Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii. His father came to America from Kenya, which is a country in Africa. His parents, Ann and Barack, met when they were students at the University of Hawaii. Since Barack had the same name as his father, young Barack went by the nickname “Barry”.

    In 1979, after he finished high school, Barry went to Occidental College in Los Angeles, California. There, he started to learn about his African roots and decided to use his African name, Barack. After two years in L.A., he went to Columbia University in New York City to study politics.

    After college, he moved to Chicago, Illinois, where he worked to help poor people in his city. He traveled to Africa to meet his grandmother and cousins for the first time. He went back many times over the years to visit with his family and learn about where he came from. At work, he met a lawyer named Michelle Robinson. They worked together in a big law firm. Then he left Chicago to go to Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He did very well in law school.

    After he was done with school, Barack moved back to Chicago and in 1992 he married Michelle. He worked as a lawyer, devoted to helping poor people for free who had been treated unfairly. He worked hard to get the people he helped to vote.

    He made many people believe that their votes were important, and helped them feel like they could make a difference.

    I'll admit I've never quite understood the obsession (难以破除的成见) surrounding genetically modified (GM) (改变) crops. To environmentalist opponents, GM foods are simply evil, an understudied, possibly harmful tool used by big agricultural businesses to control global seed markets and beat local farmers. They argue that GM foods have never delivered on their supposed promise, that money spent on GM crops would be better channeled to organic farming and that consumers should be protected with warning labels on any products that contain genetically modified ingredients. To supporters, GM crops are a key part of the effort to sustainably provide food to meet a growing global population. But more than that, supporters see the GM opposition of many environmentalists as fundamentally anti-science, no different than those who question the basics of man-made climate change.

    For both sides, GM foods seem to act as a symbol: you're pro-agricultural business or anti-science. But science is exactly what we need more of when it comes to GM foods, which is why I was happy to see Nature devote a special series of articles to the GM food controversy. The conclusion: while GM crops haven't yet realized their initial promise and have been dominated by agricultural businesses, there is reason to continue to use and develop them to help meet the enormous challenge of sustainably feeding a growing planet.

    That doesn't mean GM crops are perfect, or a one-size-fits-all solution to global agriculture problems. But anything that can increase farming efficiency—the amount of crops we can produce per acre of land—will be extremely useful.GM crops can and almost certainly will be part of that suite of tools, but so will traditional plant breeding, improved soil and crop management—and perhaps most important of all, better storage and transport infrastructure (基础设施) especially in the developing world.(It doesn't do much good for farmers in places like sub-Saharan Africa to produce more food if they can't get it to hungry consumers.) I'd like to see more non-industry research done on GM crops—not just because we'd worry less about prejudice, but also because seed companies like Monsanto and Pioneer shouldn't be the only entities (实体) working to harness genetic modification. I'd like to see GM research on less commercial crops, like corn. I don't think it's vital to label GM ingredients in food, but I also wouldn't be against it—and industry would be smart to go along with labeling, just as a way of removing fears about the technology.

    Most of all, though, I wish a tenth of the energy that's spent endlessly debating GM crops was focused on those more pressing challenges for global agriculture. There are much bigger battles to fight.

    The Earth is facing a climate crisis, but it's also getting greener and leafier. According to new research, the rise is largely due to China and India.

    A study by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), based on extensive satellite photographs and published in the journal Nature Sustainability, has revealed that the two countries with the world's biggest populations are also responsible for the largest increase in greenness.

    Since 2000, the planet's green leaf area has increased by 5 percent, or over 2 million square miles. That's an area equivalent to the sum total of the Amazon rainforests, NASA says. But researchers stressed that the new greenery does not neutralize deforestation and its negative impacts on ecosystems elsewhere.

    A third of the leaf increase is thanks to China and India, due to the implementation of major tree-planting projects alongside a vast increase in agriculture.

    Using the data from a NASA sensor, researchers discovered that China is the source of a quarter of the increase in green leaf area, despite possessing only 6.6 percent of the world's vegetated area (植被区). Forests account for 42 percent of that increase, while croplands make up a further 32 percent. China's increase in forest area is the result of forest preservation and expansion programs, NASA said, established to fight against the impacts of climate change, air pollution and soil erosion (水土流失). India has contributed a further 6.8 percent rise in green leaf area, with 82 percent from croplands and 4.4 percent from forests.

