Self-driving vehicles(车辆) will rely on cameras, sensors and artificial intelligence (人工智能) to recognize and respond to road and traffic conditions, but sensing is the most effective for objects and movement in the neighborhood of the vehicle. Not everything important in a car's environment will be caught by the vehicle's camera. Another vehicle approaching at high speed on a collision (碰撞) track might not be visible until it's too late. This is why vehicle-to-vehicle communication is undergoing rapid development. Our research shows that cars will need to be able to chat and cooperate on the road, although the technical challenges are still great.

    The usages of vehicle-to-vehicle communication contain vehicles driving together in a row, as well as safety messages about nearby emergency vehicles. Vehicles could alert each other to avoid collisions or share notices about passers-by and bicycles. From as far as several hundred metres away, vehicles could exchange messages with one another or receive information from roadside units（RSUs）about nearby incidents or dangerous road conditions through 4G network. A high level of AI seems required for such vehicles, not only to self-drive from A to B, but also to react intelligently to messages received. Vehicles will need to plan, reason, strategize and adapt according to information received in real time and to carry out cooperative behaviors. For example, a group of autonomous vehicles might avoid a route together because of possible risks, or a vehicle could decide to drop someone off earlier due to messages received, a foreseen crowding ahead.

    Further applications(应用) of vehicle-to-vehicle communication are still being researched, including how to perform cooperative behavior.

    In Scotland, 600,000 tonnes of food are thrown away every year. This amount of food, which could as feed about 1.2 billion poor people, is almost a third of household (家庭) waste. And food waste isn't just a big problem in Scotland.

    Money time, and resources (资源) are often wasted by throwing away good food. It also causes very harmful greenhouse gas, which is perilous to the planet.

    In the production stage, some foods do not enter the food chain for many reasons. Supermarkets usually care about the quality of food from farms. They often refuse strange-looking and unusually sized produce. However, they seem to forget that it is almost impossible to grow the perfect produce. Food waste at the consumption (消费) stage includes food going out of date and leftovers (剩饭) because of too much food. In households, even mostly fresh fruit and vegetables are thrown away.

    In order to reduce food waste, here is what we can do:

    Understanding the terms “use by” and “best before” dates. “Use by” dates are there for your safety. It is dangerous to eat food after the use-by date and doing so risks your health. “Best before” dates tell you how long the food will be at its best quality. Once the food passes the date, it isn't necessarily bad, but you should still check, just to be sure.

    Every time you go shopping and you bring back new food, put them at the back of your fridge and bring the food that will expire (到期) soon closer to the front. That way, you know what needs to be eaten first.

    If you have any food that will expire soon, give it to charity if you aren't going to eat it. They will really appreciate the food you have given.

    Forests are always losers at the Olympics, and that's unlikely to change anytime soon.

    For the winter games in PyeongChang, South Korea, virgin forest was destroyed on Mount Gariwang to accommodate ski runs. For the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing, a ski run is set to wipe out part of the Songshan National Nature Reserve And let's not forget the 240 acres of Atlantic Forest that were leveled for the 2016 games in Rio de Janeiro to make way for a golf course.

    For the upcoming Tokyo games, environmental and human rights advocates have been raising alarms about the use of tropical wood to build the New National Stadium. Activists have fought against such environmental destruction. The damage is often permanent, threatens endangered plants and animals and, in some cases, causes conflicts with native people But frequently the country's organizing committee, and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) have found ways to make it reasonable—despite a paragraph in the Olympic Charter that states that the IOC's role is to "encourage and support a responsible concern for environmental issues."

    As it stands now. the IOC has little authority over a city's local organizing committee, which finally plans the event, Chappelet, professor of public management at the University of Lausanne, told Earther. "Even if the IOC is dissatisfied with the way host cities have prepared for the games, they have no built-in systems to supervise (监督) them so that they strictly follow the Olympic Charter. The only thing they can do if they're not happy is to withdraw the right to organize the game. But the IOC could include more enforcement (执行) systems into the contract (合同) they make with the host city, he added. That contract must be signed and obeyed by everyone. Those who break it could be fined.

    Boykoff, the author of several books on the Olympics, suggested a similar solution. "The IOC could insist that host cities prioritize their ecological promises, but instead they look the other way, time and time again," he said.

    Here's a list of books I'm looking forward to this fall season. Not all of them will rise to the level of the advertisement, but it's an abundant crop.

