Among the many things that Brisbane(布里斯班) Australia does really well，is the care for kids.Here's a list of places that we think will be suitable for your kids.

Swimming pools

    Simple way for happiness：mix kids with water.Of course，this is a choice for the hot summer months.

Parks

    Free outdoor fun—that's what Brisbane's parks offer kids of all ages.Parks encourage imagination and activity for little people and a place for parents to let them run wild.

The Children's Art Centre

    The Children's Art Centre has proven very popular with their programs and exhibitions.We love the artist－run workshops and performances (unusually you must pay some money) specially designed for children too.

South Bank Parklands

    South Bank Parklands has everything you need to keep little ones amused.Take them for a swim at the man－made beach，play on one of the playgrounds by the river.On weekends，go through the arts market or go to a cheap movie at the South Bank cinema.South Bank Parklands often hosts free events and performances too.

Roma Street Parkland

    Close to bus transport，this inner city parkland is easily accessible(可进入的) and ideal for kids of all ages.Younger kids can take a trip on the Jelly Bean Express，a 1.3 km trackless train ride around the parkland or there's a playground to explore.Free entry and open daily.

Skating and climbing

    We love the places that let the kids expend all that youthful energy.Take them roller skating(滑旱冰) or ice skating.Or try rock climbing at a variety of indoor and outdoor places around Brisbane.

    This brief book is aimed at high school students, but speaks to anyone learning at any stage of life.

    Its formal, serious style closely matches its content, a school-masterly book on schooling. The author, W. H. Armstrong, starts with the basics: reading and writing. In his opinion, reading doesn't just mean recognizing each word on the page; it means taking in the information, digesting it and incorporating it into oneself just as one digests a sandwich and makes it a part of himself. The goal is to bring the information back to life, not just to treat it as dead facts on paper from dead trees. Reading and writing cannot be completely separated from each other; in fact, the aim of reading is to express the information you have got from the text. I've seen it again and again: some one who can't express an idea after reading a text is just as ineffective as someone who hasn't read it at all.

    Only a third of the book remains after that discussion, which Armstrong devotes to specific tips for studying languages, math, science and history. He generally handles these topics thoroughly and equally, except for some weakness in the science and math sections and a bit too much passion (激情) regarding history to his students, that was a hundred times more than my history teachers ever got across. To my disappointment, in this part of the book he ignores the arts. As a matter of fact, they demand all the concentration and study that math and science do, though the study differs slightly in kind. Although it's commonly believed that the arts can only be naturally acquired, actually, learning the arts is no more natural than learning French or mathematics.

    My other comment is that the text aged. The first edition apparently dates to the 1960s—none of the references(参考文献) seem newer than the late 1950s. As a result, the discussion misses the entire computer age.

    These are small points, though, and don't affect the main discussion. I recommend it to any student and any teacher, including the self-taught student.

    Since the day of its birth, the United Nations has been the subject of much debate.{#blank#}1{#/blank#}Others think that it is too weak. We can better understand this debate if we learn more about the U.N. and its history.

    The U.N. was started for two reasons. First, when the idea was born, people all over the world were tired of war. They felt that there must be peaceful answers to the world's problems.{#blank#}2{#/blank#}

    The second reason was that modern science had developed new bombs and airplanes.{#blank#}3{#/blank#}National borders were beginning to lose their meaning. Science would develop even more dangerous weapons in the future. Only an international organization would be able to control modern science.

    Franklin D. Roosevelt, U.S. President at the time, believed that the Allies (联盟) should plan for peace before the war ended. On December 1, 1943, Roosevelt, Britain's Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin from Soviet Union agreed to start an organization for world peace.{#blank#}4{#/blank#}

    During the next year and a half, the idea of such an organization was debated around the world. Then came the big day. On April 11, 1945, the first international meeting of the United Nations took place in San Francisco. The goal of the meeting was to write the U.N. Charter (宪章). All of the fifty-one nations at the meeting had their own ideas to offer for the Charter.{#blank#}5{#/blank#}Every nation present voted for the Charter. No one voted against it.

