Men are spending more and more time in the kitchen encouraged by celebrity (名人) chefs like Gordon Ramsay and Jamie Oliver, according to a report from Oxford University.

    The effect of the celebrity role models, who have given cooking a more manly picture, has combined with a more general drive towards sexual equality and men now spend more than twice the amount of time preparing meals than they did in 1961.

    According to the research by Prof. Jonatahn Gershuny, who runs the Centre for Time Research at Oxford, men now spend more than half an hour a day cooking, up from just 12 minutes a day in 1961.

    Prof. Gershuny said, “The man in the kitchen is part of a much wider social trend. There has been 40 years of sexual equality, but there is another 40 years probably to come.”

    Women, who a generation ago spent nearly two hours a day cooking, now spend just one hour and seven minutes—a great fall, but they still spend far more time in the kitchen than men.

    Some experts have named these men in aprons as “Gastrosexuals (men using cooking skills to impress friends)”, who have been inspired to pick up a kitchen knife by the success of Ramsay, Oliver as well as other male celebrity chefs such as Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, Marco Pierre White and Keith Floyd.

     “I was married in 1974. When my father came to visit me a few weeks later, I was wearing an apron when I opened the door. He laughed,” said Prof. Gershuny. “That would never happen now.”

    Two-thirds of adults say that they come together to share at least three times a week, even if it is not necessarily around a kitchen or dining room table. Prof. Gershuny pointed out that the family meal was now rarely eaten by all of its members around a table—with many “family meals” in fact taken on the sofa in the sitting room, and shared by family members. “The family meal has changed a lot, and few of us eat—as I did when I was a child—at least two meals a day together as a family. But it has survived in a different format.”

    Most American students go to traditional public schools. There are about 88,000 public schools all over the US. Some students attend about 3,000 independent public schools called charter schools.

    Charter schools are self­governing. Private companies operate some charter schools. They are similar in some ways to traditional public schools. They receive tax just as other public schools do. Charter schools must prove to local or state governments that their students are learning. These governments provide the schools with the agreement called a charter that permits them to operate.

    Charter schools are different because they do not have to obey most laws governing traditional public schools. Local, state or federal governments cannot tell them what to teach. Each school can choose its own goals and decide the ways it wants to reach them. Class size is usually smaller than in traditional public schools.

    Governments strongly support charter schools as a way to re­organize public schools that are failing to educate students. But some education agencies and unions oppose charter schools. One teachers' union has just made public the results of the first national study comparing the progress of students in traditional schools and charter schools.

    The American Federation of Teachers criticized the government's delay in releasing the results of the study, which is called the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Union education experts say the study shows that charter school students performed worse in math and reading tests than students in regular public schools.

    Some experts say the study is not a fair look at charter schools because students in those schools have more problems than students in traditional schools. Other education experts say the study results should make charter school officials demand more student progress.

    No one likes to make mistakes. But a new study says organizations learn more from their failures than from their successes, and keep that knowledge longer.

    One of the researchers was Vinit Desai, an assistant professor at the University of Colorado Denver Business School. He worked with Peter Madsen from the Marriott School of Management at Brigham Young University in Utah.

    They did not find much long-term "organizational learning" from success. It is possible, they say. But Professor Desai says they found that knowledge gained from failure lasts for years. He says organizations should treat failures as a learning opportunity and not try to ignore them.

    The study looked at companies and organizations that launch satellites and other space vehicles. Professor Desai compared two shuttle flights. In two thousand two, a piece of insulating (隔热的) material broke off during launch and damaged a rocket on the Atlantis. Still the flight was considered a success. Then in early two thousand three, a piece of insulation struck the Columbia during launch. This time, the shuttle broke apart on re-entry and the seven crew members died. NASA officials suspended all flights and an investigation led to suggested changes.

    Professor Desai says the search for solutions after a failure can make leaders more open-minded. He points to air-lines as an example of an industry that has learned from failures in the past. He advises organizations to look for useful information in small failures and failures they avoided. He also urges leaders to encourage the open sharing of information. The study appeared in the Academy of management Journal.

