Do you know an outstanding junior high or high school teacher, coach, guidance counselor, librarian, or headmaster? Nominate (提名) that special teacher you'll always remember and give him/her the chance to be recognized in a famous national magazine through “Educators of the Year Contest”!

    Prizes

    Cash awards will be given to those from across the country who are given the honor of Educators of the Year. Besides, your winning essays will also be published in our magazine.

    Guidelines

    We will only consider essays written by teens, and nominations must be for junior high or high school educators only. Elementary school educators are not suitable.

    Convince us your educator is special. Tell us about his or her style of teaching, his or her role in school activities, and community service. What has your educator done for the entire school, your class, for you or another student? Give examples with specific details. Keep your essay between 200 and 1,000 words. Remember to include the first and last name, position, and school of your educator in your essay.

    Don't forget to submit (提交) your essays through our website. You can also read our submission guidelines for more information on this website.

    The Deadline

    The deadline for submitting your essays is December 30. Your essays are accepted and will appear in our magazine all over the year. Winners will be made public after the January issue is published.

    As a teenage rock fan, all Dennis Vorreyer really expected of the Lollapalooza music festival in Chicago two weekends ago was the chance to see his favorite bands perform live.

    But he and his father, Jeffrey, who accompanied him to the festival, signed up for Lollapalooza's text-message network, and thus learned about a guitar-playing contest taking place there. Dennis, 14, entered and won a new Gibson guitar. Tad Kubler, the lead guitarist for the Hold Steady, who was involved in the contest, then invited Dennis to perform with the band as it closed its set.

“Having your cell phone everywhere is important for everybody now,” Dennis said. “I never dreamed of playing Lollapalooza.” The modern mobile phone — equipped with camera, Internet access and more— has proved to be a liability for some performers, like Akon and Beyonce, whose regrettable moments were captured by fans and then immortalized on YouTube and similar sites. But for the fans themselves, mobile phones are becoming as important an accessory as an all-access wristband. Beyond using them to record a short souvenir, they are becoming a ticket to everything from free ringtones to VIP treatment.

    On Gwen Stefani's recent tour, as many as 20 percent of the audience at some shows agreed to pay 99 cents for text messages and the chance to win better seats, according to the mobile marketing company Impact Mobile. At festivals like Lollapalooza, thousands of fans sign up to receive continuous updates from concert organizers about promotions and special events.

Even when there is no fee, the service comes at a price: fans must give their phone numbers to marketers. And purists — and some artists — disapprove of fans pecking out text messages or snapping pictures during performances. Still, the arrival of a new generation of phone-based activities could add a new twist to live events at a time when rising ticket prices have discouraged many concertgoers.

    Everything about nuclear energy seems terrifically big: the cost, construction and decommissioning—and the fears of something going badly wrong.

    The future, however may well be much smaller. Dozens of companies are working on a new generation of reactors that, they promise, can deliver nuclear power at lower cost and reduced risk.

    These small-scale plants will on average generate between 50MW and 300MW of power compared with the 1,000MW-plus from a conventional reactor. They will draw on modular manufacturing techniques that will reduce construction risk, which has plagued larger-scale projects. Supporters believe these advanced modular reactors (AMRs)—most of which will not be commercial until the 2030s—are critical if atomic power is to compete against the rapidly falling costs of solar and wind.

    "The physics hasn't changed. It's about much cleverer design that offers much-needed flexibility in terms of operation," said Tim Stone, long-term industry adviser and chairman of Nuclear risk Insurers, which insures nuclear sites in the UK.

    Since the Fukushima meltdown in Japan in 2011, safety fears have threatened nuclear power. But the biggest obstacle today is economic. In western Europe, just three plants are under construction: in the UK at Hinkley point in Somerset; at Flamanville in France; and at Olkiluoto in Finland. All involve the European Pressurized Reactor technology of EDF that will be used at Hinkley Point. All are running years late and over budget. In the US, the first two nuclear projects under way for the past 30 years are also blowing through cost estimates.

    The UK, which opened the world's first commercial nuclear reactor in 1956, is one of the few western nations committed to renewing its ageing fleet to ensure energy security and meet tough carbon reduction targets. It is seen as a proving ground, by many in the industry, of nuclear power's ability to restore confidence.

