It could be that users want to portray themselves as they really are, or that people attempt to present an ideal image of themselves but fail to do so. One thing seems clear: social networking sites can in no way be considered a false online world (29) _____ is idealised and removed from reality; rather, they are simply (30) _____ way in which people choose to interact with each other.

Social networking sites are now estimated to have over 700 million users worldwide. As users can create their own profiles, you might expect them to portray themselves in the best possible light. When putting up a profile, it would be (26) _____ for them to present flattering images, choose sophisticated and discerning interests, and carefully express their thoughts to appear more intelligent than in real life. (27) _____, according to a recent study conducted on 250 Facebook users, this is not the case. Far from being idealised versions of themselves, most users' profiles (28) _____ closely to what they are really like and show their true personalities including their both psychological weaknesses and natural physical flaws. It's not entirely clear why online profiles depict users' personalities so accurately. It could be that users want to portray themselves as they really are, or that people attempt to present an ideal image of themselves but fail to do so. One thing seems clear: social networking sites can in no way be considered a false online world (29) _____ is idealised and removed from reality; rather, they are simply (30) _____ way in which people choose to interact with each other.

Social networking sites are now estimated to have over 700 million users worldwide. As users can create their own profiles, you might expect them to portray themselves in the best possible light. When putting up a profile, it would be (26) _____ for them to present flattering images, choose sophisticated and discerning interests, and carefully express their thoughts to appear more intelligent than in real life. (27) _____, according to a recent study conducted on 250 Facebook users, this is not the case. Far from being idealised versions of themselves, most users' profiles (28) _____ closely to what they are really like and show their true personalities including their both psychological weaknesses and natural physical flaws. It's not entirely clear why online profiles depict users' personalities so accurately. It could be that users want to portray themselves as they really are, or that people attempt to present an ideal image of themselves but fail to do so. One thing seems clear: social networking sites can in no way be considered a false online world (29) _____ is idealised and removed from reality; rather, they are simply (30) _____ way in which people choose to interact with each other.

Social networking sites are now estimated to have over 700 million users worldwide. As users can create their own profiles, you might expect them to portray themselves in the best possible light. When putting up a profile, it would be (26) _____ for them to present flattering images, choose sophisticated and discerning interests, and carefully express their thoughts to appear more intelligent than in real life. (27) _____, according to a recent study conducted on 250 Facebook users, this is not the case. Far from being idealised versions of themselves, most users' profiles (28) _____ closely to what they are really like and show their true personalities including their both psychological weaknesses and natural physical flaws. It's not entirely clear why online profiles depict users' personalities so accurately. It could be that users want to portray themselves as they really are, or that people attempt to present an ideal image of themselves but fail to do so. One thing seems clear: social networking sites can in no way be considered a false online world (29) _____ is idealised and removed from reality; rather, they are simply (30) _____ way in which people choose to interact with each other.

For many years, schoolchildren in the US have been taken on 'field trips’ to cultural institutions and historical sites. Despite these trips involving some expense and disruption to class timetables, educators arrange them in the belief that schools exist not only to teach economically useful skills, but also to produce civilised young people who appreciate the arts and culture. However, there have been increasing signs in recent years that the attitude towards field trips is changing, with a significant decrease in the number of tours organised for school groups. A survey carried out by a group of school administrators found that over half the schools they asked had decided to cancel trips planned for the next academic year. So what are the reasons for this change? The most obvious one is the issue of finance. Because there are increasing demands on their funds, schools are forced to make a difficult choice about how to spend the limited money they have. Field trips are an obvious thing to cut since they are seen by many as a luxury. A large number of school heads also consider days spent away from school a waste of time, believing that the only worthwhile use of students' time is spent preparing for exams in the classroom. But why should anybody worry if schoolchildren go on fewer trips? Those that believe this is a negative development in education would say that cultural field trips contribute to the development of students into well-educated adults who have a healthy interest in history and the arts. Researchers warn that if schools cut field trips, then valuable opportunities to broaden and enrich children's learning experiences are lost.