A. After a long debate, a final Charter was agreed upon.

B. The U.N. Charter is a beautiful piece of writing.

C. They asked all countries, large and small, to join the organization.

D. Even the smallest country on earth can have its voice heard.

E. They also felt that only an international organization could keep world peace.

F. These weapons made it almost impossible for a country to defend itself.

G. Some people attack the organization because they think it is too powerful.

    A nation's humor is linked to the historical development of the country. How funny somebody finds a certain thing depends on many things including ages, personal experiences, levels of education and locations. Therefore, humor is something that is not always transferable (可转移的) in another country.

    What about when both countries speak the same mother tongue? Does that mean they will then share the same sense of humor, or can differences still take place? Let's take the example of Britain and America. Time and time again, people say that Brits and Americans don't "get" each other's sense of humor. It is often argued that one of the most common differences between the British and American sense of humor is that Americans don't understand irony (反话). Simon Pegg explores this topic in depth in his article What Are You Laughing At? He concludes that this statement isn't true and I agree with him.

    In fact, Brits use irony on a daily basis while Americans don't. I think Americans understand British irony (most of the time anyway); what they don't understand is the need to use it so frequently. When Americans use irony, they tend to say that they are "only kidding". They feel the need to make a joke more obvious than Brits do. Maybe this comes from a fear of offending (冒犯) people.

    The American sense of humor is generally more slapstick (闹剧的) than that in Britain. I think this arises from a cultural difference between the two. Their jokes are more obvious and forward, a bit like Americans themselves. British jokes, on the other hand, tend to be more subtle. This may stem from the fact that British culture is more reserved (矜持的) than American culture.

It takes just four minutes for brain cells to be permanently damaged due to a severe lack of oxygen in cases of sudden cardiac arrest (心搏停止). If medical workers do not arrive at the scene of such emergencies within 10 minutes, the chances of a victim surviving are minimal.

In September, a 45-year-old man fell unconscious at Huoying station on Line 13 of the Beijing Subway. He died later in the hospital, despite attempts by two passengers to revive him by using cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or CPR. However, if an automated external defibrillator, or AED, had been a vailable at the scene, the man's chances of survival would have been greatly improved.

An AED can recognize an abnormal lheart rhythm and quickly correct it through an electric shock. The devices are viewed in medical circles as a more efficient and effective method of saving lives in emergencies than using CPR. After a brief training period, people with no medical knowledge can master the basic skills needed to use an AED.

In May last year, a student at Tsinghua University in Beijing fainted in a dormitory after experiencing head sweats. Several students began to perform CPR and also used a newly installed AED to help the stricken freshman. After two electric shocks were administered, the student's heart beat was restored and he was sent to the hospital for further treatment. An emergency doctor from the hospital who attended the scene said it was highly likely the student would have died, had not a series of the correct first aid measures been applied, along with the AED.  

PeiZheng, a staff member from Tsinghua University's Policy Research Office, said it was "really cool" that AEDs were available at the institution. "It's so good that we have these life-saving machines on campus, otherwise we would have heard tragic news," she said. The devices have been installed around the campus in stages.

A recent study has found that using wood for construction instead of concrete (混凝土) and steel can reduce emissions (排放). But Tim Searchinger at Princeton University says many of these studies are based on the false foundation that harvesting wood is carbon neutral (碳中和). "Only a small percentage of the wood gets into a timber (木料) product, and a part of that gets into a timber product that can replace concrete and steel in a building," he says. Efficiencies vary in different countries, but large amounts of a harvested tree are left to be divided into parts, used in short-lived products like paper or burned for energy, all of which generate emissions.

In a report for the World Resources Institute, Searchinger and his colleagues have modelled (塑造) how using more wood for construction would affect emissions between 2010 and 2050, accounting for the emissions from harvesting the wood. They considered various types of forests and parts of wood going towards construction. They also factored in the emissions savings from replacing concrete and steel.

Under some circumstances, the researchers found significant emissions reductions. But each case required what they considered an unrealistically high portion (份额) of the wood going towards construction, as well as rapid growth only seen in warmer places, like Brazil. In general, they found a large increase in global demand for wood would probably lead to rising emissions for decades. Accounting for emissions in this way, the researchers reported in a related paper that increasing forest harvests between 2010 and 2050 would add emissions equal to roughly 10 percent of total annual emissions.

Ali Amiri at Aalto University in Finland says the report's conclusions about emissions from rising demand are probably correct, but the story is different for wood we already harvest. "Boosting the efficiency of current harvests and using more wood for longer lived purposes than paper would cut emissions," he says. "We cannot just say we should stop using wood."