SOUNDS -DESCRIBE SOUNDS - USES OF SOUNDS

Here’s a set of **personal questions about bats**, suitable for **A1–A2 level 11-year-old students**, with **English and Chinese**: --- 1. **Have you ever seen a bat? Where?** 你曾经见过蝙蝠吗？在哪里？ 2. **Do you think bats are scary or interesting? Why?** 你觉得蝙蝠可怕还是有趣？为什么？ 3. **Bats are not birds. What is different about them?** 蝙蝠不是鸟。它们有什么不同？ 4. **Bats fly at night. Would you like to be awake at night like a bat? Why or why not?** 蝙蝠在夜晚飞行。你想像蝙蝠一样夜晚清醒吗？为什么？ 5. **Bats use sounds to see in the dark. Can you think of another animal that uses sounds to find things?** 蝙蝠用声音在黑暗中看东西。你能想出另一种用声音找东西的动物吗？ 6. **Have you ever heard a shriek or high-pitched sound like a bat? How did it feel?** 你听过像蝙蝠一样的尖叫或高音吗？感觉如何？ 7. **If you could fly like a bat, where would you go at night?** 如果你能像蝙蝠一样飞，你会在夜晚去哪里？ 8. **Would you like to have a bat as a pet? Why or why not?** 你想养蝙蝠作为宠物吗？为什么？ 9. **Do you sleep at night like most people, or do you sometimes stay up late?** 你像大多数人一样在夜晚睡觉，还是有时候熬夜？ 10. **What other animals do you know that are active at night?** 你知道还有哪些动物是夜行动物？ --- I can also **combine all three—cats, camels, bats—into a full bilingual worksheet** with space for answers, making it fun and easy for kids to complete. Do you want me to do that next?

Sound- Nature of Sound/ Properties of Sound/ Music/How you hear Sound/Uses of Sound

“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.

A real-world example of a control system – protecting against intruders A jewellery store uses three main control systems to keep the jewellery they sell safe and secure. These systems are vital to the security of the jewellery and the store heavily relies on them. Their first security control system detects if an intruder enters the store through a door or window. Infrared beams of light are run across each doorway and window. If one of these beams is broken, an alarm will sound and metal bars will close every door and window, trapping the intruder inside the room Their second security control system detects if a window is broken by an intruder trying to enter. The sound of any breaking glass is measured. If the sound of breaking glass is detected, the alarm will sound again.The jewellers' third security control system detects if any of the jewellery glass cabinets are opened by an intruder. The weight of the glass for each cabinet is 5 kg. If any of the glass is lifted up the alarm will sound and the bars will close every door and window.

