More and more Americans are showing an interest in healthy and locally-produced food. As the interest increases, raising chickens has been gaining popularity in some American cities.

 “Look, we get three eggs this time.”

    Collecting eggs is a daily pleasure for the Hurst family. Naomi Hurst says her family started to raise chickens in back of their home in Maryland a month ago.

   “We have wanted to try having backyard chickens for a couple years now. And really just didn't have the time to build my own coop（鸡笼；鸡舍） and  look out where to buy chickens. And then we met Rent a Coop,” said Naomi Hurst. Rent a Coop is a chicken rental business. Tyler Phillips launched the company with a partner 18 months ago. It comes with a mobile coop on wheels, two egg-laying hens, feed, bedding, water bowl, feed bowl, and our 24-hour chicken hotline. You can call with any questions. The price is 185 dollars for four weeks. After the four weeks passed, individuals can extend the rental agreement, return everything or purchase the animals and supplies.

Tyler Phillips designs and makes the coops. He says he wants to do as little damage as possible to the environment.

 “We always try to have as many recycled materials as possible. And I want the coops to be safe for kids. I want the chickens to be comfortable and they have access to the grass while being inside the coop. I want it to be easily movable, light weight,” he said.

Some cities require people have large pieces of land, if they want to raise farm animals. Others require an agreement with neighbors, limit the number of chickens, or, even ban the birds.

  Tyler Phillips expects that would change as interest in small poultry (家禽) coops grows. 

“I see cities around the D. C. area changing laws almost monthly and different cities will change the law to being prochicken(赞成养鸡). That is happening all around the United States,” he said,

He believes that there will be chicken rental businesses in most American cities within five years.

    In 1917 Orville Wright predicted that “the aeroplane will help peace in many ways —in particular I think it will have a tendency to make war impossible.” Earlier in 1904, American journalist John Walker declared, “As a peace machine, the value of the aeroplane to the world will be beyond computation.” This wasn't the first grand promise of technology. In that same year Jules Verne announced, “The submarine(潜艇) may be the cause of bringing battle to a stoppage.”

    Alfred Nobel, sincerely believe his dynamite(火药) would be a war obstacle: “My dynamite will sooner lead to peace than a thousand world conventions(公约).” Similarly, when Hiran Maxim, inventor of the machine gun, was asked in 1893, “Will this gun not make war more terrible?” he answered, “No, it will make war impossible.” Gugliemo Mareconi, inventor of the radio, told the world in 1912. “The coming of the wireless time will make war impossible, because it will make war ridiculous.” General James Harbord, chairman of the board of RCA in 1925, believed, “Radio will serve to make the concept of Peace on Earth, Good Will Toward Men a reality.”

    David Nye, a historian of technology, adds to the list of inventions imagined as abolishing war forever and leading to universal peace the hot-air balloon, poison gas, land mines and laser guns.

    It is not that all these inventions are without benefits—even benefits toward democracy（民主）. Rather, it's the case that each new technology creates more problems than it solves. “Problems are the answers to solutions,” says Brian Arthur.

    Most of the new problems in the world are problems created by previous technology. These problems are nearly invisible to us. Every year 1.2 million people die in automobile accidents. The technological transportation system kills more people than cancer. Global warming, environmental poisons, nuclear terrorism, and species loss, are only a few of the many other serious problems troubling people.

    If we embrace(拥抱) technology we need to face its costs.

根据短文内容，选择最佳答案，并将选定答案的字母标号填在题前括号内。

    Many parents have learned the hard way that what sounds like open communication is often the very thing that closes a youngster's ears and mouth. One common mistake is the Lecture, the long monologue that often starts with “When I was your age” Eighteen-year-old Kelly calls lectures “long, one-side discussions in which I don't say much.”

    Kids reflexively(条件反射地)shut down in the face of a lecture. Their eyes glaze over(呆滞),and they don't register any incoming information. Listen to 13-year-old Sarah describe her least favorite times with her mom and dad. “First, they scream. Then comes the ‘We're so disappointed' speech. Then the ‘I never did that to my parents' lecture begins. After that, even if they realize how ridiculous they sound they never take it back.”

    Lines like “When you have children of your own, you'll understand” have been seriously said by parents since time immemorial. But many of our expert parents, like Bobby, a registered nurse and mother of three, feel that by falling back on clichés(陈词滥调)to justify your actions, we weaken our position.

    Since kids are creatures of here and now, the far-off future has no relevance to them. Therefore, good communicators like Bobby suggest, “Give specific reasons for your actions in present language: ‘I'm not letting you go to the party because I don't think there will be enough adult supervisions.'”

    Betty, who lives in Missouri, uses an indirect approach. “I find that warnings are accepted more readily if I discuss a news article on a subject I am concerned about. My husband and I talk about it while our children absorb the information. Then they never think I'm preaching(布道).”

This really helped when Betty's kids began driving. Instead of constantly repeating “Don't drink; don't speed,” she would talk about articles in the paper and express sympathy for the victims of a car crash. Betty made no special effort to draw her kids into the conversation. She depended on a teenager's strong desire to put in his opinions—especially if he thinks he isn't being asked for them.

