Earlier this month, two rock climbers achieved what many thought impossible: They climbed up the 3,000-foot-high Dawn Wall in Yosemite NationalPark without specialized equipment. Climbing without this equipment iscalled“free-climbing.”Until now, no one had free-climbed to the top of the rockface, which is a part of the mountain EI Capitan.

    El Capitan, which means“the captain”or“the chief”in Spanish, has always presented a challenge to climbers. But the Dawn Wall, on the mountain's southeast face, is a particularly difficult route to the summit (顶峰). It is a rock formation that is both steep and relatively smooth. This makes free-climbing the rock face seem almost impossible.

    About seven years ago, professional climber Tommy Caldwell spotted a possible route up the wall. It took years of planning and preparation, but this month, Caldwell, 36, and his friend Kevin Jorgeson, 30, finally make the climb.

    Free climbers do use ropes and other basic safety equipment to catch them if they fall — and Caldwell and Jorgeson fell often. Before starting their climb, they broke down their route into 32 sections. Each section was based on a rope length called a“pitch.”The rope was secured into the rock faceto catch the climbers if they fell.

    Caldwell and Jorgeson's goal was to climb the DawnWall without returning to the ground. If they fell, they had to start that pitch all over again. The two men started climbing on December 27. They slept in hanging tents, and a team of friends brought them food each day.

    The men had spent years rehearsing (排练) them ovements it would take to get through each pitch. They made it through the fist half of the climb relatively easily. But halfway up, Jorgeson ran into trouble. In one difficult spot, he fell each time he attempted to climb. After10 days of trying, Jorgeson finally made it to the next pitch.

    Getting through that troublesome pitch gave both climbers renewed energy. They finished the rest of the climb five days later, on January 14.

    If you are sitting, please stand up. Move your legs. Touch your toes if you can. Do anything but sit. New research shows that if you cut down on the time you spend sitting, you might live longer. Sitting less than three hours a day might extend your life by two years. Cutting television time to less than two hours a day can add one point four years to life.

    The human body is designed to move. The fact is just the opposite. Modern lifestyles and office jobs rarely give us the chance to move around. We sit while we're eating; we sit in the car; we sit while we are watching TV. And most of us sit for many hours at work. Sitting is something we do all the time. On average, Americans sit for four and a half to five hours a day. But that does not make sitting good for us.

    Though you may exercise often, that does not mean you can sit for the rest of your waking hours. We can't throw away physical activity. It is extremely important. Even if you exercise for 30 minutes a day, what goes on in the other 23 and a half hours a day is also very important.

    Changes are coming to some offices, especially in the design of desks. A “standing desk” lets people stand while they work. Another new design is called the “treadmill desk”. It is an exercise machine that lets you walk slowly in one place. Even some U.S. schools begin to experiment with desks that are part bicycle to keep children moving.

    Many companies may not buy a standing desk for everybody. However, they may get five standing desks or a treadmill desk for their employees and put them in a certain place where people can go for an hour a day to answer their emails or talk on the phone. Experts suggest some other activities: take a walk at lunchtime; walk to the offices and talk directly instead of emailing colleagues. All these activities may help you live longer.

C

    The animal kingdom lost a beloved friend when poachers（偷猎者）in Kenya killed the world famous elephant named Satao solely for his ivory（象牙）, experts say.

    Satao was considered by some to be the largest and oldest elephant left in Africa. His tusks having grown long enough to reach the ground. Wandering around Kenya's Tsavo National Park, he was easily recognizable（可辨认的）by staff and visitors. Sadly, despite conservation efforts, he was killed on May 30, his body identified by park staff on June 2. His head was severely damaged and there were two holes left where his great tusks had

    “There is no doubt that Satao is dead, killed by an ivory poacher's poisoned arrow to feed the seemingly greedy demand for ivory in far off countries,” wrote Richard Moller of The Tsavo Trust. “A great life lost so that someone far away can have a trinket（饰品）.

    Satao isn't the first elephant—and far from the last—to pay the ivory price. Just last month, Mountain Bull, another Kenyan elephant, was killed by poachers.

    Kenya Wildlife Service（KWS）says 97 elephants and 20 rhinos have been killed this year, but others say the real numbers are much higher.

    The national park in which Satao lived is roughly 386 square miles—a massive land for already thinly-stretched resources to cover. Reports indicate that Satao had started to migrate towards the park's border-areas known by conservationists（野生保护人士）to be highly active for poaching.

    In the late 1960s, more than 275,000 elephants lived in Kenya. Now, that number has dropped to around 38,000, and continues to fall fast.

    “If Satao's death can cause the focus on what's actually happening here in terms of poaching, then he won't have died in vain,” said nature documentarian Mark Decble, according to The Dodo.

