Many of today's parents fondly remember childhood days spent playing outdoors. When children make mud pies and observe ants, it may seem like just fun and games, but the truth is the outdoor play is an important part of growing up healthily. The National Association for the Education of Young Children reports that outdoor play reduces (make…less) stress and restlessness in children and improves their attention.

    Outdoor play is the perfect way to fight against the childhood's obesity(being fat).Research shows that children who play outdoors are more fit and thin, according to the National Center for Physical Development and Outdoor Play. Children who spend time outside on a regular basis  also have healthier immune (免疫) systems. And playing outdoors is a good way to get enough vitamin D.

    Playing outside enables children to relax , reduces tension（紧张）and helps them solve problems. When children play outdoors, they learn to share and cooperate (work together) with one another. Kids who feel confident outdoors are likely to become able clever adults.

    The outdoors is a giant laboratory for learning that improves creative thinking and problem solving. Researchers have found that children learn best when their body, mind and spirit are involved (牵连的), and this appears in outdoor play. Outside activities develop all five senses, which create a powerful learning environment. The outdoors also lets children have the chance to explore (探究), experiment, form questions and create their own ideas about how the world works.

    Although there are the many advantages of outdoor play, time spent outside has been reduced for many of today's children. Kids today spend much more time in front of electronic media than children a generation (代) ago. The lack of outdoor play is tied to the childhood widespread obesity. And experts predict that the situation is so serious that this generation will have much trouble when they grow up. To get kids involved with the outdoors, encourage them to collect rocks, fly kites, climb trees, garden, camp, swim, go fishing, watch birds and butterflies or play games with other children.

    Experiments under way in several labs aim to create beneficial types of genetically modified foods, including starchier potatoes and caffeine-free coffee beans. Genetic engineers are even trying to transfer genes from a cold-winter fish to make a frost-resistant tomato.

    A low-sugar GM strawberry now in the works might one day allow people with health problems such as diabetes (糖尿病) to enjoy the little delicious red fruits again. GM beans and grains rich in protein(蛋白质) might help people at risk of developing kwashiorkor. Kwashiorkor, a disease caused by severe lack of protein, is common in parts of the world where there are severe food shortages.

    Commenting on GM foods, Jonathon Jones, a British researcher, said: "The future benefits will be enormous（巨大的）, and the best is yet to come". To some people, GM foods are no different from unmodified foods. "A tomato is a tomato," said Brian Sansoni, an American food manufacturer.

    Critics of GM foods challenge Sansoni's opinion. They worry about the harm that GM crops might do to people, other animals, and plants.

    In a recent lab study conducted at Cornell University, scientists tested pollen(花粉) made by BT corn, which makes up one-fourth of the U.S. corn crop. The scientist dropped the pollen onto milkweed, a plant that is the only known food source of a butterfly caterpillar(毛虫). Within four days of feeding on the leaves, almost half of a test group of caterpillars died. "This is a warning bell." said Cornell researcher Linda Raynor.

    Some insects that are not killed by GM foods might find themselves made stronger. How so? The insecticides are used on the crops to kill the pests. But GM plants produce a continuous level of insecticide. Insects relying on those crops may develop resistance to the plants and they may also develop a resistance to the insecticide.

    At the forum on GM food held last year in Canada. GM crops that have been made resistant to the herbicide might crossbreed with wild plants, creating "superweeds" that could take over whole fields.

    So where do you stand? Should GM food be banned in the United States, as they are in parts of Europe? Or do their benefits outweigh（胜过） any of the risks they might carry?

    It's time for those who are about to graduate to look for jobs since graduation season is drawing near. Competition is tough, so job seekers must carefully consider their personal choices. Whatever we are wearing, our family and friends may accept us, but the workplace may not.

    A high school newspaper editor said it is unfair for companies to discourage visible tattoos (文身), nose rings, or certain dress styles. It is true you can't judge a book by its cover, yet people do "cover" themselves in order to convey (传递) certain messages. What we wear, including tattoos and nose rings, is an expression of who we are. Just as people convey messages about themselves with their appearances, so do companies. Dress standards exist in the business world for a number of reasons, but the main concern is often about what customers accept.

    Others may say how to dress is a matter of personal freedom, but for businesses it is more about whether to make or lose money. Most employers do care about the personal appearances of their employees, because those people represent the companies to their customers.