    However, the country's agreement with EDF to build two units at Hinkley Point—which together will generate 3.2GW of electricity—has come under severe criticism over its cost. The government is looking at different funding models but said it still sees nuclear power as vital to the country's future energy mix. Small reactors, it believes, have the potential to generate much-needed power from the 2030s.

    A nuclear sector deal, unveiled last month, promised up to ￡56m in funding for research and development into AMRs and attracted interest of start-ups from around the world. The government hopes the funding will give the UK a lead in the global race to develop these technologies, helping to provide energy security while also creating a multibillion-dollar export market for British engineering companies.

    All of us know that smoking does harm to our health. But do you think everything will be OK as long as you quit smoking?

    Unfortunately, the answer is NO.

    New research has found that even if you give up smoking, the damage it has done to your genes (基因) will stay there for a much longer time. In the research, a team of US scientists studied the blood of 16,000 people. Among them, some were smokers, some used to smoke, and the rest were non-smokers. Scientists compared their genes and found that more than 7, 000 genes of smokers had changed—a number that is one-third of known human genes. According to NBC News, both heart disease and cancer are caused by genetic changes. Some people may have had the changes when they were born, but most people get them in their daily lives while doing things like smoking. When you stop smoking, a lot of these genes will return to normal within five years. This means your body is trying to heal (治愈) itself of the harmful effects of smoking. But the changes in some of the genes stay for longer. They can stay for as long as 30 years, It's almost like leaving a footprint on wet cement (水泥)—it will always be there, even when you've walked away and when the cement becomes dry. Although the study results may make people unhappy, there is a bright side: the findings could help scientists invent medicine to treat genetic damage caused by smoking or find ways to tell which people have heart disease or cancer risks.

    Before you make friends, you have to decide who you want to be your friends.

    Most people like to have friends who like to do the same kind of things they do.

    The quickest way to make a friend is to smile. When you smile, people think you are friendly and easy to talk to. It may not be easy at first to smile, but remember most people will stay away from a scaled or angry looking.

    One easy way to start a conversation with someone is to say something nice about him. Think about how great you feel when someone says something nice to you. Doesn't it make you want to keep talking to that person?

    Ask your new friends questions about themselves. Who's their favourite singer, where do they live, what do they do after school are all good questions to start a conversation. Make sure you have something to add to the conversation, too. Then someone asks you a question, do have an answer for it. There is nothing that will stop a conversation quicker than a shrug for an answer.

    Kids who show an interest in other kids and who are kind and friendly make good friends. Remember, everyone wants to be around people who like to do similar things and people who are nice to them.

    In a recent series of experiments at the University of California, researchers studied toddlers' thinking about winners and losers, bullies (欺凌) and victims.

    In the first experiment, toddlers (学步儿童) watched a scene in which two puppets (木偶) had conflicting goals: One was crossing a stage from right to left, and the other from left to right. The puppets met in the middle and stopped. Eventually one puppet bowed down and moved aside, letting the other one pass by. Then researchers asked the toddlers which puppet they liked. The result: 20 out of 23 toddlers picked the higher-status puppet — the one that did not bow or move aside. It seems that individuals can gain status for being dominant (占优势的) and toddlers like winners better than losers.

    But then researchers had another question: Do toddlers like winners no matter how they win? So, researchers did another experiment very similar to the one described above. But this time, the conflict ended because one puppet knocked the other down and out of the way. Now when the toddlers were asked who they liked, the results were different: Only 4 out of 23 children liked the winner.

    These data suggest that children already love a winner by the age of 21-31 months. This does not necessarily mean that the preference is inborn: 21 months is enough time to learn a lot of things. But if a preference for winners is something we learn, we appear to learn it quite early.

    Even more interesting, the preference for winners is not absolute. Children in our study did not like a winner who knocked a competitor down. This suggests that already by the age of 21-31 months, children's liking for winners is balanced with other social concerns, including perhaps a general preference for nice or helpful people over aggressive ones.

    In a time when the news is full of stories of public figures who celebrate winning at all costs, these results give us much confidence. Humans understand dominance, but we also expect strong individuals to guide, protect and help others. This feels like good news.