    Rama Nemani, a co-author of the study and a researcher at NASA's Ames Research Center, said in a statement, "When the greening of the Earth was first observed, we thought it was due to a warmer, wetter climate and fertilization from the added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, leading to more leaf growth in northern forests, for instance." "Now, with the data that lets us understand the phenomenon at really small scales, we see that humans are also contributing," Nemani said. "This will help scientists make better predictions about the behavior of different Earth systems, which will help countries make better decisions about how and when to take action."

    Thomas Pugh, a professor at the University of Birmingham's School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, said the NASA report expands scientists' understanding of the causes behind global greening. But he also cautioned that a direct line cannot be drawn between an increase in global greening and a decrease in negative impacts of climate change.

    For art, the year 2115 will be one full of events. In May of that year in Berlin, the philosopher-artist Jonathon Keats' "century cameras" — cameras with a 100-year-long exposure (曝光)time — will be brought back from hiding places around the city to have their results developed and exhibited Six months after that, the Future Library in Oslo, Norway, will open its doors for the first time, presenting 100 books printed on the wood of trees planted in the distant past of 2015.

    As Katie Paterson, the creator of the Future Library, puts it: "Future Library is an artwork for future generations". These projects, more than a century in the making, are part of a new wave of "slow art" intended to push viewers and participants to think beyond their own lifetimes. They aim to challenge today's short-term thinking and the brief attention spans of modem consumers, forcing people into considering works more deliberately. In their way, too, they are fighting against modem culture — not just regarding money, but also the way in which artistic worth is measured by attention.

    In a similar fashion, every April on Slow Art Day, visitors are encouraged to stare at five works of art for 10 minutes at a time — a tough task for the average museum visitor, who typically spends less than 30 seconds on each piece of art.

    Like the Future Library, the century cameras are very much a project for cities, since it's in cities that time runs fastest and the pace of life is fastest. "Since I started living in a city, I've somehow been quite disconnected/' Anne Beate Hovind, the Future Library project manager, who described how working on the library drew her back to the pace of life she knew when she was growing up on a farm in her youth, told the Atlantic magazine.

    Babies born in summer are more likely to become short-sighted in late life, a study has shown.

    As many as a quarter of all cases of short-sightedness are caused by too great an exposure to sunlight in the first weeks of life, say eye experts.

    They are advising all parents to put sunglasses on their babies during the first weeks.

    Scientists had already established that over-exposure to sunlight caused shortsightedness in animals.

    Researchers who compared the months in which babies were born with whether they needed glasses later on say the principle also applies to humans.

    A study of almost 300, 000 young adults-the largest of its kind-showed that those born in June and July had a 25 per cent greater chance of becoming severely short-sighted than those born in December or January.

    Research leader Professor Michael Belkin, of Tel Aviv University, said it was because prolonged illumination(光照) causes the eyeball to lengthen-causing short-sightedness.

    Hence the more light a newborn is exposed to, the more the eyeball lengthens and the worse the short-sightedness will be.

    The mechanism which lengthens the eyeball is associated with levels of melatonin(褪黑激素), a pigment (色素) which protects the skin against harmful rays of the sun.

    In young babies not enough melatonin is released as protection, meaning they are more vulnerable to sunburn and changes to eyeball shape.

    Sight expert Professor Daniel O'Leary, of Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, said "At the moment we don't know the precise cause of why light exposure affects sight, but the evidence seems to prove that it is one of the reasons for people becoming shortsighted."

    A dog spent the last four years of his life waiting a crossroad in the Thai city of Khon Kaen as if waiting for someone. People originally thought the dog had been abandoned, but then realized that he looked healthy, so people asked around about him. It turned out that the dog had indeed been spending most of his time around that crossroad, but a woman had been coming -.round regularly to bring him food and water.

    One day, while photographing the dog everyone called Leo, a reporter met the woman who had been taking care of him. She had come to drop off some food. After learning the story about the dog and the woman, the reporter decided to share the story on social media. The post soon went viral and the photos of Leo got shared hundreds of times. And the photos reached the eyes of Leo^ former old owner.

    Nang Noi Sittisarn, a 64-year-old woman from Thailand's Roi Et Province, almost had a heart attack when her daughter showed her a photo of the beloved dog named BonBon she had lost during a car trip. When she learned that he had been waiting for her in the same spot for the last four years，her heart melted(融化).

    Auntie Noi told her daughter to drive her to where the dog was waiting. When she got there and called his name. BonBon, the poor dog started wiggling(扭动)his tail and came to her，but when she tried to take him home with her, he was unwilling to follow. She didn't want to force the dog to come with her so she agreed to leave him with his new master. However, she and her daughter will come to visit him regularly.