For thousands of years comets have been a mystery to man. They travel across the sky very fast and have a bright “tail” of burning gas. The comet Tempel 1 has an orbit（轨道） far outside the orbit of the furthest planet in our solar system, Pluto. It has been there for 4.6 billion years, 133 million kilometers from Earth. Last week a little American spacecraft crashed into Tempel 1. The spacecraft had a camera and it took a photograph of the comet every minute before it finally crashed into its surface.

    The space mission to Tempel 1 cost $335 million and was called Deep Impact. The spacecraft was travelling at 37,000 kilometers per hour when it hit the comet and the crash completely destroyed the spacecraft. But before it hit the comet, the spacecraft took some amazing photographs. The last one was a close-up picture which the spacecraft took just 3 seconds before it crashed into the comet.

    “Right now we have lost one spacecraft,” said a delighted NASA engineer. Deep Impact was like a American Independence Day fireworks display. It took many years to plan and ended in an enormous explosion. 

    The spacecraft which crashed into the comet was made of copper and was the size of a washing machine. It was dropped from a mothership into the path of the comet and the mothership then photographed the cloud of ice, dust and organic chemicals that rose from the surface of the comet after the crash.

    The crash completely destroyed the spacecraft but nothing really happened to the comet: experts believe that the crash slowed the comet down by no more than 1/10,000 of a millimeter a second.The aim of the mission was to study for the first time the interior of a comet.

    The mothership was 480 km from the explosion and observed the crash and the explosion with instruments for 800 seconds. Seven satellites, including the Hubble space telescope, watched the moment of drama, and over the next day and night about 50 telescopes on Earth were watching the distant comet.

    I've written this article and you're reading it. So we are members of the same club. We're both literate—we can read and write. And we both probably feel that literacy is essential to our lives. But millions of people all over the world are illiterate. Even in industrialized Western countries, such as the UK and the USA, approximately 20% of the population have "low literacy levels". But what exactly does that mean?

    My parents both left school at 14. They could read and write, but except for a quick look at the daily newspaper, reading and writing didn't play a big part in their lives. There were very few books in the house. My mother was amazed because the woman who lived next door always wrote a list of what she needed before she went to the supermarket. Why couldn't she remember? We laughed about that for weeks. Our family didn't write lists! And when I was only 14 years old my father gave me an important letter that he'd written to the bank and asked me to check it for grammar and spelling mistakes. And there were quite a lot. He never usually wrote letters or postcards or even Christmas cards. So when he had to write he wasn't comfortable or confident. Does that mean that my father had a "low level of literacy"? I don't think so.

    There are lots of different definitions of literacy. Some experts define it as having the reading and writing skills that you need to be independent in your everyday life. So, for example, if you can read instructions, write a cheque, fill in a form, —anything that you need to do in everyday life—then you are "functionally literate".

    Other people say that you are illiterate if you think that you are illiterate. In other words, if you feel that you can't read or write as well as you would like to.

    If you live in a society where most people are literate then you will feel ashamed or embarrassed and avoid situations in which you have to read or write. The father of a friend of mine finally admitted to his family that he couldn't read when he was 45 years old. He bought the newspaper every day and pretended to read it—and believe it or not, his family had no idea.

    We often forget that writing is a recent invention. Many years ago, the word "literate" meant being able to communicate well in speaking, in other words what we now call "articulate". Story telling was an important activity in the past and still is today in some societies. Reading was often a cooperative activity—someone would read aloud to a group, often from a religious text such as the Koran or the Bible.

    Only a hundred years ago, in the United States, you were considered to be literate if you could sign your name to a piece of paper. It was an important skill. You were not allowed to vote if you couldn't sign the voting register, so literacy was connected with political rights, and many people were excluded from the democratic process.

    Nowadays we see reading and writing as being connected, but that wasn't so in the past. Many people could read, but not write. Writing was a skilled profession. If you needed something written then you paid an expert to write it for you.

    And of course, rich and important people have always employed people to write things for them. Important company bosses dictated letters to their secretaries or personal assistants. And now with new computer software you can dictate directly to your computer.

    Being illiterate can have a big effect on people's lives. For example, a study in the UK showed that people who write and spell badly are seen as careless, immature and unreliable, and often unintelligent. So it is more difficult for them to find jobs, even when reading and writing are not necessary for the work.

    World-wide statistics show that literacy problems are associated with poverty and a lack of political power. More women than men are illiterate. Illiterate people have worse health, bigger families and are more likely to go to prison. So literacy campaigns must be a good thing. But don't forget that an illiterate person, or someone with a low level of literacy, isn't necessarily stupid or ignorant—and may not be unhappy at all. Knowledge and wisdom isn't only found in writing.

    Ferry Services Fare Table

    Effective from 1st April 2019.

    Cash Only is accepted onboard our Ferries.

    Return Fares for Mainland to Bressay；

    Mainland to Whalsay；

    Mainland to Yell；

    Yell to Unst.

    New Zealand's chief conservation (环保) officer, Lou Sanson, caused an argument in October by suggesting that it should be time to start charging tourists for entering national parks. New Zealanders are keen fans of these parks. Many would be annoyed at having to pay. But many also worry about the incoming foreign tourists who have been seeking the same fun.

    In 2016 New Zealand hosted 3.5m tourists from overseas; by 2022 more than 4.5m are expected every year — about the same as the country's population. Tourism has become the biggest export. The national parks, which make up about one-third of the country, are a huge draw. About half of the foreign tourists visit one. They are keen to experience the natural beauty promised by the country's "100% Pure New Zealand" advertising campaign (and shown off in the film adaptations of "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Hobbit", which were shot in New Zealand's breath-taking wilderness).

