To American visitors, Iceland is a very interesting country, partly because it is different in so many ways from he or she is used to seeing at home. There are quite a few things that are not done, or that do not exist on the island—quite a few “No's”．

    There is no pollution, for instance, no dogs are permitted in Reykjavik, the capital. There is no television on Thursdays or during the whole month of July, and only three hours of black­and­-white TV the rest of the time. There is no hard liquor（酒） on Wednesdays and no beer at any time. There is no handguns; only one prison of thirty­ five rooms in the whole land—an admirable figure, even for a small country of 313,376 people.

    There is no army, air force or navy. There is no tipping（给小费） for anything. There are no large stores open on Saturdays or Sundays. Since Iceland is located just under the Arctic Circle, there is no darkness in summer and no daylight in winter. But thanks to Gulf Stream, the climate is rather mild, with temperatures between 34 degrees and 52 degrees in July.

    The rules on television liquor and guns are the result of government decisions. But the absence of pollution is because of in great part the fact that Iceland gets its power from the thousands of hot springs(泉水) that come out of the ground. They provide all the energy needed by the country. In fact, Iceland uses only 3 percent of all its available power.

    Iceland has been described as a democratic（民主的） independent country where more fish are caught and more books published per person than anywhere else in the world. The Icelanders have always felt a particular love for literature. They wrote their first books in the ninth and tenth centuries AD. These works were poems and tales about the kings, heroes, and heroines of Iceland and Norway. At first, the stories were remembered and passed from generation to generation. They were finally written down between 1140 and 1220. The Icelanders have never stopped writing ever since. “Rather shoeless than bookless，” they proudly say.

    Traditionally, across the world, boys and girls attend a mixed school, where they study together. But boys' schools are the perfect place to teach young men to express their emotions (情感) and encourage them to take part in activities such as art, dance and music.

    Boys at single-sex schools were said to be more likely to take part in cultural and artistic activities that helped develop their emotional expressiveness, rather than feeling they had to correspond to(和…相符) the "boy code" of hiding their emotions to be a "real man".

    The findings of the study go against accepted wisdom that boys do better when taught together with girls.

    Tony Little, head master of Eton, warned that boys were being failed by the British education system because it had become too focused on girls. He criticized teachers for failing to recognize that boys are actually more emotional than girls.

    The research argued that boys often perform badly in mixed schools because they become discouraged when girls do better earlier in speaking and reading skills.

    But in single-sex schools teachers can tailor (量身定做) lessons to boys' learning style, letting them move around the classroom and getting them to compete in teams to prevent boredom, wrote the study's author, Abigail James, of the University of Virginia.

    Teachers could encourage boys to enjoy reading and writing with "boy-focused" approaches such as themes and characters that appeal to them. Because boys generally have more acute vision, learn best through touch, and are physically more active, they need to be given "hands-on" lessons where they are allowed to walk around. "Boys in mixed schools view classical music as feminine（女性的） and prefer the modern genre （类型） in which violence and sexism are major themes," James wrote.

    Single-sex education also made it less likely that boys would feel that they had to be "masterful and in charge" in relationships. "In mixed schools, boys feel forced to act like men before they understand themselves well enough to know what that means," the study reported.

    Harvard researchers have created a tough, low-cost, biodegradable (可生物降解的) material inspired by insects' hard outer shells. The material's inventors say it has a number of possible uses and someday could provide a more environmentally friendly alternative to plastic. The material, made from shrimp ('虾) shells and proteins produced from silk, is called "shrilk." It is thin, clear, flexible and strong.

    A major benefit of the material is its biodegradability. Plastic's toughness and flexibility represented a revolution in materials science during the 1950s and '60s. Decades later, however, plastic's very durability (耐用性) is raising questions about how appropriate it is for one-time products such as plastic bags, or short-lived consumer goods, used in the home for a few years and then cast into a landfill where they will degrade for centuries. What is the point of making something that lasts 1,000 years?

    Shrilk not only will degrade in a landfill, but its basic components are used as fertilizer(肥料), and so will enrich the soil.

    Shrilk has great potential, the inventors said. Materials from which it is made are plentiful in nature, found in everything ranging from shrimp shells, insect bodies to living plants. That makes shrilk low cost, and its mass production possible should it be used for products demanding a lot of material.

Work on shrilk is continuing in the lab. The inventors said the material becomes flexible when wet, so they're exploring ways to use it in wet environments. They're also developing simpler production processes, which could be used for non-medical products, like for computer cases and other products inside the home. They're even exploring combining it with other materials, like carbon fibers, to give it new properties.

    A recent documentary produced by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has caused a stir in China and in the UK.

