In today's households where both parent go to work and kids have busy schedules with school homework and many afternoon activities, finding time for a gathering at the table seems all but impossible. Yet, studies have shown time and again that eating together has multiple benefits for family members, especially children.

    According to reports issued by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University(CASA), children who eat more with their family are at lower risk of developing poor eating habits, weight problems or alcohol dependencies. They tend to perform better academically than those who frequently eat alone. Family meals came into American life in the mid-20^th century. In the 60's and 70's, social, economic and technological changes quickly dissolved the short-lived way of family meals. Restaurant visits, take-out and TV dinners have since become the norm.

    There are indicators, however, that the old customs are coming back. According to the latest CASA reports, 59% of surveyed families said they ate diner together at least five times a week, a significant increase from 47% in 1998. Whatever drives this trend, it is a development that should be welcomed.

    Eating together as a family is not just about food and nutrition. It is about teaching them how to become members of their society and culture. Food as become so easily and cheaply available that we no longer appreciate its significance. We have to rediscover its importance and its value. Sharing a meal with loved ones should be considered a special event, which can almost take on the form of a ceremony, as it was practiced by our ancestors for whom finding food was a constant struggle.

    Of course, there is no guarantee that the simple act of eating at home surrounded by family may make children more virtuous or socially more responsible. But it can lay the groundwork for a lot of things that point them in the right direction.

    Today Dante had a small skating competition in his class. Before we went to the competition, I asked him if he wanted to wear something nice for the competition and he said, “Who cares? It's not important.” When we showed up at the rink(溜冰场), we found that most of the kids were dressed up. One boy who was around nine years old was my son's friend, wearing a dress shirt and a pink vest. I walked over to his mother saying how beautifully dressed he was. But his mother said, “He didn't want to dress up. He said that this competition was not important for him to dress up.”

    I thought it was interesting that neither Dante nor his friend viewed the competition as important and neither wanted to dress up. I started to wonder if this was how a child learned what was “important” and what wasn't.

Interestingly, this boy won two medals and Dante won none.

    Parents and teachers often instill (灌输) what they think is important: then children will accept the opinions of the adults. Gradually, they grow up stressing about how they look, how many medals they get, what color the medals are, how good their grades are, what a great “job” they can get in life, what a big house they can live in... etc.

    Dante taught me an important lesson today. He taught me what was unimportant. Life goes on long after the medal ceremony whether you win a medal or not.

    A study, conducted by David Evans of the World Bank and Anna Popova of Stanford University, looked at 19 programs around the world in which individuals were given cash transfers from the government, either as a handout or as a "reward" for something like getting kids to school on time or taking them to the doctor for checkups.

    Evans and Popova looked at the impact those cash transfers had on the family budget and whether or not they led to an increase in spending on alcohol and cigarettes .What they found was that they almost always led to a reduction in a family's alcohol and tobacco purchases.

     The news may surprise some people, but it's true, and the researchers have several theories about why.

    One theory is that the cash transfer made things possible that once seemed impossible. Investing in their kids' education or buying healthier and more expensive foods may be within reach now, but without the cash handout, these goals weren't even a possibility. So families cut back on other expenses (like alcohol and tobacco) to make those dreams a reality.

    Another theory is that people just generally seem to do what they're told. If they are given money and told to use it for their family's welfare, in most cases, they will do just that. And that leads to the third theory: These cash transfers are usually given to women, and studies show that when women control the purse strings, more money is spent on taking care of their children.

    Whatever the reason for the trend, the data is clear—families that receive cash handouts don't waste the money on booze and cigarettes as was previously thought. Instead, they typically use that money for the benefit of their families. And that's money well spent.

    The United States Congress is responsible for making and approving federal laws—rules that everyone in the country must follow. But exactly how do those laws get made? The process is not easy, and it takes a long time.

    A law begins when someone puts forward an idea. The idea can come from anyone, but it has to get to a U. S. lawmaker who wants it to become legislation. In time, the idea is further developed into a written proposal, called a bill.

    Then, a member of Congress officially proposes the bill. After the bill is introduced, it is sent to a small group of lawmakers, called a "committee". Sometimes committee members seek more information about the proposal by holding hearings. Sometimes the committee changes the bill. Sometimes it decides not to take any action. In that case, we say lawmakers "table" the bill, or let it "die in committee".