    In the middle of the 19th century，a fever dream of riches beyond measure drew countless explorers west to the mountains of central California. Although the gold rush ended up being a bust for many who sought a fortune，some of those explorers discovered a natural treasure that would draw permanent settlers to Yosemite Valley in the following decade.

    Vast wilderness，beautiful mountains，countless waterfalls，and abundant wildlife drew Native Americans to Yosemite roughly 10，000 years ago. The first non-native tourists arrived in the mid-1850s after reports from gold seekers told of an area of breathtaking beauty that no words were able to describe.

    Fortunately，some of Yosemite's earliest settlers recognized that Yosemite's natural beauty and resources needed to be preserved for future generations. In the midst of the Civil War，President Abraham Lincoln signed a grant to protect Yosemite permanently，thus making it the nation's first land to be dedicated to recreation and setting the stage for what would become the national park system.

    One of Yosemite's earliest ambassadors was Scottish-American naturalist and writer John Muir. After living in Yosemite for a few years，he helped define its proposed boundaries. He also wrote articles that helped lead to its official title as a National Park in 1890.He later co-founded the Sierra Club in 1892 to advocate for its continued preservation and protection.

    Located on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada mountain range in central California，Yosemite National Park runs across nearly 748，000 acres，almost 95％of which is wilderness. Around four million visitors come to Yosemite each year to camp，hike its miles of trails，climb its rock formations，and photograph its impressive sights. Are you ready to visit Yosemite National Park? Which of Yosemite's sights would you most like to experience?

    America's businesses are getting older and fatter, while many new businesses are dying in infancy.

    A study last month by the Brookings Institution found that the proportion of older firms has grown steadily over several decades, while the survival rate of new companies has fallen. In addition, young people are starting companies at a sharply lower rate than in the past.

    A new report from the National Association of Manufacturers shows a major cause: The cost of obeying government regulations has risen to more than $2 trillion (12.26 trillion yuan) annually, or 12 percent of the GDP, and this cost falls disproportionately on smaller, newer businesses.

    It's risky, difficult and expensive to start a business, and getting more so. Governments are imposing various new rules on a seemingly daily basis: health insurance, minimum wage increases and, most recently in California, compulsory paid sick days for even hourly employees. These regulations shift huge social welfare costs directly onto often-struggling small businesses, while being proportionally much less costly for larger companies.

This is partly an unintended issue of resources—established companies can cope with new costs more easily—but it's also deliberate. For instance, big insurance companies got a seat at the table to help write Obama care, but less politically powerful firms—like medical device manufacturers—got squeezed.

    Mature, successful corporations can employ ex-lawmakers with connections, distribute campaign contributions and even write regulations for themselves. They are also more likely to want to protect steady revenue streams than revolutionize their industry.

Major companies that have been so ill-managed they would otherwise collapse—airlines, car companies and banks—stagger(蹒跚)on because politicians ride to the rescue with bags of taxpayer money.

    The genius of our unique system of government is the determination to protect and defend the rights of the individual over the rights of the nation. As such, the rise of a well-connected oligarchy(寡头政治)that protects big business at the expense of small business, and the established over the new, is opposite to American ideals.

Income inequalitywhich is directly caused by faulty government policy—is being promoted as the reason to impose more of that bad policy. But let's be perfectly clear, we do not have a free market but one where government picks winners and losers through regulations and financial aids.

    Politics is, and always has been, about balancing competing interests seeking to benefit themselves, and that's as it should be, but the force of government should never be used to reduce competition, kill innovation or support and extend artificial monopolies(垄断)by harming the consumer, the taxpayer and the economy. Policy must breed our new and small businesses or see the as-yet undreamed of innovations that could be our bright future die in infancy.

I recently spent half a weekend sitting on the sofa watching the Davis Cup. I thought about going for a run, but I did not want to miss the rest of the match. Soon it was starting to get dark, so I did not bother (费神). Whenever I watch tennis, I think how nice it would be to play it regularly. But I have been thinking that for almost 20 years without actually setting foot on a court. The evidence would suggest that I'm not the only one.

When a country or city competes to host an international sporting event, it often promises that more people will take up sports as a result. London was no exception. Tessa Jowell, who helped to bid for (申办) the 2012 Olympics for London, said that by 2012 two million more people would be physically active. And 60 percent of young people would be doing at least five hours of sports per week.

In the end, just over one-third of people in Britain take part in sports once a week. A report on Olympic and Paralympic influences has said that a big change in participation levels simply has not happened.

Why isn't there a big increase in people taking part in sports after most sporting events? Perhaps it is a mistake to assume a definite link between watching sports and playing it. While the games are on, they actually encourage people to do just the opposite — to spend whole sunny days not out playing sports, but inside sitting on the sofa with the curtains shut to stop the sun shining on the TV screen. We don't expect half the audience of a hit musical to apply to drama school the next day, yet we seem to expect it of sporting events.

The high-level performances on show only remind people that they could never match the excellent athletes in their sporting achievements even if they trained full time.

Maybe participation in sports is not the right thing to expect after a major sporting event. The Olympics can do many things, but maybe this cannot necessarily be one of them.