Parents who help their children with homework may actually be bringing down their school grades. Other forms of parental involvement, including volunteering at school and observing a child's class, also fail to help, according to the most recent study on the topic.

    The findings challenge a key principle of modern parenting where schools expect them to act as partners in their children's education. Previous generations concentrated on getting children to school on time, fed, dressed and ready to learn.

    Keith Robinson, the author of the study, said, "I really don't know if the public is ready for this but there are some ways parents can be involved in their kids' education that leads to declines in their academic performance. One of the things that was consistently negative was their parents' help with homework." Robinson suggested that may be because parents themselves struggle to understand the tasks."They may either not remember the material their kids are studying now, or in some cases never learnt it themselves, but they're still offering advice."

    Robinson assessed parental involvement performance and found one of the most damaging things a parent could do was to punish their children for poor marks. In general, about 20% of parental involvement was positive,  about 45% negative and the rest statistically insignificant.

    Common sense suggests it was a good thing for parents to get involved because "children with good academic success do have involved parents", admitted Robinson. But he argued that this did not prove parental involvement was the root cause of that success. "A big surprise was that Asian-American parents whose kids are doing so well in school hardly involved. They took a more reasonable approach, conveying to their children how success at school could improve their lives."

    Alexis, 17, sat quietly in the passenger seat of her dad's car. She let her eyes lazily scan the landscape for wildlife. Then a deer came into view about 200 yards in front of them. “Dad, there's a deer there!” Alexis said. It was a male deer with sharp antlers (角) on each side of its head.

    As the car moved closer, Alexis saw that the deer's head was bent toward the ground. Then she heard a scream and saw an arm fly up near the deer's head. Alexis realized the deer was attacking a woman. Sue, a 44-year-old mother, had been out for her morning run. The deer followed her and edged closer. “I knew I was in trouble.” Sue says. She went to pick up a stick for self-defense, and the deer charged. It lifted her with its antlers and threw her into the air. Sue could feel blood flew down her leg. Within seconds, the deer had pushed her off the road.

    When Alexis and her father pulled up, the deer was throwing Sue like a doll. Alexis looked into the woman's terrified eyes, and before her father had even stopped the car, the teenager jumped quickly out of the car and ran toward the deer. “I was kicking it to get its attention." she says. Then her father, who had followed his daughter, pushed the deer away from the women.

    Alexis helped Sue into the car and then applied a piece of cloth to Sue's injured leg. “We're going to get you to a hospital.” Alexis said. Then she heard her father shout loudly. He had been knocked to the ground. Alexis took hold of a hammer from the car and ran to where her father lay on his back. She beat the deer's head and neck, but the blows didn't scare it away. “I was losing faith.” she says. “A couple more strikes. Alexis.” said her father. “You can do it.”

    Turning the hammer around, Alexis closed her eyes and beat the deer's neck with all her strength. When she opened her eyes, the deer was running away.

    Alexis got in the driver's seat and sped toward the nearest hospital. After Sue was treated, she tearfully thanked her rescuers. “You expect a teenage girl to get on the phone and call for help,” she says, “not to beat up a deer.”

    By now, you've probably been warned that a robot is coming for your job. But rather than repeat the warning, I've decided to throw down a challenge: man against machine.

    Start with the task we're doing right now: communicating in fluent human. We're sharing abstract ideas through words that we choose with an understanding of their slight difference and impact. We don't just speak in human; we speak as humans. A robot who says that science is fun is delivering a line (念一句话). A human who says that science is fun is telling you something important about being alive.

    Here's another inbuilt advantage we take for granted: as humans we are limited by design. We are bound in time: we die. We are bound in space: we can't be in more than one place at a time. That means when I speak to an audience, I am giving them something special. It's a custom-made, one-off, 100% robot-free delivery, from today's one-and-only Australian Chief Scientist.

    True, I now come in digital versions, through Twitter and Facebook and other platforms, but the availability of those tools hasn't stopped people from inviting me to speak in person. Digital Alan seems to increase the appetite for human Alan, just as Spotify (a digital music service) can increase the demand for a musician's live performances.

    Thanks to technology, many goods and services are cheaper, better and more accessible than ever before. We like our mass-produced bread, and our on-tap lectures and our automated FitBit advice. But automation hasn't killed the artisan bakery (面包店). Online courses haven't killed the booming, alongside their machine equivalents.

    Here's a third argument for the win. We humans have learned the habit of civilization. Let me explain this point by a story. A few years go, some researchers set out to study the way the people interact with robots. They sent out a small robot to patrol (巡逻) the local mall. That robot had a terrible time, and the villains of the story were children. They kicked him, bullied him, and smacked (掌击) him in the head.

