This is What a REAL Silver Dollar Looks Like

    If you trust in the yen, the euro, and the dollar... stop reading.

    Because this is a story about the silver coin EVERYBODY wants.

You read the headlines. You know that troubled economic times have put global currency on a rollercoaster ( ride. But millions have found a smarter way to build long-term value with high-grade collectable silver. And right now, those people are lining up to secure some of the last 2012 U. S. Mint Silver Eagles, America's Newest Silver Eagle Dollars. Today, you can graduate to the front of that line. Buy now and you can own these brilliant uncirculated Silver

     Dollars for only $38.95!

    You Can't Afford to Lose

    Why are we releasing (发行) this silver dollar for such a remarkable price?

    Because we want to introduce you to what hundreds of thousands of smart collectors and satisfied customers have known since 1984—New York Mint is the place to find the world's finest high-grade coins. That's why we're offering you this Brilliant Uncirculated 2012 U. S. Silver Eagle for as little as $37.45 (plus s/h).

    Timing is Everything

    Our advice? Keep this to yourself. Because the more people who know about this offer, the worse it is for you. Demand for Silver Eagles in 2011 broke records. Experts predict that 2012 Silver Eagles may break them all over again. Due to rapid changes in the price of silver, prices may be higher or lower and are subject to(受...影响)  change without notice. Supplies are limited. Call immediately to add these Silver Eagles to your holdings before it's too late.

    Offer Limited to 40 per household 2012 American Silver Eagle Coin

    Your cost

    1-4 Coins       $38.95 each + s/h

    5-9 Coins     $38.45 each + s/h

    10-19 Coins     $37. 95 each + s/h

    20-40 Coins     $37.45 each + s/h

    Note: $10 s/h (shipping and handling) for each purchase

    For fastest service, call toll-free 24 hours a day

    1-888-201-7143

    Offer Code (代码) ASE177-04

    Please mention this code when you call.

    New York Mint 14101

    Southcross Drive W.,Dept. ASE177-04

    Burnsville, Minnesota 55337

    www. NewYorkMint. com

    In a paper published in the journey Science Advance, researchers describe how Matabele ants, a species of large ant known for attacking termite colonies (白蚁群落), will, after the battle, pick up injured fellow soldiers and carry them back to the nest where they can recover.

    The paper is the latest in a growing body of research that this form of helping behavior, previously observed in some mammals and birds, may not require complex emotion, and may, therefore, be far more widespread in nature than previously thought.

    “Here we have an example of an individual saving another individual,” says lead researcher Erik Frank who conducted the research. “We can be quite certain that the ants don't know why they are doing what they are doing.”

    It's a behavior that pays off for the colony. Our classic conception of worker ants is that they are essentially abandoned, but Mr. Frank and his colleagues calculated that the practice of rescuing nest mates results in a colony size that is a 28.7 percent larger than it would be had the ants left their fellow soldiers for dead.

    “These injured ants are able to recover from their injuries, ” says Frank. “They are essential for the safety and the betterment of the colony. ”

    When a Matabele ant is injured, as often happens during battles with termites, its body will give off two smelly chemicals that tell other ants to carry it back to the nest. Indeed, the researchers found that using these chemicals to seek help from uninjured ants will effectively activate the rescue behavior, supporting their theory that the ants were acting on pure instinct(本能), not more complex emotions.

    “The more we study rescue behavior in ants and other animals, the more we are going to realize that it's not just limited to the species we've observed so far, ” says Karen Hollis, a professor at Mount Holyoke College, mentioning studies that found that dolphins help other injured dolphins to the surface for air, capuchin monkeys defend each other during intergroup battles, and rats free other rats that are trapped.

    If someone asked you to quantify (衡量) the time you spend online, how would you answer? If you're like one-fifth of Americans, you'd likely say “almost constantly.” New research shows that 21 percent of Americans report that they're online more or less constantly.

    Andrew Perrin, a research assistant at Pew, did a survey about Internet use. During the survey, adults were asked how much they go online. 13 percent said they don't go online and 13 percent said they go online several times a week or less. Only 10 percent said they go online once a day and much larger quantities said they go online several times a day (42 percent) or “almost constantly” (21 percent).

    Interestingly, there wasn't a gender split (性别分化) when it came to near constant Internet use. Age seems to be the great divider: Only six percent of people over 65 said they were online that much. Those who reported that they were online all the time included 12 percent of 50- to 64-year-olds, 28 percent of 30- to 49-year-olds and 36 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds.

    Don't suppose that teenagers are online more than adults, however. In another survey, Pew found that while they did have a slight edge on adults in general when it came to “almost constant” Internet use, 24 percent said they were online pretty much all the time. They still fell greatly behind the 36 percent of adults between 18 and 29 years of age who were always online.

