In older vehicles, what is the first step to resetting a maintenance reminder light?

Press the ODO/TRIP button until you get to TRIP A or B

Where do you reset the maintenance reminder in newer vehicles?

Pressing and holding the ODO/TRIP button

In older vehicles, after you have turned the car off, what is the next step?

Press the start button twice without your foot on the brake

Press the start button once without your foot on the brake

How to Reset a Maintenance Reminder Light

Classroom Expectations and Policies Assessment 1. What should students bring to class every day? a. Only a positive attitude b. Charged Chromebook, writing utensil, and positive attitude c. Just their books d. Snacks and drinks 2. What is the consequence for bullying in the classroom? a. A warning b. A violation card c. Extra homework d. A meeting with the principal 3. If a student breaks a personal item, what must they do? a. Ignore it b. Apologize c. Buy a new one for the teacher d. Ask for forgiveness 4. How should students handle using the futon during class? a. Sit on it every day b. Use it without asking c. Ask first and only use it during work time d. Sit on it during lectures 5. Where will all assignments be posted? a. On the classroom wall b. On Canvas c. Only verbally d. In a textbook 6. What happens if an assignment is submitted late? a. It will be graded normally b. It will not be accepted c. It will drop a letter grade each day it is late d. It will be given extra credit 7. After how many days of lateness will a student receive only half credit for an assignment? a. 1 day b. 2 days c. 3 days d. 4 days 8. What is the policy for retaking tests? a. No retakes allowed b. Students must schedule the retake themselves c. Retakes are given automatically d. Only the teacher can decide on retakes 9. What constitutes cheating in this classroom? a. Asking for help b. Claiming credit for someone else's work c. Working with a partner d. Participating in study groups 10. What is the penalty for cheating? a. A warning b. A failing grade on the assignment and notification of parents c. Extra assignments d. A detention 11. How will grades be determined? a. By participation only b. By points, with tests and quizzes weighted more than classwork c. By effort d. By attendance 12. Where can students use their cell phones? a. In class anytime b. In the commons and hallways during passing time and lunch c. In the restroom d. In the cafeteria only 13. What happens if a student uses their phone during class? a. They will receive a warning b. The phone will be confiscated immediately c. They can keep it if they ask d. They will lose points on their grade 14. What should a student do if they know they will be absent? a. Ignore it and hope for the best b. Come to the teacher at least three days before c. Ask a friend for notes d. Just show up later 15. If a student is sick and cannot do work, what should they focus on? a. Completing all missed assignments b. Getting better c. Emailing the teacher every hour d. Asking for extra credit 16. What is the policy on bringing food or drinks to class? a. It's not allowed at all b. It’s allowed as long as it’s not a distraction c. Only water is allowed d. Students must share their food 17. How should students contact the teacher with questions? a. Only during class time b. Through social media c. By email or in person d. By sending a friend 18. What happens if a student emails after 9 PM? a. The teacher will respond immediately b. The teacher will respond the next day at 7:45 AM c. The email will be ignored d. The teacher will call the student 19. How do violations accumulate for cell phone use? a. They reset every trimester b. They accumulate throughout the school year c. They reset every week d. They do not count 20. What should students do if they have concerns while the teacher is on maternity leave? a. Contact the principal b. Contact the substitute teacher for assistance c. Wait until the teacher returns d. Handle it on their own Answer Key (Always review AI generated answers for accuracy - Math is more likely to be inaccurate) b. Charged Chromebook, writing utensil, and positive attitude b. A violation card c. Buy a new one for the teacher c. Ask first and only use it during work time b. On Canvas c. It will drop a letter grade each day it is late c. 3 days b. Students must schedule the retake themselves b. Claiming credit for someone else's work b. A failing grade on the assignment and notification of parents b. By points, with tests and quizzes weighted more than classwork b. In the commons and hallways during passing time and lunch b. The phone will be confiscated immediately b. Come to the teacher at least three days before b. Getting better b. It’s allowed as long as it’s not a distraction c. By email or in person b. The teacher will respond the next day at 7:45 AM b. They accumulate throughout the school year b. Contact the substitute teacher for assistance