    The "Boomerang Kids" — young adults who leave to go to college, get married or just show off their independence — are moving back in with mom and dad. Boomerang Kids can be a mixed blessing for parents, both emotionally and financially.

    Especially during hard economic times, adult children head for home. According to a survey, about 40 percent of 2017 graduates still live with their parents. Moreover, 42 percent of the 2015 graduates surveyed said they are still living at home.

    The reasons are many, the first being economics. While the recession(衰退) has touched Americans of all ages, it has been very hard for young adults. This has sent many kids back home. Plus, there is the matter of debt, especially college loans. For many recent graduates, it makes smart economic sense to move back in with their parents where life is comfortable and rent is either low or nonexistent. Then, of course, some return for personal reasons, such as recovering from a divorce or an illness.

    Parents are often glad to help out, both emotionally and financially. As a result, the arrangement often works to everyone's satisfaction. However, there are risks, especially for the parents. These include not only family tension and misunderstandings, but also money. The return to the family can become a financial burden that can affect the parents' plans and their financial future, especially their retirement, as they try to do too much for their children.

    Argument for awards

    It's always exciting every year in October when the Nobel Prizes are announced. We get to witness the acknowledgement (表彰) of some of humankind's greatest minds in six fields – literature (文学), medicine, physics, chemistry, economics and activism for peace.

    This year, however, part of the excitement will be taken away, since there won't be a Nobel Prize in literature due to the fact that the Swedish Academy – the institution (机构) that awards the prize – was involved in a sexual harassment scandal.

People worry that a scandal like this will affect the reputation of the Nobel Prizes. But at the same time, we have to ask ourselves whether we really need these awards after all.

    According to Jana Gallus, an economist from the University of Zurich, Switzerland, one of the reasons that people give out awards is to establish a legacy (遗产). In the case of the Nobel Prizes, they encourage people to achieve more by acknowledging the hard work of top figures in different fields.

    Awards may also help establish standards of what's considered high quality. For example, if you're having a hard time deciding which movie to watch, one of them having an Oscar under its belt will probably help you to make your mind up. And by reading the books that have won The Man Booker Prize or listening to songs that have been awarded a Grammy, you get an idea about what “great” literature and music look and sound like – at least in the eyes of judging panels (评审团).

    Sure, awards can backfire. There was the OscarsSoWhite movement in 2015 and 2016, when it turned out that all 20 actors nominated (提名) for two years in a row were white. There was also the GrammysSoMale movement in January, when Alessia Cara was the only woman to win a solo Grammy this year. But still, it was these incidents that brought the problems of racism (种族歧视) and gender (性别) inequality into the public eye once more. And with influential voices – like that of black actor Will Smith, who refused to attend the Oscars ceremony – the problems became more likely to be noticed and dealt with instead of being buried silently, again.

    Maybe these awards do matter, and we do need them – just not while they are under the shadow of a sexual harassment scandal.

    So when it comes to this year's Nobel Prize in Literature, I'm going to have to say: "No, thanks."

    BY CHEN XUE, 21ST CENTURY TEENS STAFF

    In ancient Egypt, the pharaoh (法老) treated the poor message runner like a prince when he arrived at the palace, if he brought good news. However, if the exhausted runner had the misfortune to bring the pharaoh unhappy news, his head was cut off.

    Shades of that spirit spread over today's conversations. Once a friend and I packed up some peanut butter and sandwiches for an outing. As we walked light-heartedly out of the door, picnic basket in hand, a smiling neighbor looked up at the sky and said, "Oh, boy, bad day for a picnic. The weatherman says it's going to rain." I wanted to strike him on the face with the peanut butter and sandwiches. Not for his stupid weather report, for his smile.

    Several months ago I was racing to catch a bus. As I breathlessly put my handful of cash across the Greyhound counter, the sales agent said with a broad smile, "Oh, that bus left five minutes ago." Dreams of head-cutting!

    It's not the news that makes someone angry. It's the unsympathetic attitude with which it's delivered. Everyone must give bad news from time to time, and big winners do it with the proper attitude. A doctor advising a patient that she needs an operation does it in a caring way. A boss informing an employee he didn't get the job takes on a sympathetic tone. Big winners know, when delivering any bad news, they should share the feeling of the receiver.

    Unfortunately, many people are not aware of this. When you're tired from a long flight, has a hotel clerk cheerfully said that your room isn't ready yet? When you had your heart set on the toast beef, has your waiter merrily told you that he just served the last piece? It makes you as traveler or diner want to land your fist (拳头) right on their unsympathetic faces.

    Had my neighbor told me of the upcoming rainstorm with sympathy, I would have appreciated his warning. Had the Greyhound salesclerk sympathetically informed me that my bus had already left, I probably would have said, "Oh, that's all right. I'll catch the next one." Big winners, when they bear bad news, deliver bombs with the emotion the bombarded (被轰炸的) person is sure to have.