The TV science-fiction series Star Trek no longer looked far-fetched (牵强的) as four men and four women in black space-suits locked themselves into a giant hi-tech greenhouse, known as a ‘biosphere', in the Arizona desert yesterday for a two-year study of the environment.

    As dawn broke over the Santa Catalina mountains, the eight waved goodbye to television cameras. Edward Ross, their multibillionaire sponsor from a Texas oil family, closed the door of the $150 million structure, with its mini-ocean, marsh, desert, savanna, rain-forest and 3,800 plant and animal species designed to allow the team to recreate Earth and its ecosystems.

    The so-called Biosphere 2 is the latest of a dozen environmental projects started by the self-titled ‘ecopreneur'. The project's main aim is to set up a self-sustaining community for possible use in a spaceship or on another planet. The crew members must plant, harvest and process their food on a half-acre farm in the seven-storey glass and metal structure, while conducting a series of experiments.

    ‘We will be custodians (监护人) of our new little world,' said Abigail Mayer, aged 31, a US marine biologist on the team, her voice choking with emotion. ‘It is a brave new step.' Many scientists, however, are more than skeptical. They point out that the largest closed ecosystem which survived more than a few days was smaller than a football. It was developed at the University of Miami and contained only shrimp, algae and other micro-organisms.

    Critics have also accused Mr. Ross of being more interested in producing a profitable theme park than in carrying out serious scientific research. Hundreds of tourists visited the site daily in the summer before it was occupied by the team. They paid $9.95 to enter and all stopped at the souvenir shop.

    The iPhone, the iPad: each of Apple's products sounds cool and has become a fad(一时的风尚). Apple has cleverly taken advantage of the power of the letter “i” --and many other brands are following suit. The BBC's iPlayer--which allows Web users to watch TV programs on the Internet--used the title in 2008. A lovely bear--popular in the US and UK--that plays music and video is called “iTeddy”. A slimmed-down version(简装本) of London's Independent newspaper was started last week under the name “i”.

    In general, single-letter prefixes(前缀) have been popular since the 1990s, when terms such as e-mail and e-commerce(电子商务) first came into use.

    Most “I” products are targeted at(针对) young people and considering the major readers of Independent's “I”, it's no surprise that they've selected this fashionable name.

    But it's hard to see what's so special about the letter “i”. Why not use “a”, “b”, or “c” instead? According to Tony Thorne, head of the Language Center at King's College, London, “i” works because its meaning has become ambiguous. When Apple uses “i”, no one knows whether it means Internet, information, individual or interactive, Thorne told BBC Magazines. “Even when Apple created the iPod, it seems it didn't have one clear definition(定义),” he says.

    “However, thanks to Apple, the term is now connected with portability (轻便).” adds Thorne.

    Clearly the letter “i” also agrees with the idea that the Western World is centered on the individual. Each person believes they have their own needs, and we love personalized products for this reason.

    Along with “Google” and “blog”, readers of BBC Magazines voted “I” as one of the top 20 words that have come to define the last decade(十年).

    But as history shows, people grow tired of fads. From the 1900s to 1990s, products with “2000” in their names became fashionable as the year was connected with all things advanced and modern. However, as we entered the new century, the fashion disappeared.

    Sparrow is a fast-food chain with 200 restaurants. Some years ago, the group to which Sparrow belonged was taken over by another company. Although Sparrow showed no sign of declining, the chain was generally in an unhealthy state. With more and more fast-food concepts reaching the market, the Sparrow menu had to struggle for attention. And to make matters worse, its new owner had no plans to give it the funds it required.

    Sparrow failed to grow for another two years. Until a new CEO, Carl Pearson, decided to build up its market share. He did a survey, which showed that consumers who already used Sparrow restaurants were extremely positive about the chain, while customers of other fast-food chains were unwilling to turn away from them. Sparrow had to develop a new promotional campaign.

Pearson faced a battle over the future of the Sparrow brand. The chain's owner now favored rebranding Sparrow as Marcy's restaurants. Pearson resisted, arguing for an advertising campaign designed to convince customers that visits to Sparrow restaurants were fun. Such an attempt to establish a positive relationship between a company and the general public was unusual for that time. Pearson strongly believed that numbers were the key to success, rather than customers' speeding power. Finally, the owner accepted his idea.

The campaign itself changed the traditional advertising style of the fast-food industry. The TV ads of Sparrow focused on entertainment and featured original songs performed by a variety of stars. Instead of showing the superiority of a specific product, the intention was to put Sparrow in the hearts of potential customers.

    Pearson also made other decisions which he believed would contribute to the new Sparrow image. For example, he offered to lower the rent of any restaurants which achieved a certain increase in their turnover (营业额) .

    These efforts paid off, and Sparrow soon became one of the most successful fast-food chains in the regions where it operated.