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

Land warfare is a complex domain that involves the application of military power on the ground to achieve political and strategic objectives. Modern military doctrine, such as that used by the U.S. Army and the Indian Army, categorizes these elements into Combat Power and the Principles of War. 1. The 8 Elements of Combat Power Combat power is the total means of destructive, constructive, and information capabilities that a military unit can apply. It is typically broken down into eight key elements: ElementDescriptionLeadershipThe "multiplier" of all other elements. It provides purpose, direction, and motivation to soldiers.InformationEnables commanders to make informed decisions and creates opportunities to achieve results.Mission CommandThe system used to integrate the other elements. It focuses on decentralized execution based on the commander's intent.Movement & ManeuverThe movement of forces to gain a positional advantage over the enemy to deliver lethal or non-lethal effects.IntelligenceThe understanding of the enemy, terrain, weather, and civil considerations.FiresThe use of weapon systems (artillery, mortars, air support) to create specific lethal or non-lethal effects.SustainmentThe logistics required to maintain operations, including ammunition, fuel, food, and medical support.ProtectionThe preservation of the force so that the commander can apply maximum combat power.2. The Principles of War These are the enduring "rules of thumb" that guide how land forces are employed strategically and tactically: Objective: Direct every operation toward a clearly defined and attainable goal. Offensive: Seize, retain, and exploit the initiative. You cannot win by defending alone. Mass: Concentrate the effects of combat power at the most advantageous place and time. Economy of Force: Allocate the minimum essential combat power to secondary efforts so you can "mass" elsewhere. Maneuver: Place the enemy in a position of disadvantage through flexible movement. Unity of Command: Ensure all forces operate under a single responsible commander toward a common objective. Security: Prevent the enemy from gaining an unexpected advantage. Surprise: Strike the enemy at a time, place, or in a manner for which they are unprepared. Simplicity: Prepare clear, uncomplicated plans to minimize confusion in the "fog of war." 3. The Modern Legal Framework Land warfare is also governed by the Law of Land Warfare (International Humanitarian Law), which rests on four pillars: Military Necessity: Actions must be necessary to achieve a legitimate military goal. Distinction: Forces must distinguish between combatants and non-combatants (civilians). Proportionality: The anticipated harm to civilians must not be excessive in relation to the concrete military advantage gained. Unnecessary Suffering: Weapons and methods must not cause gratuitous or superfluous injury. Note: Contemporary land warfare is increasingly "Multi-Domain," meaning land forces must now integrate with cyber, space, and electronic warfare to be effective. , While land warfare uses many tools, the two primary "philosophies" of how to win a war are Attrition and Maneuver. Most modern conflicts are a spectrum of both, but understanding the pure form of each helps explain military strategy. 1. Attrition Warfare: The "Sledgehammer" Attrition warfare is a strategy where one side attempts to win by wearing down the enemy to the point of collapse through continuous losses in personnel, equipment, and supplies. Core Logic: "I have more than you." It assumes that if you can destroy the enemy’s resources faster than they can replace them, you will eventually win. Focus: Firepower and mass. Success is measured by "body counts," equipment destroyed, and the steady seizing of terrain. Command Style: Usually centralized and methodical. It requires strict synchronization of massive resources (artillery, logistics, manpower). Historical Example: The Battle of Verdun (WWI). German Chief of Staff Erich von Falkenhayn famously stated his goal was to "bleed France white" by forcing them to defend a position they could not afford to lose, regardless of the cost in lives. 2. Maneuver Warfare: The "Scalpel" Maneuver warfare seeks to shatter the enemy’s moral and physical cohesion—their ability to act as a unified force—rather than simply destroying every soldier. Core Logic: "I am faster and more unpredictable than you." It aims to create a state of chaos where the enemy's leadership can no longer make effective decisions. Focus: Speed, surprise, and dislocation (forcing the enemy to be in the wrong place at the wrong time). The OODA Loop: Developed by Col. John Boyd, this is the heart of maneuver theory. It stands for Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. The goal is to cycle through these steps faster than the enemy, essentially "getting inside" their decision-making process until they collapse from confusion. Historical Example: The 1940 Invasion of France (Blitzkrieg). Instead of fighting a line-by-line battle of attrition, German forces used speed and concentrated armor to bypass strongpoints, cut communication lines, and cause a total systemic collapse of the French military in weeks. 3. Key Differences at a Glance FeatureAttrition WarfareManeuver WarfareObjectivePhysical destruction of the enemy army.Functional/Psychological collapse of the enemy.TargetThe enemy's strength (mass).The enemy's weakness (vulnerability).Primary ToolMassed Firepower.Movement and Tempo.Command"Command Push" (Top-down, rigid)."Recon Pull" (Decentralized, flexible).Success MetricExchange ratios (Kill counts).Disruption and loss of enemy control.4. The Modern Synthesis: "Schwerpunkt" In practice, no army is purely "maneuver" or "attrition." To maneuver successfully, you often need a period of attrition to punch a hole in the enemy's line. A critical concept here is the Schwerpunkt (Center of Gravity/Focus of Effort). A commander identifies the single most important place to strike and concentrates all available "elements of power" there. While the rest of the front might look like attrition, the Schwerpunkt is where the maneuver happens to achieve a breakthrough. Modern Reality: In high-intensity conflicts today (like the war in Ukraine), we see a "return to attrition" because modern sensors (drones, satellites) make it very difficult to achieve the surprise needed for pure maneuver warfare. When you can see everything, it's hard to be "unexpected."