    The point is not that the children were violent. The point is that the adults were not. They restrained whatever primitive impulse (冲动) they might have felt in childhood to smack something smaller and weaker in the head, because they had absorbed the habit of living together. We call it civilization. If we want artificial intelligence for the people, we'll need every bit of that civilizing instinct.

    Together, these points suggest to me that humanity has a powerful competitive edge. We can coexist with our increasingly capable machines and we can make space for the full breadth of human talents to flourish.

    You probably know who Marie Curie was, but you may not have heard of Rachel Carson. Of the outstanding ladies listed below，who do you think was the most important woman of the past 100 years?

Jane Addams (1860－1935)

    Anyone who has ever been helped by a social worker has Jane Addams to thank. Addams helped the poor and worked for peace. She encouraged a sense of community (社区) by creating shelters and promoting education and services for people in need. In 1931，Addams became the first American woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Rachel Carson (1907－1964)

    If it weren't for Rachel Carson, the environmental movement might not exist today. Her popular 1962 book SilentSpring raised awareness of the danger of pollution and the harmful effects of chemicals on humans and on the world's lakes and oceans.

Sandra Day O'Connor (1930－present)

    When Sandra Day O'Connor finished third in her class at Stanford Law School, in 1952, she could not find work at a law firm because she was a woman. She became an Arizona state senator (参议员) and，in 1981, the first woman to join the U．S. Supreme Court. O'Connor gave the deciding vote in many important cases during her 24 years on the top court.

Rosa Parks (1913－2005)

    On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Rosa Parks would not give up her seat on a bus to a white passenger. Her simple act landed Parks in prison. But it also set off the Montgomery bus boycott. It lasted for more than a year, and kicked off the civil ­ rights movement. “The only tired I was, was tired of giving in，”said Parks.

    Downloading music over the Internet is pretty common among high school and college students. However, when students download and share copyrighted music without permission, they are against the law.

    A survey of young people's music ownership has found that teenagers and college students have an average of more than 800 illegally copied songs each on their digital music players. Half of those surveyed share all the music on their hard drive (硬盘), enabling others to copy hundreds of songs at any one time. Some students were found to have randomly linked their personal blogs to music sites, so as to allow free trial listening of copyrighted songs for blog visitors, or adopted some of the songs as the background music for their blogs. Such practices may be easy and free, but there are consequences.

    Sandra Dowd, a student of Central Michigan University, was fined US $7,500 for downloading 501 files from Lime Wire, a peer-to-peer file sharing program. Sandra claimed that she was unaware that her downloads were illegal until she was contacted by authorities. Similarly, Mike Lewinski paid US $4,000 to settle a lawsuit（起诉）against him for copyright violation (违反). Mike expressed shock and couldn't believe that this was happening to him. “I just wanted to save some money and I always thought the threat was just a scare tactic(战术).” “You know, everyone does it,” added Mike.

    The RIAA （Recording Industry Association of America）, the organization that files lawsuits against illegal downloaders, states that suing (控告) students was by no means their first choice. Unfortunately, without the threat of consequences, students are just not changing their behavior. Education alone is not enough to stop the extraordinary growth of the illegal downloading practice.

    Depression and suicidal thoughts have doubled in young Americans, according to a new study from the American Psychological Association.

    Likely triggers? Cell phones and social media.

    "More US adolescents and young adults in the late 2010s, vs the mid-2000s, experienced serious psychological distress, major depression and more attempted suicide (自杀)", says lead researcher Jean Twenge, professor of psychology at San Diego State University. "These trends are weak or non-existent among adults 26 years and over, suggesting a generational shift in mood disorders instead of an overall increase across all ages."

    Twenge believes this trend is partially due to the explosion of digital culture over the past decade, which may have twisted modes of social interaction enough to affect mood disorders.

    The study analyzed data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, which tracked drug and alcohol use and mental health issues in more than 200,000 youths aged 12 to 17 from 2005 to 2017 and almost 400,000 adults from 2008 to 2017.

    Major depression in the last 12 months increased by 52 percent in kids from 2005 to 2017 and 63 percent in young adults aged 18 to 25 from 2009 to 2017. There was also a 71 percent jump in young adults experiencing serious psychological distress in the previous 30 days from 2008 to 2017.

    So what's so different now? Twenge says research shows young people just aren't getting as much shuteye as they did in previous generations.

    Whereas older Americans might have established more stability in their lives, sleep-disrupting social stressors are likely at their peak for teens and young adults in this digital era, she says. Older adults are also less likely to let devices interfere (干预) with sleep.

    These results suggest a need for more research to understand how digital communication versus face-to-face social interaction influences mood disorders and to develop specialized interventions for younger age groups.

    Her suggestion? Put your phone down at least an hour before bedtime.