Sure, you talk to your parents, but what if you need to really talk? Maybe you have a problem you can't solve alone, or it could be that you want to feel closer to Mom and Dad.

    It's easy to say" Hi, Mom" or "Dad, can you pass the potatoes?", but it can be harder to start a discussion about tougher topics. When you were younger, it probably felt easy to tell your parents about your trouble. Even though you're older now, it's still perfectly OK to believe in your parents. In fact, it can help a lot.

    So why does it seem so uncomfortable at times? Why is it hard to bring up the important stuff? Sometimes kids don't speak up because they don't want to feel embarrassed. Let's face it—talking about personal stuff can make you feel embarrassed. But remember, your parents know you pretty well, and they were your age once, too! So don't let a little embarrassment stop you. It's OK to go ahead and share the personal stuff.

    Other times, kids might not want to make their parents anxious or upset. As you explain your problem, your mom might look sad or your dad might look worried. But that's OK. Your mom and dad can deal with knowing about your problem, big or small. That look on their face just means they care, and they feel for you. That's what families do—we feel for the people we love.

    Sometimes, kids don't bring up a problem because they just don't want to think about it. They hope it will just go away. When meeting a problem, they will likely choose not to face it or just keep it for themselves. But running away from a problem hardly ever solves it. And bottling up your feelings can make you feel stressed.

    Talking things over with a parent can help you feel less stressed. Together, you can think of ways to solve the problem and make you feel better. Just knowing your parent understands and cares about what you're going through can reduce your stress a lot.

    Lost cities that have been found

    The White City

    In 2015, a team of explorers to Honduras in search of “the Lost City of the Monkey God” led to the discovery of the White City. They found the ruins in the Mosquitia region of the Central American country — which is known for poisonous snakes, vicious jaguars and deadly insects. It is believed that local people hid here when the Spanish conquerors(征服者)occupied their homeland in the 16th century.

    Canopus and Heracleion

    Modern researchers were teased by the ancient writings about the Egyptian cities Canopus and Heracleion — where Queen Cleopatra often visited. But the cities weren't found until 1992, when a search in Alexandria waters found that the two cities had been flooded for centuries. Artifacts(史前器物)showed that the cities once highly developed as a trade network, which helped researchers piece together more about the last queen of Egypt.

Machu Picchu

    A Yale professor discovered “the Lost City in the Clouds” in 1911. A combination palaces, plazas, temples and homes, Machu Picchu displays the Inca Empire at the height of its rule. The city, which was abandoned in the 16th century for unknown reasons, was hidden by the local people from the Spanish conquerors for centuries, keeping it so well preserved.

Troy

    The ancient city of Troy in Homer's The Iliad was considered a fictional setting for his characters to run wild. But in 1871, explorations in northwestern Turkey exposed nine ancient cities layered(层叠)on top of each other, the earliest dating back to about 5,000 years before. It was later determined that the sixth or seventh layer contained the lost city of Troy and that it was actually destroyed by an earthquake, not a wooden horse.

    Have you ever wondered how your favorite NBA team received its famous name? All NBA teams have an interesting story or a history behind their names. Some of the names reflect the city's culture or history, others came from previous owners and many were selected through "Name the Team" contests.

    For teams like Los Angeles and Utah, the names were not always a reflection of the city. Even though Los Angeles has no lakes, the Laker name has been a city treasure for almost 40 years. Before going to Los Angeles, the team originated in Minneapolis, Minnesota. In 1948, team officials chose the name for its direct relationship to the state's motto, "The Land of 10,000 Lakes." The team name went unchanged after moving to Los Angeles in 1960.

    Because Utah's team originated in New Orleans, Louisiana, it was called the Jazz. In 1974, New Orleans club officials chose the name to represent the city for its reputation as the "jazz capital of the world." The name stayed with the team even after finding a new home in Salt Lake City, Utah in 1979.

    The Chicago Bull's original owner, Richard Klein, named the team the Bulls. He picked the name because a fighting bull is relentless, and never quits. Klein, who founded the club in1966, believed these qualities were necessary for a championship team and hoped his Chicago athletes would live up to the team name. A belief that Bulls——winner of the six NBA championships have definitely followed.

    In 1967, the Indian Pacers selected their team name in a different way from most other teams. Their decision was based on what they wanted to accomplish in the NBA. Team officials chose the Pacers name because the organization wanted to set the "pace" in professional basketball.

    Forty-three years seems like a long time to remember the name of a mere acquaintance. I have forgotten the name of an old lady who was a customer on my paper route. Yet it seems like just yesterday that she taught me a lesson in forgiveness.

    On a Saturday afternoon, a friend and I were throwing rocks onto the roof of the old lady's house. The object of our play was to observe how the rocks changed to missiles （导弹）as they rolled to the roof's edge and shot out into the yard like comets （彗星）falling from the sky. I found myself a perfectly smooth rock and sent it for a ride. However, it slipped from my hand as I let it go and headed straight for a small window. At the sound of crashed glass, we knew we were in trouble and ran away.

    A few days later, when I was sure that I hadn't been discovered, I started to feel guilty for her misfortune. She still greeted me with a smile each day when I gave her the paper, but I was no longer able to act comfortably in her presence. I made up my mind to save my paper delivery money, and in three weeks I had the seven dollars that I calculated would cover the cost of her window. I put the money in an envelope with a note, and put the envelope through the letter slot in her door.

    The next day, I handed the old lady her paper and was able to return the warm smile that I was receiving from her. She thanked me for the paper and said, “Here, I have something for you.” It was a bag of cookies. I thanked her and began to eat the cookies as I continued my route.

    After several cookies, I felt an envelope and pulled it out of the bag. When I opened the envelope, I was surprised. Inside were the seven dollars and a short note that said, “I'm proud of you.”

    For several decades, there has been an organized campaign intended to produce distrust in science, funded by those whose interests are threatened by the findings of modern science. In response, scientists have tended to stress the success of science. After all, scientists have been right about most things, from the structure of the universe to the relativity of time and space.

    Stressing successes isn't wrong, but for many people it's not persuasive. An alternative answer to the question "Why trust science?" is that scientists use the so-called scientific method. But what is called the scientific method isn't what scientists actually do. Science is dynamic: new methods get invented; old ones get abandoned; and at any particular point, scientists can be found doing many different things. False theories sometimes lead to true results, so even if an experiment works, it doesn't prove that the theory it was designed to test is true.

    If there is no specific scientific method, then what is the basis for trust in science? The answer is the methods by which those claims are evaluated. A scientific claim is never accepted as true until it has gone through a long process of examination by fellow scientists. Scientists draft the initial version of a paper and then send it to colleagues for suggestions. Until this point, scientific feedback is typically fairly friendly. But the next step is different: the revised paper is submitted to a scientific journal, where things get a whole lot tougher. Editors deliberately send scientific papers to people who are not friends or colleagues of the authors, and the job of the reviewer is to find errors or other faults. We call this process "peer review" because the reviewers are scientific peers—experts in the same field—but they act in the role of a superior who has both the right and the responsibility to find fault. It is only after the reviewers and the editor are satisfied that any problems have been fixed that the paper will be printed in the journal and enters the body of "science."

    Some people argue that we should not trust science because scientists are "always changing their minds." While examples of truly settled science being overturned are far fewer than is sometimes claimed, they do exist. But the beauty of this scientific process is that science produces both creativity and stability. New observations, ideas, explanations and attempts to combine competing claims introduce creativity; transformative questioning leads to collective decisions and the stability of scientific knowledge. Scientists do change their minds in the face of new evidence, but this is a strength of science, not a weakness.