For many years, schoolchildren in the US have been taken on 'field trips’ to cultural institutions and historical sites. Despite these trips involving some expense and disruption to class timetables, educators arrange them in the belief that schools exist not only to teach economically useful skills, but also to produce civilised young people who appreciate the arts and culture. However, there have been increasing signs in recent years that the attitude towards field trips is changing, with a significant decrease in the number of tours organised for school groups. A survey carried out by a group of school administrators found that over half the schools they asked had decided to cancel trips planned for the next academic year. So what are the reasons for this change? The most obvious one is the issue of finance. Because there are increasing demands on their funds, schools are forced to make a difficult choice about how to spend the limited money they have. Field trips are an obvious thing to cut since they are seen by many as a luxury. A large number of school heads also consider days spent away from school a waste of time, believing that the only worthwhile use of students' time is spent preparing for exams in the classroom. But why should anybody worry if schoolchildren go on fewer trips? Those that believe this is a negative development in education would say that cultural field trips contribute to the development of students into well-educated adults who have a healthy interest in history and the arts. Researchers warn that if schools cut field trips, then valuable opportunities to broaden and enrich children's learning experiences are lost.

For many years, schoolchildren in the US have been taken on 'field trips’ to cultural institutions and historical sites. Despite these trips involving some expense and disruption to class timetables, educators arrange them in the belief that schools exist not only to teach economically useful skills, but also to produce civilised young people who appreciate the arts and culture. However, there have been increasing signs in recent years that the attitude towards field trips is changing, with a significant decrease in the number of tours organised for school groups. A survey carried out by a group of school administrators found that over half the schools they asked had decided to cancel trips planned for the next academic year. So what are the reasons for this change? The most obvious one is the issue of finance. Because there are increasing demands on their funds, schools are forced to make a difficult choice about how to spend the limited money they have. Field trips are an obvious thing to cut since they are seen by many as a luxury. A large number of school heads also consider days spent away from school a waste of time, believing that the only worthwhile use of students' time is spent preparing for exams in the classroom. But why should anybody worry if schoolchildren go on fewer trips? Those that believe this is a negative development in education would say that cultural field trips contribute to the development of students into well-educated adults who have a healthy interest in history and the arts. Researchers warn that if schools cut field trips, then valuable opportunities to broaden and enrich children's learning experiences are lost.

For many years, schoolchildren in the US have been taken on 'field trips’ to cultural institutions and historical sites. Despite these trips involving some expense and disruption to class timetables, educators arrange them in the belief that schools exist not only to teach economically useful skills, but also to produce civilised young people who appreciate the arts and culture. However, there have been increasing signs in recent years that the attitude towards field trips is changing, with a significant decrease in the number of tours organised for school groups. A survey carried out by a group of school administrators found that over half the schools they asked had decided to cancel trips planned for the next academic year. So what are the reasons for this change? The most obvious one is the issue of finance. Because there are increasing demands on their funds, schools are forced to make a difficult choice about how to spend the limited money they have. Field trips are an obvious thing to cut since they are seen by many as a luxury. A large number of school heads also consider days spent away from school a waste of time, believing that the only worthwhile use of students' time is spent preparing for exams in the classroom. But why should anybody worry if schoolchildren go on fewer trips? Those that believe this is a negative development in education would say that cultural field trips contribute to the development of students into well-educated adults who have a healthy interest in history and the arts. Researchers warn that if schools cut field trips, then valuable opportunities to broaden and enrich children's learning experiences are lost.

For many years, schoolchildren in the US have been taken on 'field trips’ to cultural institutions and historical sites. Despite these trips involving some expense and disruption to class timetables, educators arrange them in the belief that schools exist not only to teach economically useful skills, but also to produce civilised young people who appreciate the arts and culture. However, there have been increasing signs in recent years that the attitude towards field trips is changing, with a significant decrease in the number of tours organised for school groups. A survey carried out by a group of school administrators found that over half the schools they asked had decided to cancel trips planned for the next academic year. So what are the reasons for this change? The most obvious one is the issue of finance. Because there are increasing demands on their funds, schools are forced to make a difficult choice about how to spend the limited money they have. Field trips are an obvious thing to cut since they are seen by many as a luxury. A large number of school heads also consider days spent away from school a waste of time, believing that the only worthwhile use of students' time is spent preparing for exams in the classroom. But why should anybody worry if schoolchildren go on fewer trips? Those that believe this is a negative development in education would say that cultural field trips contribute to the development of students into well-educated adults who have a healthy interest in history and the arts. Researchers warn that if schools cut field trips, then valuable opportunities to broaden and enrich children's learning experiences are lost.