Chapter One: Management Today The challenges of working in the new economy recognize: 1.1 Working Today Talent Talented people- What they know, what they learn and what they can achive The source of organisational performance Develop skills and improve What is intellectual capital The combined brain power and shared knowledge of an organization's employees TO orginzations: Intellectual capital resents a strategic asset as human creativity, insight and decision making can be converted into superior performance To individuals: Intellectual capital is a personal asset, one to be nurtured and continually updated Things evolve, make sure we keep updated Intellectual capital: The package on intellect skills and capabilities that set us apart making us valable to potential employers Maintaining your talent: There is no escaping the fact that your career success will require a lot of initiative, self awareness and continuous learning Technology Tech is in our everyday lives Latest developments Smart phone, smart apparel, smart cars, smart homes We struggle to keep up with social media ana staying connected with messaging, full of email and voicemail What happenings as younger workers advance into management Flexibility Work ethic It is critical to build and maintain a high Tech IQ! What is Tech IQ: The ability to use current technologies at work and in your personal life, combined with the commitment to keep yourself updated as technology continues to evolve Intellectual capi5la is a combination of: Commitment x Competency = Intellectual capital How to make the world a better place Globalisation The worldwide interdependence of resources flows, product markets and business competition Under the influence, government leaders worry and about the competitiveness of nations just as corporate leaders worry about business competitiveness Emerging markets will power global growth over the next 20 years. By 2025 overall global consumption is forecast to reach $62 trillion, twice its 2013 level and fully half of this increase will come from the emerging world Consequence: Going to fast in uses resources, inflation, corporate greed It's cheaper to have things made in different countries (wages are low and going down) Shamrock organization 1 leaf - full time employees- standard career paths 2 leaf - “freelancers” 3 leaf - Part times without benefits (first to lose their jobs when employers face economic difficulties) The rising of emerging markets Now account for 60% of all low and medium technology manufacturing worldwide Total value add in high tech manufacturing from a low 26% in the 1970s to 48% at present China strategy to upgrade its industries and move the manufacturing value ching by prioritising 10 sectors Information technology, robotic, aerospace, maritime equipment, modern railway equipment, alternative energy vehicles, power equipment, agriculture equipment, advanced materials, biopharma and medical products Ethics A code of moral principa;s that sets standards for conduct that is “good” and “right” as well as “bad” and “wrong” Enron company huge corruption even in elections same thing happened with The Mechanism 1.2 - Organizations Organizational Purpose An orgnizations is a collection of people working together to achieve a common purpose Unique social phenomenon that enables its members to perform tasks far beyond the reach of individual accomplishment (synergy) The broad purpose of any orginzation is to provide goods or services of value to customers and clients A clear sense of purpose tied to: Quality of products and services Customer satisfaction Social responsibility Can be an important source of organisational strength and performance advantage All organisations are open systems (Systems that interact with its environment for renewal and growth) Organizations as systems All organizations are open systems that interact with their environment Continual process of obtaining resource inputs-people, information, resources and capital- and transforming them into outputs in the form of finished goods and services for customers One simple way to assess the impact of any organisation is to ask the question: How is the world different because it existed Value Creation: Organisations create value when they use resources well to produce good products and take care of their customers One simple way to assess the impact of any organization is to ask the questions: How is the world different because it existed? The 3 Ps of organizational performance Profit - is the decision economically sound? People - Does the decision treat people with respect and dignity? Planet - Is the decision good for the environment? Productivity: An overall measure of the quantity and quality of work performance with recourse utilisation taken into account Performance effectiveness: An output measure of task or goal accomplishment Performance efficiency: An input measure of the resource costs associated with goal accomplishment. Workplace changes that impact management Focus on valuing human capital Demise of “Command and control” Emphasis on teamwork Pre-eminence of technology New workforce expectations Importance of networking Concern for sustainability 1.3 Managers Importance of human resources and manger People are not ‘costs to be controlled’ High performing organizations treat people as valuable strategic assets Three takeaways 1. Give leaders broad authority 2. Encourage them to think like CEO 3. Challenge strong performers ealy with big opportunities Direct support, supervise and help activate the work efforts of others The people who managers help are the ones whose contributions represent the real work of the organisation Types of managers Line managers are responsible for work activities that directly affect organization’s output Staff managers use technical expertise to advise and support the efforts of line workers Functional managers are responsible for a single area of activity Quality of work life (QWL) An indicator of the overall quality of human experiences in the workplace QWL Indicators Respect Fair pay Safe working conditions Opportunities to learn and use new skills Room to grow and progress in a career Protection of individuals rights The organization as an upside-down pyramid A manager’s job is to support worker’s efforts The best managers are known for helping and supporting Customers at the top served by worker who are supported by managers 1.4 The management Process Managers achieve high performance for their organizations by best utilizing its humans and material resources Management is the process of planning, organizing, leading and controlling the use of resources to accomplish performance goals All managers are responsible for the four functions The functions are carried on continually Characteristics of managerial work Long hours Intense pace Fragmented and varied tasks Many communication media Filled with interpersonal relationships Managerial agendas and networks Agenda setting Develops action priorities for accomplishing goals and plans Networking Process of building and maintaining positive relationships with people who can help advance agendas Social Capital Capacity to attract support and help from others Learning The change in a behaviour that results from experience Lifelong learning The process of continuously learning from daily experiences and opportunities

