MONTREAL(Reuters)—Crossing the US-Canada border to go to church on a Sunday cost an American $10,000 for breaking Washington's strict new security rules.

    The expensive trip to church was a surprise for Richard Albert, who lives right on the Canadian border. Albert often crosses the border like the other half-dozen people of Township 15. The nearby Quebec village of St. Pamphile is where they shop, eat and go to church.

    There are many such situations in these areas along the largely unguarded 5,530-mile border between Canada and the US, which in some cases actually runs down the middle of streets or through buildings.

    As a result, Albert says he did not expect any problems three weeks ago when he returned home to the US after attending church in Canada, as usual. The US customs station in this area is closed on Sundays, so he just drove around the locked gate, as he had done every weekend since the gate appeared last May, following a tightening of border security. Two days later. Albert was told to go to the customs office, where an officer told him he had been caught on camera crossing the border illegally.

    Ottawa has given out special passes to some 300 Americans in that area so they can enter the country when Canadian customs(海关) stations are closed, but the US stopped a similar program last May. That forces the people to a 200-mile detour along hilly roads to get home through another border checkpoint.

    Albert has requested that the customs office change their decisions on the fine, but he has not attended a Sunday church since. “I feel like I'm living in a prison,” he said.

    A new argument has been put forward as to whether penguins are disturbed by the presence of tourists in Antarctica.

    Previous research by scientists from Keil University in Germany monitored Adelie penguins and noted that the birds' heart rates increased dramatically at the sight of a human as far as 30 meters away. But new research using an artificial egg, which is equipped to measure heart rates, disputes this. Scientists from the Scott Polar Research Institute at Cambridge say that a slow moving human who does not approach the nest too closely, is not viewed as a threat by penguins.

    The earlier findings have been used to partly explain the 20 per cent drop in populations of certain types of penguins near tourist sites. However, tour operators have continued to insist that their activities do not adversely（不利地）affect wildlife in Antarctica, saying they encourage non-destructive behavior in tourists, and that the decline in penguin numbers is caused by other factors.

    Amanda Nimon of the Scott Polar Research Institute spent three southern hemisphere summers at Cuverville Island in Antarctica studying penguin behavior towards humans. “A nesting penguin will react very differently to a person rapidly and closely approaching the nest,” says Nimon. “First they exhibit large and prolonged heart rate changes and then they often flee the nest leaving it open for predators（掠夺者）to fly in and remove eggs or chicks.” The artificial egg, specially for the project, monitored both the parent who had been 'disturbed' when the egg was placed in the nest and the other parent as they both took it in turns to guard the nest.

    However, Boris Culik, who monitored the Adelie penguins, believes that Nimon's findings do not prove his own research invalid. He points out that species behave differently – and Nimon's work was with Gentoo penguins. Nimon and her colleagues believe that Culik's research was methodologically（方法论上）defective because the monitoring of penguins' responses needed catching the birds and fitting them with heart-rate transmitters（发射器）. Therefore, argues Nimon, it would not be surprising if they became stressed on seeing a human subsequently.

    When I was 3 years old, I was found to be deaf in my left ear and have a small problem in my right. Being hard of hearing has been difficult, but I've never lived in a state of self-hating sorrow.

    Imagine being able to shut out all sounds as you lay your head down to sleep by simply rolling over onto one side. That's my reality when I sleep on my “good ear”, and it even makes me feel like a superhero sometimes.

    People call my deaf side my “bad ear”, but when I wear my hearing aid, I have access to a range of features(特征)that some other deaf people don't.

    In cinemas, for example, with one click of a button I can enjoy a whole film as though it were whispered to me from the mouths of the actors.

    Having a hearing aid hasn't always felt good, however.

    On the first day I got my aid, when I was 8, I took it to school for show-and-tell. As I explained how it worked to my classmates, a boy yelled out, “Aren't those for old men?”