    The mistakes we learn from do not have to be our own. We recently asked people on our Facebook page to tell us a time they had done something really silly. Fabricio Cmino wrote: Not long ago I wanted to watch TV, but it wouldn't turn on, so I did everything I could to start it. Thirty minutes later my mum showed up and, passing by, said to me "Did you try plugging it?" "I'm just dusting, Mum!" So she wouldn't notice how dumb I am sometimes!

    Bruno Kanieski da Silva told about a time he looked everywhere for his key. It was in his pocket. He wrote: I always promise I will never do it again, but after a few weeks, where is my wallet? For sure it will be in a very logical place.

Seeds on Ice

    Close to the North Pole, remote and rocky Plateau Mountain in the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard seems an unlikely spot for any global effort to safeguard agriculture. In this cold and deserted environment, no grains, no gardens, no trees can grow. Yet at the end of a 130-meter-long tunnel cut out of solid stone is a room filled with humanity's most precious treasure, the largest and most diverse seed collection—more than a half-billion seeds.

    A quiet rescue mission is under way. With growing evidence that unchecked climate change-will seriously affect food production and threaten the diversity （多样性） of crops around the world, the Svalbard Global Seed Vault （地窖） represents a major step towards ensuring the preservation （贮藏） of hundreds of thousands of crop varieties. This is a seed collection, but more importantly, it is a collection of the traits found within the seeds: the genes that give one variety resistance to a particular pest and another variety tolerance for hot, dry weather.

    Few people will ever see or come into contact with the contents of this vault. In sealed boxes, behind multiple locked doors, monitored by electronic security systems, enveloped in below—zero temperatures, and surrounded by tons of rock, hundreds of millions of seeds are protected in their mountain fortress. Frozen in such conditions inside the mountain, seeds of most major crops will remain viable for hundreds of years, or longer. Seeds of some are capable of retaining （保留） their ability to grow for thousands of years.

    Everyone can look back now and say that the Seed Vault was a good and obvious idea, and that of course the Norwegian government should have approved and funded it. But back in 2004, when the Seed Vault was proposed, it was viewed as a crazy, impractical, and expensive idea.

    We knew that nothing would provide a definite guarantee. But we were tired, fed up, and frankly scared of the steady, greater losses of crop diversity. The Seed Vault was built by optimists who wanted to do something to preserve options so that humanity and its crops might be better prepared for change. If it simply resupplied seed gene banks with samples those gene banks had lost, this would repay our efforts.

    The Seed Vault is about hope and commitment-about what can be done if countries come together and work cooperatively to accomplish something significant, long-lasting, and worthy of who we are and wish to be.

    It was dinner time for the Rangers, a group of mostly Indigenous (本地的) Australians who had spent a long day cleaning up the polluted beaches of the continent's northern coast. Soon they would be eating freshly caught fish and seafood cooked under the stars on an open fire, as their ancestors did.

    The Rangers are of more than 100 Indigenous groups spread across Australia who have taken on the job of protecting the land of their forefathers. In Arnhem Land, they are the protectors of 3,300 square miles of land and sea. They comb the beaches by hand, picking up as much rubbish as possible. The task is very difficult as each day it delivers waves of new rubbish.

    For the Rangers, cleaning the beaches is more than a vacation. For a people whose culture is strongly tied to the land, protecting the environment is equal to preserving their history.

    However, colonization forcefully broke their connection to the land generations ago. Indigenous people were displaced and their cultural practices outlawed. Tens of thousands of years of traditional land management ended, and as a result many parts of the country now face serious disasters from invasive plant and animal species, bush fires and land mismanagement.

    In recent years, the government has restored more than 20 percent of Australia's land to Indigenous owners. Since 2007, the Indigenous Rangers Organizations have been at work protecting this land.

    Luck, one of the few non-Indigenous employees working with the Rangers, said the combination of old and new techniques and an appreciation for the culture of Indigenous workers has been critical to the program's success.

    "You are working with staff who see the world different to you, so there is a much higher focus on the cultural aspects of work and life," he said.

    "Being a ranger is a source of confidence. You feel strong," said Terence, a senior ranger. "Here we still live on the land. The culture is still alive."