Researchers at the University of Kansas say that people can accurately judge 90 percent of a stranger's personality simply by looking at the person's shoes. “Shoes convey useful information about their wearers”, the authors wrote in the new study published in the Journal of Research in Personality．

    Lead researcher Omri Gillath said the judgments were based on the style, cost, color and condition of someone's shoes. In the study, 63 University of Kansas researchers looked at pictures showing 208 different pairs of shoes worn by the study's participants. Volunteers in the study were photographed in their most commonly worn shoes, and then filled out a personality questionnaire.

    Some of the results were expected: People with higher incomes most commonly wore expensive shoes, and flashier shoes were typically worn by outgoing people. However，some of the more specific results are strange enough. For example, “practical and functional ''shoes were generally worn by more “pleasant" people, while ankle boots were more linked with “aggressive” personalities. The strangest of all may be that those who wore “uncomfortable looking” shoes tend to have “calm” personalities. And if you have several pairs of new shoes or take extreme care of them, you may suffer from “attachment anxiety", spending lots of time worrying about what other people think of your appearance. There was even a political calculation in the mix with more liberal (主张变革的) types wearing “shabbier and less expensive” shoes.

    The researchers noted that some people will choose shoe styles to mask their actual personalities, but researchers noted that volunteers were also likely to be unaware that their footwear choices were showing the deep side of their personalities.

    In 1943, when I was 4, my parents moved from Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, to Fairbanks, Alaska, where adventure was never very far away.

    We arrived in the summer, just in time to enjoy the midnight sun. All that sunlight was fantastic for Mum's vegetable garden. Working in the garden at midnight tended to throw her timing off, so she didn't care much about my bedtime.

    Dad was a Railway Express agent and Mum was his clerk. That left me in a mess. I usually managed to find some trouble to get into. Once I had a little fire going in the dirt basement of a hotel. I had tried to light a barrel(桶) of paint but couldn't really get a good fire going. The smoke got pretty bad, though, and when I made my exit, a crowd and the police were there to greet me. The policemen took my matches and drove me home.

    Mum and Dad were occupied in the garden and Dad told the police to keep me, and they did! I had a tour of the prison before Mum rescued me. I hadn't turned 5 yet.

    As I entered kindergarten, the serious cold began to set in. Would it surprise you to know that I soon left part of my tongue on a metal handrail at school?

    As for Leonhard Seppala, famous as a dog sledder(驾雪橇者), I think I knew him well because I was taken for a ride with his white dog team one Sunday. At the time I didn't realize what a superstar he was, but I do remember the ride well. I was wrapped(包裹) heavily and well sheltered from the freezing and blowing weather.

    In 1950, we moved back to Coeur d'Alene, but we got one more Alaskan adventure when Leonhard invited us eight years later by paying a visit to Idaho to attend a gathering of former neighbors of Alaska.

    That robots, automation, and software can replace people might seem obvious to anyone who's worked in automotive manufacturing. But MIT business scholars Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee's claim is more troubling and controversial. They believe that rapid technological change has been destroying jobs faster than it is creating them.

    They believe that technology increases productivity and makes societies wealthier, but it became clear to them that the same technologies making many jobs safer, easier, and more productive were also reducing the demand for many types of human workers. Technologies like the Web, artificial intelligence, and big data are automating many routine tasks. Countless traditional white-collar jobs, such as many in the post office and in customer service, have disappeared.

    As evidence, Brynjolfsson and McAfee point to a chart on which separate lines represent productivity and total employment in the United States. For years after World War II, the two lines closely tracked each other, with increases in jobs corresponding to increases in productivity. Then, beginning in 2000, the lines diverge; productivity continues to rise steadily, but employment suddenly shrinks. By 2011, a significant gap appears between the two lines, showing economic growth with no parallel increase in job creation.

United States Productivity and Employment

    But are these new technologies really responsible for a decade of lackluster (无生气) job growth? David Autor, an economist at MIT who has studied the connections between jobs and technology, doubts that technology could account for such a sudden change in total employment. Moreover, he also doubts that productivity has, in fact, risen steadily in the United States in the past decade. If he's right, it raises the possibility that poor job growth could be simply a result of a depressed economy. The sudden slowdown in job creation “is a big puzzle,” he says, “but there's not a lot of evidence that it's linked to computers.” “To be sure, computer technologies are changing the types of jobs available, but that is very different from saying technology is affecting the total number of jobs,” he adds. “Jobs can change a lot without there being huge changes in employment rates.”

    Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist, says that while technological changes can be painful for workers whose skills no longer match the needs of employers, no historical pattern shows these shifts leading to a net decrease in jobs over an extended period. Still, Katz doesn't dismiss the notion that there is something different about today's digital technologies. Though he expects the historical pattern to hold, it is “genuinely a question,” he says. “If technology disrupts enough, who knows what will happen?”

    The digital revolution is both launching us into a no-handwriting future, and also sending us backwards in time to when the spoken words ruled. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.

    "I don't think kids should be assessed on their ability to master cursive(草书). It's not something that they are going to use much in their lives as they grow older. It's not something most of us adults use in our lives today. " Anne Trubek, an author, suggests that schools offer handwriting or cursive as an elective or art class in the future.

    "Focus on how to teach kids to express their ideas, how to organize their thoughts, how to make arguments" she says. "The forming of the letters are less important. And there are certainly many ways to individualize what you write beyond the way you've circled the 'I' or crossed your 'T'."

    "This myth that handwriting is just a motor skill (运动技能) is just plain wrong," Virginia Berninger said. "We use motor parts of our brain, motor planning, motor control, but what's very critical is a region of our brain where the visual and language come together and actually become letters and written words."

    "A lot of people are very stubborn about the importance of handwriting, but at the same time will admit they never write themselves," Trubek says.

    Trubek suggests, however, that handwriting keeps some value – for now. " For us today, in the 21st century America, handwriting represents something individual and unique about a person. It doesn't always mean that in previous times in history, and it won't always mean that in the future, but right now for us we relate our sense of self to our handwriting."

    What's fiercer than a lion? The honey badger (蜜獾), one of the toughest mammals in Africa and western Asia. Honey badgers stand less than a foot high. They are only a couple feet long. They weigh just over 20 pounds. Yet they have a reputation for toughness that is far greater than their size.

    So what makes the honey badger so tough? They have speed, but so do many animals. They aren't stronger than lions, so how do they stop them? The thing that sets the honey badge apart is their skin. Their skin is thick and tough. Arrows, spears, and bites from other animals can rarely go through it. Not only is their skin thick and tough, it is also loose. This allows them to twist and turn to fight back while another animal is attacking them.

    Honey badgers have long, sharp claws. These claws are good for attacking and even better for digging. Honey badgers are some of nature's most skilled diggers. They can dig a nine-foot tunnel into hard ground in about 10 minutes. They love to catch a meal by digging up the holes of frogs and snakes. They also use their digging skills to create their homes. They live in small holes in the ground and defend them fiercely.

    You don't get a reputation like the honey badger by running from danger. The honey badger is a fearless and tireless fighter. They will attack any creature that threatens them, man included. Because of the honey badger's reputation, most predators (食肉动物) avoid them. Some animals use the honey badger's reputation to their advantage. Adult cheetahs (猎豹) have spotted coats, but their kittens have silver manes (鬃毛) and look like honey badgers. Some scientists believe that their coloring tricks predators into avoiding them.

    You might be wondering: "If honey badgers are so tough, how did they get a name that makes them sound like a piece of candy?" The answer makes sense. Since honey badgers have such thick skin, bees rarely harm them. So honey badgers love to attack beehives(蜂窝). Honey badgers run after honey so aggressively that beekeepers in Africa have to use electric fencing to hold them back. There's nothing sweet about that.

    It seems that electronic devices just keep getting smaller. Scientists in the United States have announced the creation of the first transistor with only two dimensions(二维).

    A transistor is a small electronic device that transfers or carries electronic current. Scientists hope these new 2D transistors will be used for building high-resolution(高分辨率)displays that need very little energy.

    Two groups of scientists created these 2D transistors. They report that the transistors are only a few atoms thick.

    Usually transistors are made with the element silicon(硅). Computer processors, memory chips, TV screens and other electronic devices contain billions of silicon-based transistors. But these very small electrical parts have certain limitations.

    Dimitris Ioannou is an electrical engineering professor at George Mason University. He says the traditional transistor has been improved as much as it can be. He adds that researchers have been looking for new materials with special features and they want transistors to be seen through and soft.

    "If the layers are very thin, the transistor can become flexible, so it doesn't have to be rigid(坚硬的), like it would be in a silicon chip. So people can think of applications like wearable electronics, television screens and other things," said Ioannou.

    These new transistors can also carry higher current. They also can move the current much faster than traditional transistors. This is important for high-definition screens.

    Dimitris Ioannou says the scientific success could prove very useful in the future. "Now, how good and how useful it will be, it's still in the stage of research, but it certainly is an advance," said Ioannou.