The challenges of working in the new economy recognize: 1.1 Working Today Talent Talented people- What they know, what they learn and what they can achive The source of organisational performance Develop skills and improve What is intellectual capital The combined brain power and shared knowledge of an organization's employees TO orginzations: Intellectual capital resents a strategic asset as human creativity, insight and decision making can be converted into superior performance To individuals: Intellectual capital is a personal asset, one to be nurtured and continually updated Things evolve, make sure we keep updated Intellectual capital: The package on intellect skills and capabilities that set us apart making us valable to potential employers Maintaining your talent: There is no escaping the fact that your career success will require a lot of initiative, self awareness and continuous learning Technology Tech is in our everyday lives Latest developments Smart phone, smart apparel, smart cars, smart homes We struggle to keep up with social media ana staying connected with messaging, full of email and voicemail What happenings as younger workers advance into management Flexibility Work ethic It is critical to build and maintain a high Tech IQ! What is Tech IQ: The ability to use current technologies at work and in your personal life, combined with the commitment to keep yourself updated as technology continues to evolve Intellectual capi5la is a combination of: Commitment x Competency = Intellectual capital How to make the world a better place Globalisation The worldwide interdependence of resources flows, product markets and business competition Under the influence, government leaders worry and about the competitiveness of nations just as corporate leaders worry about business competitiveness Emerging markets will power global growth over the next 20 years. By 2025 overall global consumption is forecast to reach $62 trillion, twice its 2013 level and fully half of this increase will come from the emerging world Consequence: Going to fast in uses resources, inflation, corporate greed It's cheaper to have things made in different countries (wages are low and going down) Shamrock organization 1 leaf - full time employees- standard career paths 2 leaf - “freelancers” 3 leaf - Part times without benefits (first to lose their jobs when employers face economic difficulties) The rising of emerging markets Now account for 60% of all low and medium technology manufacturing worldwide Total value add in high tech manufacturing from a low 26% in the 1970s to 48% at present China strategy to upgrade its industries and move the manufacturing value ching by prioritising 10 sectors Information technology, robotic, aerospace, maritime equipment, modern railway equipment, alternative energy vehicles, power equipment, agriculture equipment, advanced materials, biopharma and medical products Ethics A code of moral principa;s that sets standards for conduct that is “good” and “right” as well as “bad” and “wrong” Enron company huge corruption even in elections same thing happened with The Mechanism 1.2 - Organizations Organizational Purpose An orgnizations is a collection of people working together to achieve a common purpose Unique social phenomenon that enables its members to perform tasks far beyond the reach of individual accomplishment (synergy) The broad purpose of any orginzation is to provide goods or services of value to customers and clients A clear sense of purpose tied to: Quality of products and services Customer satisfaction Social responsibility Can be an important source of organisational strength and performance advantage All organisations are open systems (Systems that interact with its environment for renewal and growth) Organizations as systems All organizations are open systems that interact with their environment Continual process of obtaining resource inputs-people, information, resources and capital- and transforming them into outputs in the form of finished goods and services for customers One simple way to assess the impact of any organisation is to ask the question: How is the world different because it existed Michal Porter - Value Chain Value Creation: Organisations create value when they use resources well to produce good products and take care of their customers One simple way to assess the impact of any organization is to ask the questions: How is the world different because it existed? Triple Bottom Line The 3 Ps of organizational performance Profit - is the decision economically sound? People - Does the decision treat people with respect and dignity? Planet - Is the decision good for the environment? Organizational Performance Productivity: An overall measure of the quantity and quality of work performance with recourse utilisation taken into account Performance effectiveness: An output measure of task or goal accomplishment Performance efficiency: An input measure of the resource costs associated with goal accomplishment. Workplace changes that impact management Focus on valuing human capital Demise of “Command and control” Emphasis on teamwork Pre-eminence of technology New workforce expectations Importance of networking Concern for sustainability 1.3 Managers Importance of human resources and manger People are not ‘costs to be controlled’ High performing organizations treat people as valuable strategic assets Three takeaways 1. Give leaders broad authority 2. Encourage them to think like CEO 3. Challenge strong performers easily with big opportunities Direct support, supervise and help activate the work efforts of others The people who managers help are the ones whose contributions represent the real work of the organisation Levels of management Types of managers Line managers are responsible for work activities that directly affect organization’s output Staff managers use technical expertise to advise and support the efforts of line workers Functional managers are responsible for a single area of activity Quality of work life (QWL) An indicator of the overall quality of human experiences in the workplace QWL Indicators Respect Fair pay Safe working conditions Opportunities to learn and use new skills Room to grow and progress in a career Protection of individuals rights The organization as an upside-down pyramid A manager’s job is to support worker’s efforts The best managers are known for helping and supporting Customers at the top served by worker who are supported by managers 1.4 The management Process Managers achieve high performance for their organizations by best utilizing its humans and material resources Management is the process of planning, organizing, leading and controlling the use of resources to accomplish performance goals All managers are responsible for the four functions The functions are carried on continually Four functions: Planning,organizing, leading and controlling Mintzberg’s 10 Managerial Roles Characteristics of managerial work Long hours Intense pace Fragmented and varied tasks Many communication media Filled with interpersonal relationships Managerial agendas and networks Agenda setting Develops action priorities for accomplishing goals and plans Networking Process of building and maintaining positive relationships with people who can help advance agendas Social Capital Capacity to attract support and help from others Learning The change in a behaviour that results from experience Lifelong learning The process of continuously learning from daily experiences and opportunities Katz’ Essential Managerial Skills

Sounds of Pet animals

Related quizzes

Related quizzes