When I was young I wanted to be a model,so when a national contest was staged,I convinced my parents to have a try.I was selected and told that I was talented and that for only $900 I could attend a weekend event which dozens of the most famous modeling agencies from around the world would attend.At 13,my hopes of fame and fortune clouded all judgment and I begged my parents to let me go.We have never been rich,but they saw my enthusiasm and agreed.

    I imagined being signed by some famous model companies.For months,any boredom or disappointment I faced was pushed aside because I knew I would soon have the chance to be a real model.I thought I would grace the covers of famous magazines!

    Of course,I wasn't signed,but what hurt the most was being told that if I grew to about 1.75metres I could be a success.I prayed for a growth spurt（冲刺）because I could not imagine giving up my dream.I made an appointment with a local modeling agency and the agent demanded $500 for classes,$500 for a photo shoot,and $300 for other expenses.My parents only agreed after hours and hours of my begging.

    The agency sent me out on a few auditions,but with every clay I didn't receive a call,I grew more depressed.The final straw came in July after I had decided to focus on commercial modeling.There was an open call in New York City.We spent hours driving and another few hours waiting,only to be told that I was too short.I was depressed.

    Years later,I realized that the trip to New York was good as it made me notice I didn't actually love modeling, just the idea of it.I wanted to be special and I was innocently determined to reach an impossible goal.The experience has made me stronger and that will help me in the future.

    Edward Hibberd Johnson was an American inventor. He lived in New York City in the 1800s. In 1882, Johnson had an idea. It would change the look of Christmas forever.

    Johnson worked as a boss at a technology company. In 1871, he hired a young man to work for him. The man's name was Thomas Edison. Edison was a great worker. He came up with many new ideas. Later, Edison left to start his own company. Johnson followed him. Johnson started turning Edison's ideas into money. In 1880, Edison invented the light bulb. No one knew how much it was worth. At the time, most homes did not have the electricity to power it. However, Johnson helped start a company to sell the bulbs.

    Before long, Mr. Johnson had a bright idea. Christmas trees were very popular. They were so beautiful because of their candles. Flickering (闪烁的) flames were perfect for Christmas. But they were also dangerous. They could easily start a fire.

    Mr. Johnson thought of a way to fix this. He set up a Christmas tree by one of his windows. Then he took 80 colored light bulbs and hung them around it. The lights were red, white and blue. People on the street stopped to look. They admired the shining Christmas tree. It was so popular that Johnson made it a tradition. Each year he added more lights. In 1884, there were 120 light bulbs on his tree. The lights were not cheap. In 1900, a string of 16 bulbs cost $12. That was a lot of money back then, because people made less. In today's money, that is about $350. But over time, they started to cost less. By the 1930s, colored light bulbs were everywhere.

    Today millions of light sets are sold in America each year. They light 80 million homes. Some of them are now used for other holidays too. They are used on Halloween and Valentine's Day. But it all started with Johnson's Christmas tree.

    Persuasion is to convince someone to agree with you, just like art which also calls for special techniques to accomplish. According to the ancient Greeks, there are three basic tools of persuasion: ethos, pathos and logos.

    Ethos is a speaker's way of convincing the audience that he is trustworthy, honest and reliable. One common way a speaker can develop ethos is by explaining how much experience or education he has in the field. After all, you're more likely to listen to advice about how to take care of your teeth from a dentist than a fireman.

    Pathos is a speaker's way of connecting with an audience's emotions. For example, a politician who is trying to convince an audience to vote for him might say that he alone can save the country from a terrible war. These words are intended to fill the audience with fear, thus making them want to vote for him. Similarly, an animal charity might show an audience pictures of injured dogs and cats to make thee viewers feel pity, so they will be more likely to donate money.

    Logos is the use of facts, statistics or other evidence to support your argument. An audience will believe you if you have convincing data to back up your claims. Presenting this evidence is much more persuasive than simply saying “believe me”.

    Although ethos, pathos and logos all have their strengths, they are often most effective when used together. So, the next time you listen to a speech, watch a commercial or listen to a friend try to convince you to lend him some money, be on the lookout for these ancient Greek tools of persuasion.

The Truth About the Environment

    For many environmentalists, the world seems to be getting worse. They have developed a hit-list of our main fears: that natural resources are running out, that the population is ever growing, leaving less and less to eat, that species are becoming disappeared in huge numbers, and that the planet's air and water are becoming ever more polluted.

    But a quick look at the facts shows a different picture. First, energy and other natural resources have become more abundant, not less so. Second, more food is now produced per head of the world's population than at any time in history. Fewer people are starving. Third, although species are indeed becoming disappeared, only about 0.7% of them are dying out in the next 50 years, not 25-50%, as has so often been predicted. And finally, most forms of environmental pollution either appear to have been best cured not by limiting economic growth, but by accelerating it.