I have not paid a single electricity bill since the year 1970, says Richard Perez with noticeable glee. He can afford to be smug. He lives off-grid - unconnected to the power grid and the water, gas and sewerage supplies that most people in the world rely on. He generates his own electricity, sources his own water and deals with his own waste disposal - and he prefers it that way. There are times when the grid blacks out, he says. I really like the security of having my own electricity company. Perez is not alone. Once the preserve of mavericks, hippies and survivalists, there are now approximately 200,000 off-grid households in the United States of America, a figure that Perez says has been increasing by a third every year for the past decade. For all of the people who live off-grid, self-sufficiency means guilt-free energy consumption and peace of mind. It feels brilliant to make use of clean, free energy that is not from fossil fuels, says Suzanne Galant, a writer who lives off-grid in a rural area in Wales. And if something goes wrong, we can fix it ourselves. Now even urbanites are seeing the appeal of generating some if not all of their own power needs. So is energy freedom an eco pipe-dream or the ultimate good life? Well, there is only one way to find out: begin to explore the possibilities of solar, wind or hydro power. But unless you live on a sunny, south-facing hillside with access to a nearby river or stream, that might prove prohibitively expensive! There is no doubt that being off-grid has its problems, and it is not always the cheapest way to get the energy you need. Even so, pioneers like Perez have proved that it can be done, and without giving up a 21-century lifestyle: I have got five personal computers, two laser scanners, two fridge-freezers, a microwave, a convection oven, vacuum cleaners - you name it, says Perez There is an external beam antenna on the roof for the phone and a satellite dish for an Internet connection. I have got 70 kWh in batteries that could last me five days. I have too much electricity. Too much electricity and no more bills. That has got to be worth aiming for.

I have not paid a single electricity bill since the year 1970, says Richard Perez with noticeable glee. He can afford to be smug. He lives off-grid - unconnected to the power grid and the water, gas and sewerage supplies that most people in the world rely on. He generates his own electricity, sources his own water and deals with his own waste disposal - and he prefers it that way. There are times when the grid blacks out, he says. I really like the security of having my own electricity company. Perez is not alone. Once the preserve of mavericks, hippies and survivalists, there are now approximately 200,000 off-grid households in the United States of America, a figure that Perez says has been increasing by a third every year for the past decade. For all of the people who live off-grid, self-sufficiency means guilt-free energy consumption and peace of mind. It feels brilliant to make use of clean, free energy that is not from fossil fuels, says Suzanne Galant, a writer who lives off-grid in a rural area in Wales. And if something goes wrong, we can fix it ourselves. Now even urbanites are seeing the appeal of generating some if not all of their own power needs. So is energy freedom an eco pipe-dream or the ultimate good life? Well, there is only one way to find out: begin to explore the possibilities of solar, wind or hydro power. But unless you live on a sunny, south-facing hillside with access to a nearby river or stream, that might prove prohibitively expensive! There is no doubt that being off-grid has its problems, and it is not always the cheapest way to get the energy you need. Even so, pioneers like Perez have proved that it can be done, and without giving up a 21-century lifestyle: I have got five personal computers, two laser scanners, two fridge-freezers, a microwave, a convection oven, vacuum cleaners - you name it, says Perez There is an external beam antenna on the roof for the phone and a satellite dish for an Internet connection. I have got 70 kWh in batteries that could last me five days. I have too much electricity. Too much electricity and no more bills. That has got to be worth aiming for.