    Given that the United Nations considers unrestricted (无限制的) Internet access (接入) to be a human right, the number of Americans who report being online “almost constantly” could rise along with availability and affordability. But it remains to be seen whether being online all the time is actually something to long for, or how constant connectivity will affect American culture in the long term.

    A year after graduation, I was offered a position teaching a writing class. Teaching was a profession I had never seriously considered, though several of my stories had been published. I accepted the job without hesitation, as it would allow me to wear a tie and go by the name of Mr. Davis. My father went by the same name, and I liked to imagine people getting the two of us confused. "Wait a minute," someone might say, "are you talking about Mr. Davis the retired man, or Mr. Davis the respectable scholar?"

    The position was offered at the last minute, and I was given two weeks to prepare, a period I spent searching for briefcase and standing before my full-length mirror, repeating the words, "Hello, class. I'm Mr. Davis." Sometimes I would give myself an aggressive voice. Sometimes I would sound experienced. But when the day eventually came, my nerves kicked in and the true Mr. Davis was there. I sounded not like a thoughtful professor, but rather a 12-year-old boy.

    I arrived in the classroom with paper cards designed in the shape of maple leaves. I had cut them myself out of orange construction paper. I saw nine students along a long table. I handed out the cards, and the students wrote down their names and fastened them to their breast pockets as I required.

    "All right then,'' I said." Okay, here we go." Then I opened my briefcase and realized that I had never thought beyond this moment. I had been thinking that the students would be the first to talk, offering their thoughts and opinions on the events of the day. I had imagined that I would sit at the edge of the desk, overlooking a forest of hands. Every student would shout. "Calm down, you'll all get your turn. One at a time, one at a time!"

    A terrible silence ruled the room, and seeing no other opinions, I asked the students to pull out their notebooks and write a brief essay related to the theme of deep disappointment.

    Six months after a Chinese scientist was widely condemned for helping to make the world's first gene­edited babies, he remains out of public view, and new information suggests that others may be interested in undertaking the same kind of work outside the United States.

    A clinic in the United Arab Emirates city of Dubai emailed scientist He Jiankui to seek training in gene editing, Stanford University bioethicist Dr. William Hurlbut said ahead of a speech Tuesday at the World Science Festival in New York.

    Hurlbut, whose advice He often sought, said He told him that scientists from multiple countries and families with inherited health problems had messaged support and interest in altering the genes of embryos(胚胎)to prevent or treat disease. Hurlbut gave The Associated Press the email the Dubai clinic sent to He in December but decided to hide the clinic's name.

    "It reveals what eagerness there is out there to use this technology" and the need "for some sort of practical governance" of it, Hurlbut said.

    Jennifer Doudna, a University of California, Berkeley, co­inventor of the CRISPR gene­editing tool that He used, said that she also has heard of others who want to edit embryos.

    "I think they're entirely credible," she said of such reports. Doudna, who was also a speaker at the New York festival, said the field needs to focus on setting specific principles for how and when such work should proceed.

    "The technology is frankly just not ready for clinical use in human embryos," although research should continue, she said. Doudna is paid by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which also supports AP's Health and Science Department.

    Scientists and policy leaders have been debating how to set international standards or controls since He claimed in November that he had altered the genes of twin girls at conception(怀孕)to try to help them resist possible future infection with the AIDS virus.

    Editing embryos is outlawed in many countries because it risks damaging other genes, and the DNA changes can be passed to future generations. Many scientists have condemned He's work, and attention has fallen on other scientists who knew or strongly suspected what He was doing.

    Feeding birds is a popular way to watch wildlife. But experts say it might put wild birds at risk.

    Feeding birds is not necessary for their survival except in extreme weather conditions. Feeders(喂食器)can definitely help birds get through that kind of weather. But most birds eat insects and show little interest in bird feeders. For those birds, we can grow native plants in a natural environment. Birds which are fond of eating seeds will be more likely to come to feeders if there is some cover nearby. This lets them feed and then fly to protective areas, such as in trees.

    The most common mistake people make with their bird feeders is that they put feeders in places where birds are easily frightened by passers-by, risk being hurt by cats, or risk flying into windows.

    So set up a bird feeder at least one meter away from a window. That way, if a bird gets frightened, it won't get killed when it hits the glass. Owners of cats should keep them inside home so they can't hurt the birds.

    Some birds are more aggressive at feeders. They eat a lot and do not leave much food for other birds. A solution is to put the food in more than one place by using different kinds of seeds or fruits. This can also increase the number and diversity of birds in your neighborhood. But don't feed wild birds anything salty, like potato chips, or food that could choke them, like bread.

    Pay attention to food quality and freshness. Unprotected food left too long in feeders will turn moldy(发霉), which can kill wildlife.

    Another word of advice: Always provide a supply of clean water for birds, but use care when looking for the right birdbath. If the birdbaths are too deep for birds, putting a few large stones in the water can give the birds a place to sit.