Parts of a computer only monitor, mouse and keyboard

Of the 7 billion people on Earth roughly 0:02 6 billion own a cell phone which is 0:05 pretty shocking given that only 4 and2 0:07 billion have access to a working toilet 0:09 so how are these popular gadgets 0:11 changing your body and brain If you're 0:13 looking down at your phone right now 0:15 your spine angle is equivalent to that 0:17 of an 8-year-old child sitting on your 0:19 neck which is fairly significant 0:21 considering people spend an average of 0:23 4.7 hours a day looking at their phone 0:26 this combined with the length of time 0:28 spent in front of computers has led to 0:30 an increase in the prevalence of myopia 0:32 or nearsightedness in North America in 0:34 the 1970s about one quar of the 0:36 population had myopia where today nearly 0:39 half do and in some parts of Asia 80 to 0:41 90% of the population is now nearsighted 0:44 and it can be hard to put your phone 0:46 down take for example the game Candy 0:48 Crush as you play the game you achieve 0:50 small goals causing your brain to be 0:52 rewarded with little bursts of dopamine 0:54 and eventually you're rewarded in the 0:56 game with new content this novelty also 0:58 gives little bursts of dopamine and 1:00 together create what is known as a 1:01 compulsion Loop which just happens to be 1:04 the same Loop responsible for the 1:05 behaviors associated with nicotine or 1:07 cocaine our brains are hardwired to make 1:10 us novelty seeking and this is why apps 1:12 on our phones are designed to constantly 1:14 provide us with new content making them 1:16 hard to put down as a result 93% of 1:19 young people aged 18 to 29 report using 1:21 their smartphone as a tool to avoid 1:23 boredom as opposed to other activities 1:26 like reading a book or engaging with 1:27 people around them this has created a 1:29 new term nomophobia the fear or anxiety 1:32 of being without your phone we also see 1:35 a change in brain patterns Alpha rhythms 1:37 are commonly associated with wakeful 1:39 relaxation like when your mind wanders 1:41 off whereas gamma waves are associated 1:44 with conscious attentiveness and 1:46 experiments have shown that when a cell 1:47 phone is transmitting say during a phone 1:49 call the power of these Alpha Waves is 1:52 significantly boosted meaning phone 1:54 Transmissions can literally change the 1:56 way your brain functions your smartphone 1:58 can also disrupt your sleep the screen 2:00 emits a blue light which has been shown 2:02 to alter our circadian rhythms 2:03 diminishing the time spent in deep Sleep 2:06 which is linked to the development of 2:07 diabetes cancer and obesity Studies have 2:10 shown that people who read on their 2:11 smartphone at night have a harder time 2:13 falling asleep and produce less 2:15 melatonin a hormone responsible for the 2:17 regulation of sleep wake Cycles Harvard 2:20 medical school advises the last 2 to 3 2:22 hours before bed be technology free so 2:24 pick up a book before bed instead of 2:26 course smartphones also completely 2:28 change our ability to access information 2:30 most notably in poor and minority 2:32 populations 7% of Americans are entirely 2:35 dependent on smartphones for their 2:37 access to the internet a 2014 study 2:40 found that the majority of smartphone 2:41 owners use their phone for online 2:43 banking to look up medical information 2:45 and searching for jobs so while phones 2:47 are in no way exclusively bad and have 2:50 been part of a positive change in the 2:51 world there's no denying that they are 2:53 changing us but many successful people 2:56 have now decided to take smartphone 2:58 vacations in order to increase 3:00 productivity in our new ASAP thought 3:01 video we break down the top six reasons 3:04 you should take a smartphone vacation 3:06 and how it could benefit your life right 3:08 now and subscribe for more weekly 3:09 science videos

TECH FREE! by Sam Winton Have you ever wondered what it would be like to give up technology? I'm a TV journalist and I spend a lot of my working life in front of a computer or a TV. I decided to conduct my own private experiment: I would spend a day trying to manage without technological devices. What a scary thought! The first thing I usually do every day is reach for my smartphone to check the time and read any messages or emails. But I'd locked it away in a drawer the night before. Already I was feeling very cut off from the world, and it was only... actually, I had no idea what time it was! After breakfast, I needed to get some cash. Inevitably, this meant a trip to the bank because cash points are technological devices. I had to queue, but I had a very nice conversation with a woman whilst I was waiting. Not surprisingly, the bank teller thought I was a bit strange withdrawing money this way. I think she thought I was a robber! Then it was on to the supermarket. You may be wondering what's technological about that. Well, I had to make sure I avoided the self-service check-out and joined the queue for a normal one - with a real person. Naturally, it took longer, but I had a great chat with the guy who served me, and he told me about a new club that is opening up nearby. Would I have found out about that if I'd gone to the self- service check-out? No. Afterwards, I came home to have a go at writing a news story by hand. Strangely, I found it easier to concentrate on my writing. But my hand and fingers got really sore! And I have to confess - by this stage, I was having to make a real effort not to get my phone out and check my messages. I was starting to wonder what my friends were doing. Maybe they were making plans to go to that new club, and I would never know! All in all, I wouldn't say I could live without technology. Predictably, I really missed my phone all day. The worst part was not being able to check updates in the news or from my friends. I felt very out of touch. However, I kept to my promise of a tech-free day and I did have more face-to-face interaction. Undoubtedly, it made me realise just how addicted to technology we all are.