    But now and then, the bill is offered to lawmakers not on the committee. Those lawmakers debate the bill further. They might change the bill again. Finally, the full House or Senate votes on the bill. If it does not earn the majority of votes, the bill does not advance.

    Finally, the agreed-upon bill is sent to the president. If the president signs it, the bill becomes a law. If the president does nothing and Congress is officially meeting, the bill becomes a law. But if the president does nothing and Congress is not in session, the bill does not pass. Or the president can officially reject the bill. If that happens, the bill is not stopped. Instead, it is returned to both the Senate and the House. If two-thirds of the senators and two-thirds of the House members approve the bill once again, even with the president objecting, they turn the bill into a law.

    Depression(抑郁) can be a destructive illness, plaguing millions of people worldwide with feelings of sadness, hopelessness, and fatigue. Despite numerous antidepressant drugs, as many as a third of patients don't respond to medication. This has forced doctors to be more creative in finding different treatments for the condition.

    In the past two decades, researchers have tied depression to a seemingly unrelated condition: inflammation(炎症), the body's natural response to stress. It could rise from injury or inflection, or even emotional issues like an unhappy marriage or problems at work. Some amount of inflammation is generally beneficial, as it increases production of cytokines(致癌因子)，proteins that help us heal and protect us from the effects of overwork.

    But excessive cytokine levels, and the inflammation they bring on, could come at a cost—a number of studies suggests that high levels of cytokines could contribute to depression.

    Cytokines can reach the brain several ways: directly through the blood-brain barrier or indirectly by binding to nerve fibers elsewhere, which send signals to the brain to produce the inflammation molecules. In the brain, cytokines can disturb the production and release of several important signaling chemicals, including serotonin, dopamine and glutamate, which help control emotion, appetite, sleep, learning and memory. It's though that a lack of serotonin activity in the brain causes depression; most antidepressants increase the activity. But cytokines also have been shown to activate stress hormone signaling in the brain, which man also serve to develop depression.

    With all the evidence implicating inflammation in depression, doctors have been anxious to test anti-inflammatory drugs as a potential treatment. Four small studies published between 2006 and 2017 by research groups in Europe and Iran found that adults diagnosed with depression who took aspirin or another anti-inflammatory drug called Celecoxib, along with an antidepressant, got more relief from feelings of sadness, hopelessness, guilt and fatigue compared with those taking an antidepressant alone. However, Andrew Miller, a professor of psychiatry at Emory University, thought something was wrong in these small, limited studies. None of them looked at whether the participants had to have high levels of cytokines before they'd see a benefit from anti-inflammatory drugs.  "Unfortunately, much of the field has fallen into the trap of viewing inflammation as the be-all, end-all," Miller says. He and his colleagues wanted to see whether the effect of these drugs was limited to the depression patients with high cytokine levels, or if it helped all people diagnosed with depression.

Damian Stefaniuk and his colleagues at Massachusetts Institute of Technology （MIT） have developed a novel energy storage device—a supercapacitor— using three basic, inexpensive materials： water, cement, and a soot （煤灰）, which can carry electricity. 

Supercapacitors are highly efficient at storing energy but differ from batteries in some important ways. They can charge much more quickly than a lithium （锂） battery and don't experience the same level of performance decline over time. But supercapacitors also release the power they store rapidly, making them less useful in devices such as mobile phones, laptops or electric cars where a steady supply of energy is needed over an extended period of time. 

Yet according to Stefaniuk, these supercapacitors could make an important contribution to efforts to reduce carbon emissions and make the global economy more environmentally friendly. "If it can be scaled up, the technology can help solve an important issue— the storing of renewable energy," he says. 

He and his fellow researchers at MIT envision several applications for their supercapacitors. One might be to create roads that store solar energy and then release it to recharge electric cars wirelessly as they drive along a road. The rapid release of energy from the supercapacitors would allow vehicles to get a rapid boost to their batteries. Another application would be using supercapacitors in the foundations or walls of houses, so that these parts of the house not only support the structure but also store energy. 

"But it's still early stages. Right now, the supercapacitor made from building materials can only store just under 300 watt-hours per cubic meter, enough to power a 10-watt LED light for 30 hours. The power might seem low compared to regular batteries, but a foundation made from 30-40 cubic meters of this material could meet the daily energy needs of a house," says Stefaniuk. "Since this material is used so widely around the world, it has the potential to be very competitive and useful for energy storage."