American researchers found females are the more talkative sex because of a special “language protein” in the brain.

    The study, conducted by neuroscientists (神经学家) and psychologist from the University of Maryland, concluded that women talked more because they had more of the Foxp2 protein. The research, published in the Journal of Neuroscience, found that higher levels were found among humans that were women but in rats that were males. Their findings came after it was previously claimed that ladies speak about 20,000 words a day — over 13,000 more than men. “This study is one of the first to report a sex difference in the expression of a language-associated protein in humans or animals,” said Prof Margaret McCarthy, who led the study. In their study, the researchers attempted to determine what might make male rats more vocal than their female friends.

    They separated four-day-old rats from their mothers and then counted the number of times they cried out in the “ultrasonic (超声波的) range”, the frequencies higher than humans can hear, over five minutes. While both sexes called out hundreds of cries, the males called out twice as often, they found. But when the pups were returned to their mother's cage, she fussed over her sons first. Tests conducted on the parts of the brain known to be associated with vocal calls showed the male pups have up to twice as much Foxp2 protein as the females. The researchers then increased the production in the brains of female pups and reduced it in males. This led to the female rats crying out more often and their mothers showing more interest in them. In contrast, males became less “talkative”.

    The researchers then tested samples from ten children, aged between three and five, which showed that females had up to 30 per cent more of the Foxp2 protein than males, in a brain area key to language in humans.

    “Based on our observations, we assume higher levels of Foxp2 in girls and higher levels of Foxp2 in male rats is an indication that Foxp2 protein levels are associated with the more communicative sex,” said Prof McCarthy.

    “Our results imply Foxp2 as a component (成分) of the neurobiological basis of sex differences in vocal communication in mammals.”

    London—A morning's train ride away, across the Channel, English kids talk about Liverpool's soccer team in a Paris pub. Some Parisians have even started to go to work in London. In the 19^th century, Charles Dickens compared the two great rival (竞争) cities, London and Paris, in " A Tale of Two Cities". These days, it might be A Tale of One City.

    Parisians are these days likely to smile in sympathy at a visitor's broken French and respond in polite English. As jobs grew lack at home over recent years, perhaps 250,000 Frenchmen moved across the Channel. With an undersea tunnel, they could travel between cities in three hours. The European Union freed them from immigration and customs.

    Paris, rich in beauty, is more attractive. But London feels more full of life, and more fun until the pubs shut down.

    "For me, the difference is that London is real, alive," said Trevor Wheeler, a banker.

    Chantal Jaouen, a professional designer, agrees. "I am French, but I'll stay in London," she said.

    There is, of course, the other view. Julie Lenoux is a student who moved to London two years ago. "I think people laugh more in Paris," she said.

    In fact, London and Paris, with their obvious new similarities, are beyond the old descriptions. As the European Union gradually loosened controls, Londoners flocked into Paris to shop, eat and buy property (地产).

    "Both cities have changed beyond recognition." Said Larry Collins, a writer and sometimes a Londoner. Like most people who know both well, he finds the two now fit together comfortably.

    "I first fell in love with Paris in the 1950s and it is still a wonderful place," Collins said. "But if I had to choose, it would be London. Things are so much more ordered, and life is better."

    But certainly not cheaper. In fancy parts of London, rents can be twice those on Avenue Foch in Paris. Deciding between London and Paris requires a lifestyle choice.

    Like Daphne Benoit, a French journalism student with perfect English, many young people are happy to be close enough so they don't have to choose.

    "I love Paris, my little neighborhood, the way I can walk around a centre, but life is so structured," she said. "In London, you can be who you want. No one cares."

    Eye Health Care

    Daily

    Healthy habits mean healthy eyes. Here are some daily tips for eye health.

    P Clean your eyes with pure cold water regularly. This is one of the best ways to keep eyes healthy and disease free.

    Avoid looking directly at the sun

    Roll your eyes up and down, then side to side. Then move your eyes in a circular motion（圆周运动） Exercise5tol0 times a day to relax your eyes

    Keep a good distance from the computer screen-sit about 22-28 inches away from it.