“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.

Here’s a **quiz on Lesson 1: Introduction to Analog Communication (Unit 8)** based on your file 👇 --- # 🧠 **Quiz – Lesson 1 (Analog Communication)** **Marks:** 20 --- ## ✍️ **Part 1: Choose the correct answer (8 marks)** 1. A signal is: a) A device b) A physical quantity that carries information c) A type of wire d) A computer 2. A continuous signal is defined over: a) Discrete values b) Infinite real values c) Only integers d) Binary values 3. Digital signals have: a) Infinite values b) Two values (0 and 1) c) Random values d) Analog values 4. Sampling is used to: a) Increase noise b) Convert analog to digital c) Amplify signals d) Reduce bandwidth 5. A deterministic signal: a) Cannot be predicted b) Has known values c) Is always random d) Has no pattern 6. Even signal satisfies: a) x(t) = -x(-t) b) x(t) = x(-t) c) x(t) = 0 d) x(t) ≠ x(-t) 7. Periodic signal repeats after: a) Time T b) Infinite time c) No time d) Random time 8. A system is: a) A signal only b) Input only c) Takes input and gives output d) A wire --- ## ✍️ **Part 2: Complete (6 marks)** 1. A signal can be represented as __________. 2. Continuous signals are defined over __________ values. 3. Digital signals take values like __________ and __________. 4. A random signal cannot be __________ easily. 5. Odd signal satisfies __________. 6. A periodic signal repeats every __________. --- ## ✍️ **Part 3: True or False (6 marks)** 1. Analog signals are continuous. ( ) 2. Digital signals can take infinite values. ( ) 3. Sampling converts analog to digital signal. ( ) 4. Deterministic signals are predictable. ( ) 5. Odd signals pass through origin. ( ) 6. Aperiodic signals repeat over time. ( ) --- ## 🎯 **Bonus Question (Optional)** Give one example of: * Analog signal * Digital signal -

What does the National Youth Theatre do? The National Youth Theatre organizes lots of exciting events. In 2006, the organization celebrated its 50th birthday. On the 10th of September, 2006, the members of the National Youth Theatre performed a show in Trafalgar Square, London. The show was on the same date as the National Youth Theatre's first play, fifty years before. The show started at midday, with a parade through the city to Trafalgar Square. Then about 1,500 young actors filled the square with lots of colourful and exciting performances. The smaller performances lasted until 8pm and then there was a final, special performance with amazing music and lights. The show was a great success. In 2007, the NYT started a special season called Generation ID Season. The members of the NYT worked on plays, films and even computer programs to show what life is like for young people today. The NYT does not only perform plays in the UK. The organization often travels to major cities in other countries to perform. The NYT has been to New York, Moscow, Paris, Berlin, Madrid and to lots of places in Holland and Norway. In 2008, the National Youth Theatre travelled to China and 25 members of the organization sang the British National Anthem to an audience of 91,000 at the Beijing Olympics. People all around the world watched their performance on television. This was a special performance because London will be the next city to hold the Olympic Games. Members of the NYT also performed Shakespeare's play, The Merchant of Venice, in Beijing.