    Yet public opinion surveys suggest that many people hold the belief that environmental standards are declining and four factors seem to cause this gap between what they know and what the reality is.

    One is the unbalanced budget for scientific research. Scientific funding goes mainly to areas with many problems. That may be wise policy, but it will also create an impression that many more potential problems exist than is the case.

    Secondly, environmental groups need to be noticed by the mass media. They also need to keep the money rolling in. Understandably, perhaps, they sometimes overstate their arguments. In 1997, for example, the World Wide Fund for Nature issued a press release entitled: „Two thirds of the world's forests lost forever'. The truth turns out to be nearer 20%.

    A third source of confusion is the attitude of the media. People are extremely more curious about bad news than good. Newspapers and broadcasters are there to provide what the public wants: That, however, can lead to significant misunderstanding. An example was that America came across EI Nino(厄尔尼诺) in 1997 and 1998. This climatic phenomenon was accused of breaking tourism, causing allergies, melting the ski-slopes, and causing 22 deaths. However, according to an article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, the damage was estimated at $4 billion but the benefits amounted to some $19 billion.

    The fourth factor is poor individual knowledge. People worry that the endless rise in the amount of things everyone throws away will cause the world to run out of places to dispose of waste. Yet, even if America's trash output continues to rise as it has done in the past, and even if the American population doubles by 2100, all the rubbish America produces through the entire 21st century will still take up only one 12,000th of the area of the entire United States.

    It is extremely important that we look at the facts if we want to make the best possible decisions for the future. It may be costly to be overly optimistic, but more costly still to be too pessimistic.

    Inspired by a 9-year-old cyclist, Lauren Turner, who can only use one hand, a group of University of Guelph students has won an international award for their invention — a bike brake lever (刹车手柄) that pulls both the front brake and the back brake at the same time.

    Lauren Tuner was able to ride her bike, but not as confidently and quickly as her friends.

    "She couldn't use the front brake. She only used the back brake, but the front brake makes you stop twice as fast," says Micha Wallace, who, with Katie Bell, Anina Sakaguchi and Andrew Morries won second prize in the James Dyson Award for their single-handed bike brake lever.

    "Lauren Turner tried the device (装置) first and she used it all last summer. She had no problems. It helped her go faster because she felt more confident in her braking abilities. She felt safer." says Wallace.

    The invention was the fourth-year design project for the four students. They designed, tested and created a prototype (模型) within a four-month period.

    When Wallace heard about the James Dyson Award on the news, she and her co-inventors entered their project in the U. K. -based contest, which rewards students designers who create products that improve the way we live. The students collected the runner-up prize — £2,000 for them and £500 for their school.

    As well, they had a chance to meet James Dyson, a U.K. famous inventor. Praising the students for their invention, Dyson says the single-handed brake lever could improve safety for all cyclists. By using both brakes at once, you could prevent the possibility of flying over the handlebars and ending up with an injury.

    The students hope to sell it to a major company. It may be used in other devices that require two hands for operation.

    You know those nutrition guidelines the government issues every few years? It turns out that following them isn't just good for your health. It's good for the planet, too.

    " What we found is that impacts vary across nations, but in the high­impact nations, in general, you can see that, if you follow a nationally recommended diet, despite the fact that these diets don't mention explicitly—or most of them don't explicitly mention—environmental impacts, that you are going to have lower environmental impacts due to that. So that's sort of fairly clear across all the high­income nations." said Paul Behrens, an environmental scientist at Leiden University in the Netherlands.

    The food we eat takes a big toll on the environment. A third of the ice­free land on Earth is used for agriculture, and according to some estimates, producing food accounts for roughly a fifth of all human­caused greenhouse gas emissions. Fertilizer runoff also leads to other problems, like the algae blooms in Lake Eerie and the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

    However, following dietary guidelines would reduce those impacts, especially in wealthy countries like the US. "Most of the reductions come from meat and dairy," which have an outsized impact on land use and pollution, and are a major source of greenhouse gases.(That's partly due to cow farts. Seriously.) Following the suggestions would also mean eating fewer calories, since many people here eat more than they need.

    Overall, in high­income countries, Behren's team estimates that following the rules could result in as much as a 17 percent reduction in land use, a 21 percent reduction in nutrient pollution, and a 25 percent drop in agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. Cutting down on how much food we waste—which is roughly a third in the US—could help even more. The results are in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    Of course, people are notoriously bad at following diets. But: "These nationally recommended guidelines do actually have a knock­on effect on other areas of policy making. So if I'm developing a new healthy­eating­for­schools program then that's going to be based off a lot of detail that I get from the nationally recommended guidelines. So while it might not necessarily be the case that people follow directly …they actually are quite influential on the preparation of other advice."

    It seems that a smaller environmental footprint and a healthier lifestyle could go hand in hand.