    Visit your eye doctor on a regular basis

    There are also some tips for healthy contact lens（隐形眼镜）wear and care to help prevent eye infections (感染). Please visit CDCS healthy contact lenses website and you can also follow them on social media(www.cdc.goy/contactlenses).

    American and British people both speak English of course. But sometimes it does not seem like the same language. In fact, there are some important differences between British English and American English.

    First of all, they sound very different. Often, Americans don't say each word separately. They say several words together. Americans may say "I dunno" instead of "I don't know". Or they may say "Whaddaya say?" instead of "What do you say?" However, the British are more careful in their speech. They usually say all the words and keep them separate.

    Sound is not the only difference between British English and American English. Words sometimes have different meanings too. Some American words are never used in England. The same thing is true of some British words in America. For example, the vocabulary for cars and driving is very different. Americans drive trucks, but in England people drive lorries.

    Many expressions are also different in the two countries. In England，if you are going to telephone your friends, you "phone them up". In America, you "give them a call". When you are saying goodbye in England you might say "Cheerio!" In America you might say "See you later."

    There're also some differences in grammar. For example, Americans usually use the helping verb "do" when they ask a question. They say "Do you have a storybook?" But the British often leave out the helping verb. They say "Have you a storybook?"

    All these differences can be confusing if you are learning English. But most languages are like this. Languages change over time. When people live in separate places, the languages change in different ways. This is what has happened to English. It can also happen to other languages, such as French. Many people in Canada speak French, but their French is very different from the French of France.

Imagine having the {#blank#}1{#/blank#} to sing together with hundreds of other people while you are at home alone. You can do this in a virtual choir. Virtual choir members record themselves while they perform alone on video. These videos are uploaded onto the Internet, and then they are put {#blank#}2{#/blank#} into one video that you can see online—a virtual choir. Anyone can take part in a virtual choir from anywhere—all you need is a video camera and an Internet {#blank#}3{#/blank#}. You do not even need a {#blank#}4{#/blank#}. A virtual choir helps connect {#blank#}5{#/blank#} people together. Many people do not have close friends or {#blank#}6{#/blank#} who have the same interest in music. Many others do not have the chance to join a local choir. A virtual choir {#blank#}7{#/blank#} them to add their voices to those of other {#blank#}8{#/blank#} and become part of the global community. It has {#blank#}9{#/blank#} to be a positive influence on the lives of many people. As one virtual choir member said, "Music helps me to … forget my problems. With music, I become someone {#blank#}10{#/blank#}."

According to a new Agriculture Department report, U. S. forests could exacerbate global warming because they are being destroyed by natural disasters and are losing their ability to absorb planet-warming gases as they get older. The report predicts that the ability of forests to absorb carbon will start declining after 2025 and that forests could release up to 100 million metric tons of carbon a year as their emissions (排放) from decaying (腐烂的) trees go beyond their carbon absorption. Forests could become a "substantial carbon source" by 2070, the USDA report says.

The loss of carbon absorption is driven in part by natural disasters such as wildfires, tornadoes and hurricanes, which are increasing in frequency and strength as global temperatures rise. The disasters destroy forestland, destroying their ecosystem and decreasing their ability to absorb carbon, according to Lynn Riley, a senior manager of climate science at the American Forest Foundation. Aging forests also contribute. The report found that older, mature trees absorb less carbon than younger trees of the same species, and U. S. forests are rapidly aging.

This trend is likely to continue, as forests come under increasing threat from climate change and exploitation (开采). The typical tropical (热带的) forest may become a carbon source by the 2060s, according to Simon Lewis, professor in the school of geography at Leeds University. "Humans have been lucky so far, as tropical forests are cleaning up lots of our pollution, but they can't keep doing that indefinitely," he said. "We need to cut down fossil fuel emissions before the global carbon cycle starts working against us."

U. S. forests currently absorb 11 percent of U. S. carbon emissions, or 150 million metric tons of carbon a year, equal to the combined emissions from 40 coal power plants, according to the report. The loss of forests as natural carbon absorbers will require the U. S. to cut emissions more rapidly to reach net zero. "As we work to decarbonize (碳减排), forests are one of the greatest tools at our handling. If we were to lose that, it means we will contribute that much more in emissions." Riley said.