    "Home After Dark" by David Small (Liveright, Sept.11)

    In 2009, Small published a celebrated graphic memoir (回忆录) called "Stitches". Now the Caldecott Medal winner is back with a graphic novel about a motherless 13-year-old boy brought up in an unhappy home in California. This is a tale told in few words and many striking images. On Sept. 11 at 3p.m. . Small will be at Amazonbooks at Union Market. More information at www.amazon.com/graph-tale.

    "Waiting for Eden" by Elliot Ackerman (Knopf, Sept. 25)

    This brief novel is related by a dead soldier who is watching over a horribly burned partner in a Texas hospital. That sounds embarrassingly emotional, but Ackerman, who served in a Navy in Iraq and Afghanistan, is one of the best soldier-writers of his generation. More information at www.amazon.com/military-essay.

    "All You Can Ever Know" by Nicole Chung (Catapult, Oct. 2)

    Chung, the editor of the literary magazine Catapult, was adopted as a baby by a white family in Oregon. In this memoir, she writes about her childhood, her Asian American identity and her search for the Korean parents who gave her up. More information at www.amazon.com/politics-prose.

    "Unsheltered" by Barbara Kingsolver (Harper, Oct. 16)

    Alternating between past and present, this novel tells the story of a woman investigating a late-19th-century science teacher who was caught up in the controversy over Darwinism. Like her other novels, this one promises to explore social and scientific problems. Visit www. amazon.com/tech-science for more information.

    Life can be so wonderful, full of adventure and joy. It can also be full of challenges, setbacks and heartbreaks. Whatever our circumstances, we generally still have dreams, hopes and desires —that little something more we want for ourselves and our loved ones. Yet knowing we can have more can also create a problem, because when we go to change the way we do things, up come the old patterns and pitfalls that stopped us from seeking what we wanted in the first place.

    This tension between what we feel we can have and "what were seemingly able to have is the niggling suffering, the anxiety we feel. This is where we usually think it's easier to just give up. But we're never meant to let go of the part of us that knows we can have more. The intelligence behind that knowing is us—the real us. It's the part that believes in life and its possibilities. If you drop that, you begin to feel a little "dead" inside because you're dropping "you".

    So, if we have this capability but somehow life seems to keep us stuck, how do we break these patterns?

    Decide on a new course and make one decision at a time. This is good advice for a new adventure or just getting through today's challenges.

    While, deep down, we know we can do it, our mind—or the minds of those close to us—usually says we can't.

    That isn't a reason to stop, it's just the mind, that little man or woman on your shoulder, trying to talk you out of something again. It has done it many times before. It's all about starting simple and doing it now.

    Decide and act before over-thinking. When you do this you may feel a little, or large, release from the jail of your mind and you'll be on your way.

    Scientists have been studying how people use money for long. Now they're finding some theories may apply to one group of monkeys.

    Researchers recently taught six monkeys hos to use money. They gave the monkeys small metal disks (圆片) that could be used like cash and showed them some yummy apple pieces. The monkeys soon figured out that if they gave one of the disks to a scientist, they'd receive a piece of apple in return.

    If you think that is all the monkeys can figure out, you are wrong. Two researchers, Jake and Allison, acted as apple sellers in the experiments. The monkeys were tested one at a time and had 12 disks to spend in each experiment. Jake always showed the monkeys on apple piece, while Allison always showed two pieces. But that's not necessarily what they gave the monkeys. The number of apple pieces given for a disk was determined at random.

    Experiment One: Allison showed two pieces of apples but gave both piece only half the time. The other half, she took one piece away and gave the monkey just the remaining piece. Jake, on the other hand, always gave exactly what he showed: one piece for each disk. The monkeys chose to trade more with Allison.

    Experiment Two: Allison continued to sometimes gave two pieces and sometimes one piece. But now, half the time, Jake gave the one apple piece he was showing, and half the time he added a bonus. Guess what? The monkeys chose to trade more with Jake.

    In the first experiment, the monkeys correctly figured out that if they traded with Allison, they'd end up with more treats. In the second one, when a monkey received two pieces from Jake, it seemed like a gain. When Allison gave the monkey only one piece instead of the two she showed, it seemed like a loss. The monkeys preferred trading with Jake because they'd rather take a chance of seeming to win than seeming to lose.

    We also sometimes make silly business decisions just to avoid the feeling that we're getting less, even when we're not. Would you have made the same choices?