New Year's resolutions(决心)have been around long enough that we all scent to stick to the same ones--hit the gym, lay off the candy, read more books, call your mother-regardless of whether we follow through with our intentions.

    While January 1st seems like the perfect time to have a new start again, exactly when people developed that mindset(思维模式)isn't common knowledge. It turns out that the modern belief of' a New Year's resolution isn't as old as you thought. According to many historians, the ancient Babylonians were the first group of people to make New Year's resolutions. However, instead of making a commitment to self improvement, they made a commitment to the gods to pay their debts and return any objects they had borrowed.

    An ancient Roman tradition from 46 B. C, bears even more likeness to modern resolutions. Emperor Julius Caesar declared January the month of Janus. Romans believed Janus looked backwards into the previous year and ahead into the future. In his honor, they made sacrifices to the god and promises of good behavior for the coining year.

    But the modern New Year's resolution didn't fully form until centuries later. The practice was common enough by the early 1800s. An article in 1802 states, "Statesmen have sworn to have no other objet in view than the good of their country. the physicians have determined to advise the use of medicine no more than is necessary, and to the very reasonable in their fees.”

    The first time “New Year's resolution" appeared as a phrase was in the January 1st issue of a Boston newspaper in 1813. “I believe there are a lot of people," the article goes, “with a serious determination of beginning the New Year with new resolutions and new behavior, and with the full belief that they shall accept punishment for all their former faults and wipe them away.

    So as you make (and possibly fail at) your New year's resolutions, know that you're in good company.

    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 how 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 one 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 pieces 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 again. 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 were not. Would you have made the same choices?

    Are you looking for something to do? You might like to try one of these four experiences.

    Crocodile watching

    Do you fancy getting up close to some of the most terrifying animals on earth? Crocosaurus Cove, in Darwin (Australia) has the “Cage of Death”. It's an enclosure that's lowered into a pool. This gives you a 360 degree view of a crocodile as it's being fed. The cable broke once and the cage sank to the bottom, but they've fixed it since then.

    Edge walk

    How about walking along the edge of a building several hundred meters up in the air? If that sounds like fun, head off to the CN Tower in Toronto (Ontario, Canada). Built in 1976, the tower is 553.33 meters tall.

    The Edge walk consists of a 20-30 minute stroll along a 1.5 meter wide platform that runs around the tower's restaurant roof. During the walk, you're encouraged to lean forwards as you look over Toronto's skyline (轮廓线).

    Plastic ball rolling

    Do you fancy rolling down a hill in a plastic ball?

    Plastic ball rolling is popular all over the world, but the place to give it a go is in Rotorua (New Zealand). Brother David and Andrew Akers came up with the idea in 1994. A typical orb(球) is about 3 meters in diameter, with an inner orb size of about 2 meters. There's no brake or steering mechanism, but the inner layer of the plastic ball helps absorb the shock.

    Volcano bungee jumping

    If you're looking for the adventure of a lifetime, how about going bungee jumping off a helicopter into the crater of a live volcano? As part of the jumping, a helicopter ride takes you to the Villarreal volcano, one of the most active in Chile. Once you're at the drop zone, you leap off the helicopter and fall into the volcano. Finally, you enjoy the ride back to the airport flying at 130kph.

    Attracted by the above? If so, please contact us. Only half price from March 22 to April 25th For more information, please click here.

    The horse I'm riding is named Candy, which is appropriate, taking account of her love for eating. As we go our way down the mountain of Big Bend National Park, Texas, I'm sweating—half due to the hot weather, half due to an effort to stay on the horse. Candy, however, is relaxed and stops to eat cactuses (仙人掌) as she passes. She is used to the dusty trails through hills and canyons(大峡谷) and ignores my attempts to guide her away from her delicious food. Our ride becomes a battle of will, which Candy wins easily. I comfort myself by admiring the views across Big Bend's wide open spaces.

    Texas only national park, Big Bend, extends across 800,000 acres of the Chihuahuan Desert, in the deep southwest of the state right along the border with Mexico. It is named after the U-turn that the Rio Grande River makes here. It has seen a lot of fights. The Spanish, Anglo-American settles, Mexicans, and Apache and Comanche American Indians all fought to rule this place.

    Our group member, Mike, knows every corner of the park and describes it as “sort of a secret place”. Even some Texans don't know about Big Bend, he says. Other local people describe it as a forgotten national park. Compared with the almost five million travellers that descend on the Grand Canyon every year, only 30000 make it here.

    There are six of us in the riding group, all fairly inexperienced, led by tour guides, Linda and Janelle, who keep both us and the horses in line. We trek along the top of an 800-foot mountain, with wide-winged eagles flying beside us. The air is noiseless.

    The park is fantastic for hikes and has a variety of marked walking paths. The walk is a five-mile round trip. While the final stretch is rather steep, the views over giant canyons and plains are worth the effort.

    The new social robots, including Jibo, Cozmo, Kuri and Meccano M.A.X., bear some similarities to assistants like Apple's Siri, but these robots come with something more. They are designed to win us over not with their smarts but with their personality. They are sold as companions that do more than talk to us. Time magazine cheered for the robots that "could fundamentally reshape how we interact with machines." But is reshaping how we interact with machines a good thing, especially for children?

    Some researchers in favor of the robots don't see a problem with this. People have relationships with many kinds of things. Some say robots are just another thing with which we can have relationships. To support their argument, roboticists sometimes point to how children deal with toy dolls. Children animate (赋予…生命) dolls and turn them into imaginary friends. Jibo, in a sense, will be one more imaginary friend, and arguably a more intelligent and fun one.

    Getting attached to dolls and sociable machines is different, though. Today's robots tell children that they have emotions, friendships, even dreams to share. In reality, the whole goal of the robots is emotional trickery. For instance, Cozmo the robot needs to be fed, repaired and played with. Boris Sofman, the chief executive of Anki, the company behind Cozmo, says that the idea is to create "a deeper and deeper emotional connection ... And if you neglect him, you feel the pain of that." What is the point of this, exactly? What does it mean to feel the pain of neglecting something that feels no pain at being neglected, or to feel anger at being neglected by something that doesn't even know it is neglecting you?

    This should not be our only concern. It is troubling that these robots try to understand how children feel. Robots, however, have no emotions to share, and they cannot put themselves in our place. No matter what robotic creatures "say", they don't understand our emotional lives. They present themselves as empathy machines, but they are missing the essential equipment. They have not been born, they don't know pain, or death, or fear. Robot thinking may be thinking, but robot feeling is never feeling, and robot love is never love.

    What is also troubling is that children take robots' behavior to indicate feelings. When the robots interact with them, children take this as evidence that the robots like them, and when robots don't work when needed, children also take it personally. Their relationships with the robots affect their self-esteem (自尊). In one study, an 8-year-old boy concluded that the robot stopped talking to him because the robot liked his brothers better.

    For so long, we dreamed of artificial intelligence offering us not only simple help but conversation and care. Now that our dream is becoming real, it is time to deal with the emotional downside of living with robots that "feel".