    Over 500 dogs being delivered to a butcher house were saved by a Chinese animal protection organization.

    The incident then triggered a debate among Chinese netizens about the necessity of pouring so much money and efforts into saving dogs.

    On Friday, a truck loaded with over 500 dogs were stopped by volunteers from animal protection organization on Jingha Expressway Beijing section. Beijing Times reported these dogs were being delivered to slaughter houses in the city of Changchun, northeast Jilin Province and would be eventually served on dinner tables. After negotiations with the truck driver, pet service provider Leepet Holding Corp. and a philanthropic foundation, Shang shan Foundation purchased these dogs, each paying 50,000 yuan. Dogs were then delivered to the headquarter of China Small Animal Protection Association (CSAPA), being taken care of and waiting for adoption.

    After the "dog saving mission" was reported, Chinese net users debate over whether saving dogs is worth so much efforts and money while there are still many poor and needy people in China lacking assistance. Some net users argue the "dog saving mission" is placing overattention to animals while lots of needy people are still left unattended. A microblogger "Xiaowulaitajie" said on China's twitter like website, weibo.com, "Dogs are saved, adopted and they attracted media spotlight. We'd better spend such money and take such efforts in helping the needy people." Another microblogger, Liluping, said "We poured such huge sum of money into saving dogs. I would rather the money was spent on disaster relief."

    Some applaud volunteers' actions and show eagerness of offering their helping hands to those saved dogs.

    Still many disapprove those "saving dogs" critics, but they argue that such act nonetheless promotes social progress.

    A microblogger named "broken bridge" said, saving dogs does not run counter to taking care of people. Such enthusiasm in public affairs will help raise social awareness in helping the needy.

    I think people and animals are created equal. Attention should be paid to people as well as animals.

    In the US and Britain, the slogan around colleges was "Save water. Shower with a friend." Now, Wuhan University has come up with another system for the campus bathhouse. It charges students for the amount of time in a shower. Before entering the bathhouse, students pay for the amount of time they want in the shower with cash or their student ID card. The clock starts ticking the minute the tape is turned on. It pauses when a button is pressed for soap. An integrated circuit (IC) card reader at each tap shows the time. No money, no water. The benefits of the new system can be seen with the old system, which charged 1 yuan for each person regardless of time in the shower. The university used about 320 tones of water daily under the old system, but only 160 tons now.

    Many students use the new system but opinions on it are divided. Some students say it is bad because bathing had become a sort of race. Many people using it for the first time are not sure how long they need to shower. Some might be embarrassed if their time is up and they're still covered in soap. They have to ask the bathhouse worker to help them buy extra time.

    "It's a flaw in the system that you can not buy extra time on the ID card," said Ren, a freshman in Wuhan University. The university is also considering some students' suggestions that they be allowed to pay after they've finished the shower. Not surprisingly, some are complaining about losing the hour shower. But many students say the move helps them develop a water-saving sense.

    Without the time limits, most students tended to shower for 30 to an hour in the bathhouse.

    Some even used the hot water to wash their clothes. "In my experience, 10-20 minutes is enough," said Dai Zhihua, a third-year student who usually takes 8 minutes.

    A similar system has been installed in other universities. Shanghai Normal University introduced it at its Fengxiang Campus in September. The bathing fee there is 0.2 yuan per minute. One male student responded by setting a record with a two-minute shower.

    It's 11 p.m., and I'm still sitting here writing this article for the school magazine! I've had two weeks to write it, and my teacher, Julia, wants it tomorrow. She's always complaining (抱怨) that I leave things till the last minute. Maybe she's right.

    A month ago I made a decision to be more efficient (有效率的) this year. Well, I've clearly failed. I've also been trying to get fitter for four weeks now. I've started going to the health club. I've even been going to bed earlier. But I'm not feeling any fitter, just a little unhappier. I miss my bad habits. Why is leading a better life so hard?

    I've just read an article on a website, and I've discovered that it isn't my fault (过错)! In fact, it isn't anyone's fault. It's our brain's. It's programmed to make it difficult to break bad habits. There's nothing we can do. Scientists have done experiments that show we use one part of our brain when we think about ourselves and another when we think about other people. However, when we think about ourselves in the future, we use the same part of the brain that we usually use to think about other people. In other words, the brain sees the “future you” as a different person than your “present you.” That's why we don't always find it easy to make good decisions for ourselves in the future.

    But that's not all. Scientists have also discovered that it takes around ten weeks to form a good habit. That's the amount (数量) of time the brain needs to accept new behavioral patterns (形式). The good news is that once you make it to ten weeks, everything becomes a lot easier. The bad news is that ten weeks is a really long time, so it's easy to give up what you want to do before then.

    So even when we want to change our ways and become better people, our brains won't let us. Or is this just an excuse? Look — I've finished my article on time! Anything is possible!