    The documentary, titled Are Our Kids Tough Enough? focuses on five Chinese teachers who are sent to teach 50 UK teens at a school in Hampshire.

    The teachers instruct the students for a month. The pupils are then tested, and the results are compared to the ones of those who have continued in the regular UK education system. The idea is to see if the Chinese method improves academic performance.

    The Chinese teachers use their own teaching methods but receive strong resistance from the students. A clip from the documentary online shows some problems, with Chinese teachers calling their students lazy and lacking in discipline, while the students say the high pressure and harsh teachers are driving them crazy.

    This has aroused a new debate in both China and the UK, with some arguing the teenagers need more regulation and discipline. Others say Chinese methods encourage rote learning (死记硬背) instead of independent thinking. For instance, Chinese language teachers should do more than pass on knowledge about words and characters. They should inspire students, helping them feel the sentiment from Chinese literature. This is a higher level of teaching.

    Yang Dongping, dean of the 21st Century Education Research Institute, says, "The Chinese teaching methods are designed to strictly train the majority. Foreign teaching methods, however, are more natural and relaxing, and designed to inspire students' interest in learning. Education methods are based on culture. That is why a successful education method in one place may not work that well when simply 'transplanted' into another place."

    Yang Dongping says, "The documentary does reflect some problems rooted in traditional Chinese teaching methods. Nobel prize winner, Yang Zhenning, gave a very fair comment on this issue. He said the Chinese-style education method works for most ordinary qualified students effectively, helping them reach high standards. However, it may weaken the training for high-potential outstanding students."

    The streets of Stockholm may be cold and snowy during winter, but it is one of the world's hottest startup(创业) centers and a good choice for people with talent worldwide.

    Once the snow melts(融化) in early spring, the city is among the greenest in the world. Two thirds of Stockholm is made up of either water or parks, and locals make it the first thing to enjoy these peaceful surroundings. Less than l% of Swedish employees work more than 50 hours per week.

    The quality of life is important. New parents are given 480 days of leave to look after their babies, while childcare is heavily supported in various sides. Little wonder that Sweden was rated the best location in the world for family life. Adam Webb, 34, a British businessman and father-of-one, said, "Everything is set towards helping parents, from giving dads time off on almost full pay to free bus rides for anyone with a baby carriage."

    Stockholm is also proud of what Vogue magazine recently ranked as Europe's coolest neighborhood. On the island of Sodermalm, just south of the city centre, independent record stores still make money, while plenty of cafes offer a taste for Scandinavia's love affairs with timeless style.

    Many major international companies, including H&M and Ericsson, offer expats(外来者) accommodation for the first three months of their contracts(合同) in Stockholm. But other foreigners arriving in the city are left to battle with a unique property market and a shortage of apartments. More than a third of Swedes live in rented housing, half of which is owned by local governments or state rental companies. If you're lucky enough to get a firsthand contract for this kind of accommodation, it is yours for life. Expats are welcome to join the queue, but in Stockholm they will find around half a million locals in front of them and an average wait of nine years.

    "Finding a place to live is the single biggest challenge when moving to Stockholm, but there is a lot going on to try and solve the problem," said Julika Lamberth from Stockholm Business Region, a state-funded company working to increase investment in the city.

I was ever bullied badly when I was in high school. One kid in particular would try to make me feel worse in every way he knew. For example, he would throw stuff at me constantly, hit me on the head, punch me, call me ugly and stupid, make fun of me and, of course tell me he would beat me up if I ever fought back. It was like his daily mission. And it was my daily mission to just get through the day. What could I say? It made my world very small because that was my main focus—just surviving. Everything else fell by the wayside. Unfortunately, that included any form of social life. So not only was my world tiny, but it was very lonely.

    Looking back to that time, which was about 11 years ago, my biggest mistake was not bringing anyone into that world of mine. I was too proud and embarrassed to get help. I would rather not face the fact that I needed help because in my mind, that would mean that the bully had won. It would also mean that I was weak.

Let me just say this—-bullying someone is a weak choice. The only reason why they come after you is that they don't think you will do anything about it. Does that make anyone strong? Absolutely not. Be stronger. Reach out to a parent, a teacher or a friend for help. Simply admit that you are struggling and need help.

    You can put it like this: Somebody who is weak and trying to build himself or herself up has chosen to do that by putting me down. The only reason why they are doing it is that I am nice and I haven't done anything about it yet. Well, I am through putting up with this. I have basic human rights that they are trying to take away to feel better and that is just not OK. How do I handle this the right way? I don't want the pain cycle to continue and I don't want to become someone I don't want to be.

I will close by saying this—-I am not just surviving. I am just enjoying my life. I graduated from college with honors, by the way. You don't have to wait to live. Do something today.