    But for every happy foreign couple posting for a selfie next to a tuatara (楔齿蜥) there is a New

    Zealander who remembers the way things used to be — when you could walk the tracks without running into crowds at every clearing. Many locals now wonder why their taxes, as they see it, are paying for someone else's holiday. Mr. Sanson would seem to agree. Entry fees could be used to upgrade facilities such as car parks and trails. A charge could also help reduce numbers at some of the popular locations by making it cheaper to use lesser-known, but no less beautiful, trails far away from home.

    Some are not so sure it would work. Hugh Logan, a former chief of conservation for the government who now runs a mountain climbing club, worries it would cost too much to employ staff to take money from hikers at entrances. It would also be difficult to prevent tourists from entering the parks without paying.

    Some argue that it would be easier to charge visitors a "conservation tax" when they enter the country. The Green Party, the third-largest in parliament (议会), says that adding around NZ$18 ($12.50) is still acceptable to foreign tourists. But some travel companies don't quite agree with the idea. They note that tourists already contribute around NZ$1.1bn through the country's 15% sales tax. Better, such firms say, to use foreign tourists' contribution to this tax for the protection of the parks.

    Among the fiercest critics of a charge are those who point out that free access to wilderness areas is an important principle for New Zealanders. It is documented in a National Parks Act (法案) which inspires almost constitution-like devotion among the country's nature-lovers. Mr. Sanson has a rocky path ahead.

    Half a year ago I came across a book called "Salt, Sugar and Fat. How the Food Giants Hooked US", but finished it only recently. I am far from being a fan of junk food, over-salty, or over-sweet stuff, and honestly this food doesn't appeal to me at all. Maybe it is related to the fact that I grew up in Russia and at that time we were not so exposed to the foreign, especially made in America foods. We knew Coca Cola, Pepsi, juice powder and Cheetos, but this stuff was not so cheap or available to buy it every day and we couldn't buy them in large quantities. We didn't know the word "fat" was not a bad thing but a normal of life for some people. We always had sweets and especially on holidays they were served as a dessert along with a cake. Russians like eating sweets when they drink tea. Even with my passion to desserts I still can't relate myself to the people Michale Moss was writing about, those consumers who could not say “no” when it came to junk food.

    What I found interesting in the book was that the author didn't focus on diets, necessity to exercise, sleep well at night and all other things we all are pretty aware of. The aim was not to teach people how to live but instead, after having made a huge research, interviewed more than 100 people in the food industry, Moss reveals the ugly of the food business. It puts all the facts in front of us and offers a choice: to buy or not to buy. However, the answer was known at the very beginning. Moss mentions the well-known food like Coca, Cola, Pepsi, Nestle and some others and tells how skillfully the consumers can be cheated when it comes to choosing what to put in the food basket in the supermarket. We like this taste of a chocolate, the crispy chips, and sweet porridges because it was all put on test by groups of scientists who made experiments to reveal what kind of taste will be most appealing to us. It involves brain, of course. Apart from scientific researches, it was also due to successful marketing strategies and plans that people prefer to buy food.

    In this companies' money race, the most vulnerable(易受伤害的)victims are kids. They can't tell good from bad and love everything that makes them feel good. Commercial ads of fast food particularly targeted kids and played on the fact that mothers can't fully control what their children eat because they spent all day at work. Mothers themselves buy chocolates bars and com flakes for their kids, guided by a powerful brainwashing that actually, these products were not unhealthy, on the contrary, it was encouraged to give them to kids, because fat and sugar provide energy, so they are good, right?

    Giving a credit to some food companies, they made attempts to fight the trend, but consumers, who already worked a habit of eating too salty, too fatting and too sweet products, didn't react to the changes. So the companies returned to the old policy. Surprisingly, such behavior was strongly backed up by the government.

    I would definitely recommend reading this book not only to those who struggle in the battle with his addiction to fast food but also people living healthily. It casts light on many things, including how vulnerable we can be in front of corporations and their powerful and accurate marketing strategies.

It was the Dragon Boat Festival. Shiny white tents lined the waterfront, {#blank#}1{#/blank#} (provide) shade and refreshments for dragon boat paddlers (桨手) from all over California, {#blank#}2{#/blank#} gathered around the Castaic Lake for a festive competition.

Giggling kids raced cheerfully along the lakeside beach, with  {#blank#}3{#/blank#} (they) parents enjoying the shady picnic areas under the trees along the shore. "It's a great day out," said Paul Lin, co-founder of Castaic's own Dragon Eyes team.

Dragon boat racing has been going on for thousands of years in China, {#blank#}4{#/blank#}  (initial) conducted in honor of the poet Qu Yuan, as a way  {#blank#}5{#/blank#} (honor) his legacy and spirit.

In the race, a drummer  {#blank#}6{#/blank#} (use) a large traditional wooden drum to keep the paddlers on the beat, {#blank#}7{#/blank#}  a steersman in the back keeps them in their lane.

Lin said a friend got him  {#blank#}8{#/blank#} (involve) in dragon boat racing over a decade ago. In 2018, they decided to host their own festival. "There's something really special to be learned from our dragon boat motto: One Boat, One Beat," he said. "Paddlers come from all walks of life and that kind of {#blank#}9{#/blank#} (close) with people is nowhere else to be seen."

"We really want to help expand people's awareness and grow the sport," said Lin. "We're hoping one day it will become  {#blank#}10{#/blank#}  Olympic sport."