A long-term American study shows the importance of early education for poor children. The study is known as the Abecedarian Project. It involved more than one-hundred young children from poor families in North Carolina.

    Half of the children attended an all-day program at a high-quality child-care center. The center offered educational, health and social programs. Children took part in games and activities to increase their thinking and language skills and social and emotional development. The program also included health foods for the children.

    The children attended the program from when they were a few weeks old until the age of five years. The other group of children did not attend the child-care center. After the age of five, both groups attended public school.

    Researchers compared the two groups of children. When they were babies, both groups had similar results in tests for mental and physical skills. However, from the age of eighteen months, the children in the educational child-care program did much better in tests.

    The researchers tested the children again when they were twelve and fifteen years old. The tests found that the children who had been in the child-care center continued to have higher average test results. These children did much better on tests of reading and mathematics.

    A few years ago, organizers of the Abecedarian Project tested the students again. At the time, each student was twenty-one years old. They were tested for thinking and educational ability, employment, parenting and social skills. The researchers found that the young adults who had the early education still did better in reading and mathematics tests. They were more than two times as likely to be attending college or to have completed college. In addition, the children who received early education were older on average, when their first child was born.

    The study offers more evidence that learning during the first months and years of life is important for all later development.

    The researchers of the Abecedarian Project believe their study shows a need for lawmakers to spend money on public early education. They believe these kinds of programs could reduce the number of children who do not complete school and are unemployed.

    Is reading better than watching TV? I believe it is. Is reading better than playing video games? I'm not so sure if it is. If learning is important to you, but not necessarily so, and if pleasure is what you want, these activities can be pleasant in their own way. Reading might be better than many activities if you want to educate yourself and improve your chances of succeeding in your work.

    If you're serious about creating the habit of reading, what's important is finding a time you can read every day-often that's early morning or late at night, or both. For others, it might be during their lunch break. You only need to read for 10 to 20 minutes a day to form the habit. Then, you need to find a place that's comfortable. Make sure it has good lighting, the temperature is nice and you're in a good chair. Or you can find some place that you can reiax in without failing asleep, although there's nothing wrong with a sleep.

    Next, be sure to shut off the TV, Internet, cell phone, radio, or other music .Let reading be a quiet time. Mark an “x” on your calendar every day you read, and try to keep your unbroken “x”es going as long as possible. A habit is much easier to form if it's something you enjoy, not something you are made to do. So make the time you spend reading a joy. I've been a lifelong reader, so the pleasure of a good book is one of my favorite things in the world. I love to lose myself in the world of a book.

    At 27, after serving in World War II, I dreamed of owning a piece of land. So I moved from central Illinois to Shelbina, Missouri, and bought 236 acres for $6,000. The land was situated on a dirt road and was half farmland and half trees, with an old house that had no running water or electricity. Obviously, it was not what you'd call a perfect farm. But it was mine.

    I was alone for the first time in my life, and I found it liberating. My days were filled from dawn until dusk with plowing and planting corn. Dinnertime came and went, and I barely remembered to eat.

    I wouldn't say I was a great success at farming in Missouri. However, when I went to the store to buy some tools, I met a nice woman named Claudette working behind the counter. I also ran into her at St. Mary's Catholic Church in Shelbina each week. I found out later that her manager kept asking her about “that tall boy from Illinois living out in the country in an old house with no water, no electricity and no housekeeper.”

    Claudette and her sister soon visited my farm and put up some curtains. To show my appreciation, I took Claudette out for a ride in my truck. We married in 1954 and have now been together for more than 62 years!

    I later sold the Missouri farm for a $3,500 profit and bought 40 acres in Illinois. For many reasons, buying the Missouri farm was a good idea. I will always cherish memories of owning the farm and meeting my beloved.

    I came to study in the United States a year ago .Yet I did not know the real American society until I was injured in a car accident because after the accident I had to see a doctor and go to court.

    After the accident, my roommate called a doctor for me. I was very grateful and determined to repay him one day. But the next day, he asked me to pay him $200 for what he had done. I was astonished. He had good reason to charge me, he said. And if I wanted to collect money from the person who was responsible for my injury, I'd have to have a good lawyer. And only a good doctor can help me get a good lawyer .Now that he had helped me find a good doctor, it was only fair that I should pay him.

    But every day I went to see the doctor, I had to wait about 50 minutes. He would see two or three patients at the same time, and often stop treating one so as to see another. Yet he charged me $115 each time .The final examination report consisted of ten lines, and it cost me $215.

    My lawyer was all smiles the first time we met. But after that he avoided seeing me at all. He knew very well the other party was responsible for the accident, yet he hardly did anything. He simply waited to collect his money. He was so irresponsible that I decided to dismiss him. And he made me pay him $770.

    Now I had to act as my own lawyer. Due to my inexperience, I told the insurance company the date I was leaving America. Knowing that, they played for time...and I left without getting a cent.

    Which kind of diamond is better for the environment and the world we live in: a diamond from a traditional mine or one made in a laboratory?

    Some recent reports suggest the answer may not be so clear. At the very least, these reports provide evidence of tensions between two different sectors of the diamond industry.

    Lab -grown diamond companies say they are more ethical and cause less harm to Earth's environment. The traditional diamond sector notes that its businesses help the communities where they operate mines. It says they provide jobs, help build roads and other infrastructure and make investments in conservation.

    Some companies, such as De Beers, work on both sides. De Beers sells natural and man-made diamonds. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission(FTC) investigates reports of deceptive, or misleading, advertising. In April, the commission sent warning letters to eight lab-grown diamond companies. One of the FTC's concerns was the use of the word 'eco-friendly', and similar terms, to describe diamonds made in a laboratory. The lab-grown process requires very high temperatures and uses a lot of energy. Trucost is a company that estimates the costs of using natural resources. Asked by the Diamond Producers Association to study the issue, Trucost found the carbon intensity of natural diamonds was lower than lab-grown diamonds.

    The Trucost report did note that diamond miners should reduce their effect on the environment by using more renewable energy, such as wind power and sunlight.

London Underground

    The world's first subway was built in London in 1863. At the time, the government was looking for a way to reduce traffic problems in the city of London. The poor areas of the city were so crowded with people that it was almost impossible for horse carriages to get through. The city officials were interested in trying to make it possible for workers to live outside of London and travel easily to work each day. If people had a cheap and convenient way that they could depend on to go to and from work, they would relocate their homes outside of the city. This would help ease(减轻) the pressure of too many people living in the poor parts of London. From these problems, the idea of the London Underground, the first subway system, was born.

    The plans for building the Underground met with several problems and delays, but the fast track was finally opened in January 1863. A steam train pulled the cars along the fast underground track which was 6 kilometers (3.7 miles) long. About 30,000 people got on the subway the first day. Riders were treated to comfortable seats (standing up while the train was moving was not allowed), and pleasant decorations inside each of the cars. However, the smoke from the engine soon filled the air in the tunnels with ash and soot(煤灰), as well as chemical gases. Fans had to be put in the tunnels later to keep the air clean enough for people to breathe. Even with its problems, riding in the Underground did catch on. It carried 9 million riders in its first year.