Personality development means developing positive characteristics among individuals. Positive characteristics of an individual include:  Obedience – Learn how to follow family as well as school regulations and decisions made for your own good. If young children like Something to read: Home Economics and Livelihood Education 7 Seibo College 5 you, can learn how to obey your elders then there will always be peaceful and happy relationship around.  CourtesyBeing courteous means to be respectful. Polite behavior must be something you must observe anywhere, every time.  Cleanliness and Orderliness – It means practicing good health and good grooming habits everyday.  Understanding – To be in another’s shoes is to be in the same place as what others are experiencing through life. One must be very careful about what others may feel so be tactful and develop sensitivity towards their needs.  Friendly – It is necessary that growing child like you to possess a good attitude in dealing with others. Develop a fine character and talk in such a manner that others will realize what admirable qualities you do possess. Home Economics and Livelihood Education 7 Seibo College 6 Becoming friendly means getting along well with each other. As you grow up, it is important to be able to meet and be acquainted other people. Sometimes. you will meet people who for some reason won’t like you. Understanding other’s feeling and emotion will make it possible to become the kind of person whom most people enjoy being with. It will help you become good natured and considerate to others. The following are guidelines for you to follow in order to develop your positive characteristics.  be sensitive of other’s need.  be genuinely concern with others.  be thoughtful and pleasant.  listen when others are talking.  make them feel important. More effective way of being likeable can be summed up by the Golden Rule which says “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” Do you want to be treated kindly? Then, follow the golden rule so that your relationship with others will be at its best. Your personality is influenced by many factors; however the most influential are heredity and environment. What is heredity? Heredity is the transmission of physical and mental traits from parents to offspring. The table below will identify your inherited traits and abilities: Home Economics and Livelihood Education 7 Seibo College 7 Here are some inherited physical features and traits from your mother and father. Physical Features Intelligence and mental ability Personal disposition - blood type - power to think - manner of thinking - body structure - power to learn - manner of feeling - color of skin/eyes - power to understand - manner of acting - color and texture of hair - power to do something What is environment? Home Economics and Livelihood Education 7 Seibo College 8 Your environment provides you with experiences, conditions, and influences that mold your personality. These are the people around you, your school, community, as well as the things that surround you that affect your personality. The people who will most likely affect your personality ,are your friends or peers, their manner of thinking and behaving will be sooner or later, the same as your manner and behavior as well. The things you use everyday like your personal computer, cell phone will also have an impact on your personality. Always remember to be yourself and do not pretend to be somebody you are not. Act according to your age and do not copy the identity of other person. Otherwise, you may become an individual that you and other person may not like. Understand yourself and do something to improve your personality. It is always necessary to practice good health habits as follows:  eat the right kind of food.  have a regular exercise.  have enough sleep and rest. Observe good grooming habits as well:  maintain cleanliness and neatness.  wear appropriate clothes.  observe good posture. Home Economics and Livelihood Education 7 Seibo College 9 If you understand our lesson well, you can now proceed to the next activities But if you have any questions, you can ask your le