    At that moment, I felt different. It took a long time for me to get over that sense of being so unlike my peers(同龄人).

    But it's not just choolkids who can make us deaf and hard-of-hearing people feel like burdens(负担).

    Every video on social media that lacks subtitles, for example, means an entire community of deaf people is unable to enjoy it.

    Completely deaf people are excluded from enjoying many movies too, as subtitles in cinemas are almost impossible to find.

    And with hearing aids costing around $2,500 each, it can be hard for many people to afford to be able to listen to the things that others take for granted.

    As for me, I can listen to music, enjoy films, and catch conversations – I'm lucky.

I'm deaf, but I can still hear everything. I've been blessed with wonderful life experiences.

    From composer, musician, and philanthropist (慈善家) Peter Buffett comes a warm, wise, and inspirational book that asks, "Which will you choose: the path of least resistance or the path of potentially greatest satisfaction?"

    You may think that with a last name like this, Buffett has enjoyed a life of endless privilege. But the son of billionaire investor Warrant Buffet says that the only real inheritance handed down from his parents is a philosophy: Build your own path in life. It is a principle that has allowed him to follow his own passions, establish his own identity, and achieve his own successes.

    In Life Is What You Made It, Buffett expounds on the strong set of values given to him by his trusting and broadminded mother, his hardworking and talented father, and the many life teachers he has met along the way.

    Today's society, Buffett assumes, has begun to replace a work ethic (准则), which enjoys what you do, with a wealth ethic, which honors the reward instead of the process. We confuse privilege with material wealth, character with external (外在的) recognition. Yet, by focusing more on substance and less on reward, we can open doors of opportunity and work hard toward a greater sense of achievement. In clear and brief terms, Buffett tells us a great truth: Life is random, neither fair nor unfair.

    From there it becomes easy to recognize the equal dignity and value of every human life—our circumstances may vary but our essence does not. We see that our journey in life rarely follows a straight line but is often met with false starts, crises, and mistakes. How we push through and insist on those challenging moments is where we begin to create the life of our dreams—from discovering our vocations (使命感) to giving back to others.

    Personal and instructive, Life Is What You Make It is about challenging your circumstances, taking control of your fate, and living your life to the fullest.

    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.

    On March 25, 2010, Kate and David heard the words every parent dreads: Their newborn wasn't going to make it. Their twins­a girl and a boy­were born two minutes apart and 14 weeks premature, weighing just over two pounds each. Doctors had tried to save the boy for 20 minutes but saw no improvement. His heartbeat was nearly gone, and he'd stopped breathing. The baby had just moments to live.

    "I saw him gasp (喘息), but the doctor said it was no use," Kate told the Daily Mail five years later. "I know it sounds stupid, but if he was still gasping, that was a sign of life. I wasn't going to give up easily."

    Still, the couple knew this was likely a goodbye. In an effort to cherish her last minutes with the tiny boy, Kate asked to hold him.

    "I wanted to meet him, and for him to know us," Kate told Today. "We'd resigned ourselves to the fact that we were going to lose him, and we were just trying to make the most of those last, precious moments."

    Kate unwrapped the boy, whom the couple had already named Jamie, from his hospital blanket and asked David to take his shirt off and join them in bed. The first-time parents wanted their son to be as warm as possible and hoped the skin-to-skin contact would improve his condition. They also talked to him.

    "We were trying to persuade him to stay," Kate told the Daily Mail. "We explained his name and that he had a twin that he had to look out for and how hard we had tried to have him."

    Then something miraculous happened. Jamie gasped again­and then he started breathing. Finally, he reached for his father's finger.

    The couple's lost boy had made it.

    "We're the luckiest people in the world," David told Today.

    Eight years later, Jamie and his sister, Emily, are happy and healthy. The couple only recently told the kids the story of their birth. "Emily burst into tears," Kate said. "She was really upset, and she kept hugging Jamie. This whole experience makes you cherish them more."