    As a hiring manager I am paid to choose the people who would make the best impression on our customers. There are plenty of well-qualified candidates, so it is not wrong to reject someone who might disappoint my customers. Even though I am open-minded, I can't expect all our customers are.

    There is nobody to blame but yourself if your set of choices does not match that of your preferred employer. No company should have to change to satisfy a candidate simply because he or she is unwilling to respect its standards, as long as its standards are legal.

    Forest Schools originated in Sweden in the 1950s and spread to other countries, particularly Denmark where they have become an important part of the Danish early years program.

    In a typical Danish Forest School, young children from 3 years are taken into the forest for 4 hours each day of the week. They take no toys with them, but instead use only what the forest provides (and their imaginations) to develop their games. There is a primitive hut in the forest, which is used in extreme weather. Activities are child-led and fun, such as finding small animals or stomping in puddles. Because of high adult to child ratios, children can safely try out activities which are often considered too dangerous, such as climbing trees or lighting fires, and by dressing the children in good protective clothing, they are able to play freely. By setting children small manageable tasks at which they are unlikely to fail, and giving genuine praise, children's independence and confidence grow.

    A Swedish scientific study found that children in the Forest School are more balanced and socially capable, have fewer sick days, are more able to concentrate and have better co-ordination than the city nursery children. The primary reason appeared to be the greater opportunities to play in nature, so that children play for longer at a time, tending not to disturb each other as much as children in the city nursery. The study observed that where children were interrupted, they became irritable, their stress level rose, and their ability to concentrate fell.

    The study also showed that the Forest School children had 25 % fewer sick days than the city children. One reason for this is that the air is nearly always better outside than indoors. Outside a child is not so exposed to virus and bacteria and not so likely to be infected by other children. Another reason may be that, since stress has been shown to have a negative effect on the immune system, high stress levels may be weakening the city children. The Forest School children, on the other hand, are in a pleasant, natural, fun and less stressful environment.

    Here is a record of the discussion about AI (artificial intelligence) conducted by several scientists.

    Scientist A: I would say that we are quite a long way off developing the AI, though I do think it will happen within the next thirty or forty years. We will probably remain in control of technology and it will help us solve many of the world's problems. However, no one really knows what will happen if machines become more intelligent than humans. They may help us, ignore us or destroy us. I tend to believe AI will have a positive influence on our future lives, but whether that is true will be partly up to us.

    Scientists B: I have to admit that the potential consequences of creating something that can match or go beyond human intelligence frighten me. Even now, scientists are teaching computers how to learn on their own. At some point in the near future, their intelligence may well take off and develop at an ever-increasing speed. Human beings evolve biologically very slowly and we could be quickly substituted. In the short term, there is the danger that robots will take over millions of human jobs, creating a large underclass of unemployed people. This could mean large-scale poverty and social unrest. In the long term machines might decide the world would be better without humans.

    Scientists C: I'm a member of the campaign to Stop Killer Robots. Forget the movie image of a terrifying Terminator stamping on human skulls and think of what's happening right now: military machines like drones, gun turrets and sentry robots are already being used to kill with very little human input. The next step will be autonomous “murderbots” following orders but finally deciding who to kill on their own. It seems clear to me that this would be extremely dangerous for humans. We need to be very cautious indeed about what we ask machines to do.

    Anyone who cares about what schools and colleges teach and how their students learn will be interested in the memoir (回忆录) of Ralph W. Tyler, who is one of the most famous men in American education.

    Born in Chicago in 1902, brought up and schooled in Nebraska, the 19-year-old college graduate Ralph Tyler became hooked on teaching while teaching as a science teacher in South Dakota and changed his major from medicine to education.

    Graduate work at the University of Chicago found him connected with honorable educators Charles Judd and W. W. Charters, whose ideas of teaching and testing had an effect on his later work. In 1927, he became a teacher of Ohio State University where he further developed a new method of testing.

    Tyler became well-known nationally in 1938, when he carried his work with the Eight-Year Study from Ohio State University to the University of Chicago at the invitation of Robed Hutchins.

    Tyler was the first director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford, a position he held for fourteen years. There, he firmly believed that researchers should be free to seek an independent spirit in their work.

    Although Tyler officially retired (退休) in 1967, he never actually retired. He served on a long list of educational organizations in the United States and abroad. Even in his 80s he traveled across the country to advise teachers and management people on how to set objectives (目标) that develop the best teaching and learning within their schools.