高中部英文科教學資料庫

LOS ANGELES — Broadway has a new ruler, and its name is “The Lion King.”

The musical over the weekend ousted long-standing box-office hit “The Phantom of the Opera” from the top of the list of all-time Broadway box office hits, a Disney spokeswoman said on Monday.

“The Lion King” has generated a cumulative gross of just over US$853.8 million on Broadway, pulling ahead of “Phantom” which has grossed slightly more than US$853.1 million.

“Naturally we’re humbled by this milestone,” Thomas Schumacher, producer and president of Disney Theatrical Productions, said in a statement.

“This accomplishment belongs to our audiences, millions of whom are experiencing their first Broadway show at The Lion King. Surely, introducing so many to the splendor of live theatre is our show’s greatest legacy,” he said.

“The Lion King,” based on the 1994 animated Disney film of the same name, follows the journey of Simba, a young lion born into animal royalty. When Simba is ousted into the wild by his evil uncle, he overcomes adversity with the help of his jungle friends to reclaim his crown as king of African wildlife.

The musical, which features songs by Elton John, lyrics from Tim Rice and is directed by Julie Taymor, has been a success since its opening in November 1997. The show has become an international sensation after playing around the world and setting up a West End production in London in 1999.

“Phantom of the Opera” still holds the crown for the worldwide box office for a stage musical with global ticket sales of US$5.6 billion, ahead of “The Lion King” at US$4.8 billion.

It could have been so much worse. Over 100 tornadoes ripped through several Plains states in just 24 hours over the weekend. Cars were tossed through the air and houses were pulverized. Hail the size of baseballs fell from the sky, crushing anything left in the open. More than what is ordinarily a month’s worth of cyclones struck in a single day, yet miraculously, only one, in the Oklahoma town of Westwood, proved fatal, killing six victims who lived in and around a mobile-trailer park. “God was merciful,” Kansas Governor Sam Brownback told CNN on Sunday.

But it wasn’t just God or chance. The low death toll was also due to a faster and more insistent warning system by weather forecasters, who put the word out early and often and over many platforms that the past weekend could be a dangerous one for the Midwest, thanks to an unusually strong storm system. The National Weather Service’s Storm Prediction Center took the unusual step of alerting people in the region more than a day before what was termed a possible “high-end, life-threatening event.” Warnings went out over radios, smart phones and TVs, urging people to stay underground or in a tornado shelter for the duration of the storm. And with memories of the more than 500 people who died in cyclones last year still fresh, residents in the affected areas paid attention and stayed out of harm’s way.

In the age of climate change, a lot of science and press coverage have been given over to determining whether warming really does make extreme events like heat waves, floods, storms or tornadoes more frequent or more powerful. That’s understandable: gradual warming over years or decades doesn’t get a lot of attention, but a megastorm like Hurricane Katrina in 2005 or the bursts of killer tornadoes last spring certainly do. It’s not just a matter of focusing public attention, however; extreme-weather events kill tens of thousands of people every year, and take a sizable chunk out of the global economy — not something anyone’s likely to fail to notice. Last year the U.S. experienced a dozen natural disasters that caused a billion or more dollars in damages, ranging from Hurricane Irene in September to the lingering drought in Texas and the Southwest. If climate change is really supercharging extreme weather — causing death and mayhem — that’s one more reason to get a grip on carbon emissions fast.

As it happens, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published an assessment on the science of extreme weather and global warming just last month — but the answers are cloudy. The panel found that it was likely that man-made carbon emissions are leading to extreme heat, something that should resonate on an April day that was so unseasonably hot that runners were warned away from the Boston Marathon. There was also medium confidence that carbon emissions and other anthropogenic factors are leading to more extreme rainfall — like the Pakistan floods of 2010 — and more intense droughts, like the one much of the U.S. is suffering through right now.

But there’s much less certainty on whether carbon emissions are supercharging hurricanes, tropical cyclones or tornadoes. That’s due in part to limitations in past data. Today, every tropical depression gets named and tracked, so there’s no chance that a hurricane could somehow form without being noticed. And both professional and amateur storm trackers keep a close eye on tornadoes, so even in a cyclone that touches down for a few moments goes into the record books. But in the past, hurricanes were often just sketchily documented and only the strongest tornadoes — or the ones that actually caused damage — likely would have been recorded. The occurrence of strong and violent tornadoes may well have remained relatively stable over the long term; the fact that we’re seeing more tornadoes overall now might simply mean that we’re noticing storms we might have missed 30 or 40 years ago.

There’s no doubt that the actual cost of extreme weather is on the rise, with U.S. insured losses from weather disaster soaring from $3 billion a year in the 1980s to about $20 billion a year in the past decade, adjusted for inflation. But it doesn’t automatically follow that those higher costs are due to climate-change-powered superstorms. The U.S. and the world at large are both richer and more populated than they were 30 years ago, and much of that wealth is now concentrated along highly vulnerable areas like coastlines. When a hurricane like Irene rakes the East Coast as it did last summer, it can affect far more people and valuable property than it would in the past. That translates to greater potential losses.

The fact that it’s impossible to draw a straight line between climate change and the seemingly more turbulent weather doesn’t mean we should act as if the two aren’t linked. There’s no doubt that warming raises at least the risk of extreme-weather events, something we’re thinking about more in the early part of what is shaping up to be a brutally hot year in the U.S. But the fastest way to reduce the death and damage from extreme weather is through adaptation, whether that takes the form of better tornado warnings or micro-insurance policies that allows subsistence farmers in sub-Saharan Africa to bounce back from drought.