Match the word to its synonym level B1 CEFR. Use the vocabulary exactly adverb precisely except that aside from exist verb to be real existing adjective real, current Example: Flying cars are not practical with existing technology. existence noun reality Example: The existence of black holes has been confirmed by indirect observation. extraordinary adjective unusual feature noun important part of something Example: The Ramon Crater is a unique feature of the Negev Desert. feedback noun reaction figure noun shape Example: I can’t tell if that figure in the shadows is a man or a woman. figure out verb understand Example: I just can’t figure out how the magician did that amazing trick. financial adjective related to money Example: Her family is having financial problems so they can’t travel overseas this year. finance verb pay for Example: If I can’t get a loan from the bank, I won’t be able to finance a new apartment. finance noun money Example: An expert in finance predicts a global recession. finding/findings noun discoveries; results of a study Example: According to the findings of the police investigation, this is the gun which fired the fatal bullet. flexibility noun willingness to change flexible adjective adjusts easily Example: I’d prefer to meet on Monday morning but I can be flexible depending upon your schedule. flood noun a lot of water flood verb to cover with too much water flu noun type of sickness focus on/upon verb pay attention to Example: You should focus on your schoolwork if you want to improve your grades. focus noun attention People with attention deficit disorder lose focus easily. frequency noun how often frequent adjective very often Example: Hanah is a frequent customer and everyone at the store knows her. fresh adjective new Example: We need some fresh ideas if we’re going to solve this problem. frighten verb scare from preposition position, starting point gain verb make an increase, profit, earn Example: I have nothing to gain by choosing sides so I shall remain neutral. gain noun profit, amount earned generate verb create, make Example: Chat GPT can generate text written in any style you choose. guidance noun help, advice hopeful adjective optimistic, having a positive outlook Example: The farmers are hopeful that we will have rain this winter. hopefully adjective with luck ideal adjective best, most preferable Example: Nuclear power may not be an ideal solution to global warming, but it’s certainly worth considering. illness noun sickness, disease illustrate verb draw pictures illustration noun picture, image Example: Children’s storybooks have colorful illustrations. image noun picture, especially on film or television Example: The mother of the pop singer cried when she first saw her daughter’s image on television. in preposition within, inside, into in terms of regarding Example: That company makes a great product but they’re lacking in terms of customer service. in actual fact in truth Example: The mayor says the city is a safe place to live, but in actual fact the violent crime rate is very high. in connection with about Example: Police arrested four men in connection with the robbery. in that case if that is true Example: Billy Bob: “Traffic could be heavy tomorrow.” Peggy Sue: “In that case, we better leave early.” in the meantime while, during Example: The new computers won’t arrive until next week, but we can keep using the old ones in the meantime. initial adjective first Example: Her initial reaction to that song was negative, but over time she’s come to like it. initially adverb at first instruction noun teaching, order Example: Most new electronic devices come with a set of instructions. intelligence noun smartness Example: Since you have a degree from a good university, I assume you have sufficient intelligence to understand this problem. intelligent adjective smart Example: Joe isn’t very intelligent, but he is a kind person with a warm heart. interest noun attraction Example: Yossi has little interest in politics, whereas his wife goes to all the protests and demonstrations. interest verb to attract Example: Sports don’t really interest me, but my brother is a big basketball fan. introduce verb to show something new Example: Today in class I will introduce the basic concepts of literary analysis. invest verb to put money into something in order to earn money Example: Joe invested in cryptocurrency and lost a lot of money. investor noun one who puts money into something in order to earn money Example: Venture capitalists are investors who put money into risky start-up businesses. investment noun putting money into something in order to earn money Example: Buying real estate in Israel is a very safe investment because the value never goes down. investigate verb research, study Example: The police collected evidence to investigate the murder. investigation noun study Example: The police don’t have a suspect for the murder as the investigation isn’t finished yet. investigator noun detective Example: Detective Schmendrick is the lead investigator for the murder case. just about almost Example: I’m just about done here so I’ll be there shortly. keep on doing verb continue Example: You’re crazy if you keep on doing the same thing and expect different results. kind of type of Example: What kind of dog is that, a poodle? knowledge noun awareness Example: John failed the test due to lack of knowledge of the material. lack verb not having, missing Example: John failed the test due to lack of knowledge of the material. landscape noun the view of the land likely adjective, adverb probably Example: When we learn from our mistakes, we’re not likely to forget. limited adjective restricted Example: We should go to the store today because the sale is for a limited time only. limitation noun restriction little adjective small, not a lot Example: She always tells the truth. I have little reason to doubt her. look at verb see Example: People used to read newspapers on the train. Nowadays they just look at their phones. low adverb to a small amount or level Example: I have to charge my phone because the battery is running low. material noun documents, information Example: We have a lot of material to cover before the end of the semester. meaning noun significance mean verb to have significance or purpose means noun form of, by the use of Example: They communicate by means of radio. measure noun step Example: The teacher took measures to prevent cheating during the test mention verb to say, point out Example: The coach said the team played very well today but didn’t mention any player specifically. miss verb (1) fail to catch (2) wishing to see somebody Examples: (1) The football player kicked the ball but missed the goal. (2) Wow, it’s good to see you! I’ve missed you so much! misunderstand verb understand incorrectly Example: I’m afraid I misunderstood the instructions. Could you repeat them please? more or less approximately, somewhat, to a varying degree Example: This is more or less a religious neighborhood, though there are a few secular families. must modal verb have to naturally adverb as expected, normally nature noun (1) open air (2) character Examples: (1) We like to go hiking in nature reserves. (2) Pit bulls are aggressive by nature.

Related quizzes

Related quizzes