I have not paid a single electricity bill since the year 1970, says Richard Perez with noticeable glee. He can afford to be smug. He lives off-grid - unconnected to the power grid and the water, gas and sewerage supplies that most people in the world rely on. He generates his own electricity, sources his own water and deals with his own waste disposal - and he prefers it that way. There are times when the grid blacks out, he says. I really like the security of having my own electricity company. Perez is not alone. Once the preserve of mavericks, hippies and survivalists, there are now approximately 200,000 off-grid households in the United States of America, a figure that Perez says has been increasing by a third every year for the past decade. For all of the people who live off-grid, self-sufficiency means guilt-free energy consumption and peace of mind. It feels brilliant to make use of clean, free energy that is not from fossil fuels, says Suzanne Galant, a writer who lives off-grid in a rural area in Wales. And if something goes wrong, we can fix it ourselves. Now even urbanites are seeing the appeal of generating some if not all of their own power needs. So is energy freedom an eco pipe-dream or the ultimate good life? Well, there is only one way to find out: begin to explore the possibilities of solar, wind or hydro power. But unless you live on a sunny, south-facing hillside with access to a nearby river or stream, that might prove prohibitively expensive! There is no doubt that being off-grid has its problems, and it is not always the cheapest way to get the energy you need. Even so, pioneers like Perez have proved that it can be done, and without giving up a 21-century lifestyle: I have got five personal computers, two laser scanners, two fridge-freezers, a microwave, a convection oven, vacuum cleaners - you name it, says Perez There is an external beam antenna on the roof for the phone and a satellite dish for an Internet connection. I have got 70 kWh in batteries that could last me five days. I have too much electricity. Too much electricity and no more bills. That has got to be worth aiming for.

I have not paid a single electricity bill since the year 1970, says Richard Perez with noticeable glee. He can afford to be smug. He lives off-grid - unconnected to the power grid and the water, gas and sewerage supplies that most people in the world rely on. He generates his own electricity, sources his own water and deals with his own waste disposal - and he prefers it that way. There are times when the grid blacks out, he says. I really like the security of having my own electricity company. Perez is not alone. Once the preserve of mavericks, hippies and survivalists, there are now approximately 200,000 off-grid households in the United States of America, a figure that Perez says has been increasing by a third every year for the past decade. For all of the people who live off-grid, self-sufficiency means guilt-free energy consumption and peace of mind. It feels brilliant to make use of clean, free energy that is not from fossil fuels, says Suzanne Galant, a writer who lives off-grid in a rural area in Wales. And if something goes wrong, we can fix it ourselves. Now even urbanites are seeing the appeal of generating some if not all of their own power needs. So is energy freedom an eco pipe-dream or the ultimate good life? Well, there is only one way to find out: begin to explore the possibilities of solar, wind or hydro power. But unless you live on a sunny, south-facing hillside with access to a nearby river or stream, that might prove prohibitively expensive! There is no doubt that being off-grid has its problems, and it is not always the cheapest way to get the energy you need. Even so, pioneers like Perez have proved that it can be done, and without giving up a 21-century lifestyle: I have got five personal computers, two laser scanners, two fridge-freezers, a microwave, a convection oven, vacuum cleaners - you name it, says Perez There is an external beam antenna on the roof for the phone and a satellite dish for an Internet connection. I have got 70 kWh in batteries that could last me five days. I have too much electricity. Too much electricity and no more bills. That has got to be worth aiming for.

I have not paid a single electricity bill since the year 1970, says Richard Perez with noticeable glee. He can afford to be smug. He lives off-grid - unconnected to the power grid and the water, gas and sewerage supplies that most people in the world rely on. He generates his own electricity, sources his own water and deals with his own waste disposal - and he prefers it that way. There are times when the grid blacks out, he says. I really like the security of having my own electricity company. Perez is not alone. Once the preserve of mavericks, hippies and survivalists, there are now approximately 200,000 off-grid households in the United States of America, a figure that Perez says has been increasing by a third every year for the past decade. For all of the people who live off-grid, self-sufficiency means guilt-free energy consumption and peace of mind. It feels brilliant to make use of clean, free energy that is not from fossil fuels, says Suzanne Galant, a writer who lives off-grid in a rural area in Wales. And if something goes wrong, we can fix it ourselves. Now even urbanites are seeing the appeal of generating some if not all of their own power needs. So is energy freedom an eco pipe-dream or the ultimate good life? Well, there is only one way to find out: begin to explore the possibilities of solar, wind or hydro power. But unless you live on a sunny, south-facing hillside with access to a nearby river or stream, that might prove prohibitively expensive! There is no doubt that being off-grid has its problems, and it is not always the cheapest way to get the energy you need. Even so, pioneers like Perez have proved that it can be done, and without giving up a 21-century lifestyle: I have got five personal computers, two laser scanners, two fridge-freezers, a microwave, a convection oven, vacuum cleaners - you name it, says Perez There is an external beam antenna on the roof for the phone and a satellite dish for an Internet connection. I have got 70 kWh in batteries that could last me five days. I have too much electricity. Too much electricity and no more bills. That has got to be worth aiming for.