There’s a reason that 95% of the deaths from natural disasters occur in the developing world; poverty leaves populations unprepared for extreme weather. That’s true even within rich nations; it wasn’t a coincidence that the handful of deaths caused by tornadoes in the Midwest occurred in a trailer park. But even poor countries or regions can learn to protect themselves. In 1970 a Category-3 cyclone killed an astounding 300,000 people in Bangladesh, yet an even stronger storm struck the country in 2007 and claimed only 4,200 lives — still a heartbreaking loss, but a far smaller one. Climate change and poverty can make extreme weather worse, but it doesn’t have to claim lives.

Whatever you do, accentuate that left cheek of yours: it is your best one. According to a scientific study, there no longer remains a question of which is your best side. Everyone, it seems, agrees that left is best.

Wake Forest University psychology professor Dr. James Schirillo and co-author Kelsey Blackburn published their findings in the journal Experimental Brain Research, stating that we humans prefer looking at the left side of a face, finding it more pleasant.

The pair took photos of 10 male and 10 female faces, and created a series of originals and mirror images, so that a right cheek could be made to look like a left or the other way around. When asked, 37 male and female college students overwhelmingly favored the left side, and it didn’t matter whether the left side was the original or the mirrored version.

Researchers also noted that when rating the cheeks, test subjects had larger pupil sizes when looking at the left cheek compared to the right. A growing pupil signifies looking at a positive image.

“Our results suggest that posers’ left cheeks tend to exhibit a greater intensity of emotion, which observers find more aesthetically pleasing,” said the researchers in a statement. They added that this finding lends credence to the idea that the right side of the brain controls emotion, giving the left side of the face (which is also controlled by the right hemisphere of the brain) a bit more to work with.

It’s also a difference that painters have seemingly known about for centuries; historically, most portraits depict a person’s left side.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska–Symptoms of a mysterious disease that has killed scores of seals off Alaska and infected walruses are now showing up in polar bears, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) said on Friday.

Nine polar bears from the Beaufort Sea region near Barrow were found with patchy hair loss and oozing sores on their skin, similar to conditions found in diseased seals and walruses, the agency said in a statement.

Patchy hair loss has been seen before in polar bears, but the high prevalence in those spotted by the researchers and the simultaneous problems in seal and walrus populations elevate the concern, he said.

The USGS is coordinating with agencies studying the other animals to investigate whether there is a link, he said.

“There’s a lot we don’t know yet, whether we’re dealing with something that’s different or something that’s the same,” he said.

The disease outbreak was first noticed last summer. About 60 seals were found dead and another 75 diseased, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Most of the affected seals are ringed seals, but diseased ribbon, bearded and spotted seals were also found.

Several walruses in northwestern Alaska were found with the disease, and some of those died as well, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The diseased seals and walruses, many of them juveniles, had labored breathing and lethargy as well as the bleeding sores, according to the experts. The agencies launched an investigation into the cause of the disease, which has also turned up in bordering areas of Canada and Russia.

Preliminary studies showed that radiation poisoning is not the cause, temporarily ruling out a theory that the animals were sickened by contamination from the tsunami-wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan.

Spread of the disease among seals continues. A sickened and nearly bald ribbon seal pup was found about a month ago near Yakutat on the Gulf of Alaska coastline, according to the agency. The animal was so sick it had to be euthanized.

All of the afflicted species are dependent on Arctic sea ice and considered vulnerable to seasonal ice loss.

Polar bears are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and listings are being considered for the Pacific walrus and for the ringed, bearded and ribbon seals.

Nutrition experts are constantly urging Americans to eat healthier — that usually means including more fresh fruits and vegetables in our diet. But fresh foods are expensive and often difficult to obtain for many families, which is why researchers from Ketchum Global Health and Wellness asked the question, Is fresh food really always best?

“There is increasing conversation around ‘fresh’ foods, especially fruits and vegetables, as being more nutritious. Yet, this supposition had not been supported by evidence,” says study author Cathy Kapica, who is also an adjunct professor of nutrition at Tufts University.

Given that canned foods are cheaper than fresh and usually quicker to prepare, Kapica and her team wanted to know whether they could be an equally nutritious but more affordable alternative. The researchers conducted a market-basket study comparing the total cost of getting nutrients from canned, fresh, frozen and dried varieties of common foods.

The conclusion: when price, waste and preparation time were factored in, canned foods won out as the most convenient and affordable source of nutrients. For instance, canned pinto beans cost $1 less per serving as a source of protein and fiber than dried beans. That’s because it takes about six minutes to prepare a can of pinto beans, compared to 2½ hours for dried beans, after soaking and cooking. (The researchers calculated meal prep and cooking time at $7.25 an hour, the minimum wage in New Jersey where the research was conducted.)

“While all forms of the foods — canned, frozen, fresh and dried — were nutritious, when you added the cost of the inedible portions and the cost of the time to prepare to the price, in most cases the canned versions delivered nutrients at a lower total cost,” says Kapica.

TAIPEI — NBA sensation Jeremy Lin has been selected by Time Magazine at the top of “The 100 Most Influential People in the World” for 2012 in recognition for his touching and inspiring stories in basketball.