Growing up in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, a small city surrounded by endless plains, I've found unexpected echoes of home in China's smaller towns — from the warmth of locals in Huaihua, Central China's Hunan province, to the quiet charm of Yangshuo, South China's Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region. With an itch to see more of China's lesser-visited regions, I began planning a trip to the northwest with seven friends — five Americans, one Pakistani, one Zimbabwean, and one Colombian. We bought round-trip tickets from Shanghai to Yinchuan, Ningxia Hui autonomous region, for less than $120 each. From there, we planned to rent a car and drive to Xining in Qinghai, then on to Qinghai Lake, and finally to Lanzhou, Gansu. To make that possible, several of us applied for Chinese driver's licenses, a process that involved translating our US licenses into Mandarin and passing a short test on traffic laws. Within a day, we were licensed. As we piled into two rental cars in late March to begin our eight-day journey, it became clear that this wasn't just a road trip — it was the culmination of our four years in China, the Mandarin we had so diligently studied, and our ongoing effort to contribute to US-China people-to-people relations. Right away, we drew curious reactions. At the Yinchuan airport, taxi drivers offered us rides into the city, only to stare in astonishment when we told them we had rented cars. "You're driving? In China?" one driver asked, visibly surprised. It was a reaction we'd encountered multiple times during our trip, as foreign drivers are rare in China, especially in remote regions. In Yinchuan, we stocked up on snacks and adjusted to the chilly desert air. From there, we headed west, navigating wide highways framed by dramatic landscapes: arid plains, jagged mountains, and occasionally, a herd of sheep crossing the road. The vastness of the Northwest was humbling — and as someone who grew up on the wide-open prairies of South Dakota, it felt oddly familiar. One of the highlights of our trip was camping by Qinghai Lake, the largest saltwater lake in China. A few summers ago, Santiago Solano, one of my classmates from the US, cycled from Xi'an in Shaanxi to Urumqi in the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region over the course of a month and met many kind strangers along the way. One of them was Geng San, a Tibetan lamb herder who managed a piece of land right next to Qinghai Lake and graciously invited us to camp there. "That's what China is — it's the people. The quiet generosity of an old Tibetan nomad who, years after we first met, still offered us a place to rest on his land," said Solano, who is also part of the group on this trip. But apparently, we underestimated just how cold it would be to camp next to Qinghai Lake in late March. It was deathly freezing. In preparation for the trip, we had ordered two tent kits and eight sleeping bags. However, when the temperature eventually dropped to — 10 C, all of us piled into the cars and turned the heaters on. So much for camping. From Qinghai Lake, we drove to Lanzhou, where we visited many food markets and tried every type of noodle on offer. Since we are college students, we rented a gaming hotel room — something I've only ever seen in China. At night, instead of attending local parties as we had before, we stayed in the hotel and gamed late into the morning. For me, the trip was as much about the journey as it was about the destinations. Driving through Northwest China gave us a unique perspective on the region's natural beauty and its people. At gas stations, shopkeepers greeted us with curiosity and kindness, often offering recommendations for nearby attractions. At roadside carts, we sampled local specialties, grabbing a quick skewer and a mango for the road. And at every stop, we were touched by the warmth and hospitality that make traveling in China so rewarding. As an American who has lived in China for several years, I'm often asked about my experiences here. Trips like this one remind me of the similarities between the two countries, despite their differences. Just as road trips are a quintessential part of American culture, they've become my favorite way to explore China. Whether it's driving through the rolling hills of South Dakota or the deserts of Ningxia, there's something universal about the freedom and camaraderie that come with having complete control over where you end up. Written by Charlie Howes, a 22-year-old American who has lived in China since 2019. He completed his final year of high school at Beijing No 80 High School and is currently studying at New York University Shanghai. He has founded a company in China focused on facilitating US-China trade and plans to continue living in Shanghai long term. He enjoys road trips, cycling around the world, learning languages, and meeting new people.

During daytime, the sky is bright and clear because the sun shines bright. We can see clouds, the sun and sometimes there is a rainbow. The sun is the nearest and brightest star on earth, the reason why we don’t see stars during daytime because the sun overpowers the weak lights of the stars. Do you know that the sun changes its position at different time of the day? Yes, early in the morning we can see the sun rising at the East. At this time of the day our surroundings is bright but not very hot, this is the reason why many children especially new born are placed under the sun because the light coming from the sun is good for them. At noontime the sun is overhead. It is very hot at this time of the day. This is the reason why it is not advisable for us to go outside. In the afternoon, we can see the sun setting at the West part of the sky. It is said that this the best time for the children to play outside because the sky s less bright and the temperature is cooler. SCIENCE 2 – MODULE 10 SEIBO COLLEGE 5 It is during daytime we do our chores, like cleaning the house, washing clothes, going to school or office and play. What do you think the reason why we do all these things during daytime? Now, close your eyes then imagine it is nighttime already. What can you see in the sky? Open your eyes then observe the picture below. Can you see these? Very good! You can see the moon and the stars. Sometimes you can see shooting stars or falling stars. At nighttime, we can not see the sun because it is already dark, we can only see the moon and the stars twinkling in the sky. Since there is no sun at night, the temperature is cooler. This is also the best time for us to rest and sleep. Do you know that the moon doesn’t have its own light? Yes, the moon only reflects the light from the sun. Do you now understand the difference of daytime from nighttime? Very good! But the question is how and why do we experience day and night? We experience day and night because the earth is moving around its axis. This movement is called rotation. SCIENCE 2 – MODULE 10 SEIBO COLLEGE 6 When the earth continuously rotates on its axis, part of it faces the sun and the other part is dark. The part of the earth that faces the sun experience daytime and the other part that is dark experience nighttime.

Related quizzes

Related quizzes