I have not paid a single electricity bill since the year 1970, says Richard Perez with noticeable glee. He can afford to be smug. He lives off-grid - unconnected to the power grid and the water, gas and sewerage supplies that most people in the world rely on. He generates his own electricity, sources his own water and deals with his own waste disposal - and he prefers it that way. There are times when the grid blacks out, he says. I really like the security of having my own electricity company. Perez is not alone. Once the preserve of mavericks, hippies and survivalists, there are now approximately 200,000 off-grid households in the United States of America, a figure that Perez says has been increasing by a third every year for the past decade. For all of the people who live off-grid, self-sufficiency means guilt-free energy consumption and peace of mind. It feels brilliant to make use of clean, free energy that is not from fossil fuels, says Suzanne Galant, a writer who lives off-grid in a rural area in Wales. And if something goes wrong, we can fix it ourselves. Now even urbanites are seeing the appeal of generating some if not all of their own power needs. So is energy freedom an eco pipe-dream or the ultimate good life? Well, there is only one way to find out: begin to explore the possibilities of solar, wind or hydro power. But unless you live on a sunny, south-facing hillside with access to a nearby river or stream, that might prove prohibitively expensive! There is no doubt that being off-grid has its problems, and it is not always the cheapest way to get the energy you need. Even so, pioneers like Perez have proved that it can be done, and without giving up a 21-century lifestyle: I have got five personal computers, two laser scanners, two fridge-freezers, a microwave, a convection oven, vacuum cleaners - you name it, says Perez There is an external beam antenna on the roof for the phone and a satellite dish for an Internet connection. I have got 70 kWh in batteries that could last me five days. I have too much electricity. Too much electricity and no more bills. That has got to be worth aiming for.

I have not paid a single electricity bill since the year 1970, says Richard Perez with noticeable glee. He can afford to be smug. He lives off-grid - unconnected to the power grid and the water, gas and sewerage supplies that most people in the world rely on. He generates his own electricity, sources his own water and deals with his own waste disposal - and he prefers it that way. There are times when the grid blacks out, he says. I really like the security of having my own electricity company. Perez is not alone. Once the preserve of mavericks, hippies and survivalists, there are now approximately 200,000 off-grid households in the United States of America, a figure that Perez says has been increasing by a third every year for the past decade. For all of the people who live off-grid, self-sufficiency means guilt-free energy consumption and peace of mind. It feels brilliant to make use of clean, free energy that is not from fossil fuels, says Suzanne Galant, a writer who lives off-grid in a rural area in Wales. And if something goes wrong, we can fix it ourselves. Now even urbanites are seeing the appeal of generating some if not all of their own power needs. So is energy freedom an eco pipe-dream or the ultimate good life? Well, there is only one way to find out: begin to explore the possibilities of solar, wind or hydro power. But unless you live on a sunny, south-facing hillside with access to a nearby river or stream, that might prove prohibitively expensive! There is no doubt that being off-grid has its problems, and it is not always the cheapest way to get the energy you need. Even so, pioneers like Perez have proved that it can be done, and without giving up a 21-century lifestyle: I have got five personal computers, two laser scanners, two fridge-freezers, a microwave, a convection oven, vacuum cleaners - you name it, says Perez There is an external beam antenna on the roof for the phone and a satellite dish for an Internet connection. I have got 70 kWh in batteries that could last me five days. I have too much electricity. Too much electricity and no more bills. That has got to be worth aiming for.