America's businesses are getting older and fatter, while many new businesses are dying in infancy.

    A study last month by the Brookings Institution found that the proportion of older firms has grown steadily over several decades, while the survival rate of new companies has fallen. In addition, young people are starting companies at a sharply lower rate than in the past.

    A new report from the National Association of Manufacturers shows a major cause: The cost of obeying government regulations has risen to more than $2 trillion (12.26 trillion yuan) annually, or 12 percent of the GDP, and this cost falls disproportionately on smaller, newer businesses.

    It's risky, difficult and expensive to start a business, and getting more so. Governments are imposing various new rules on a seemingly daily basis: health insurance, minimum wage increases and, most recently in California, compulsory paid sick days for even hourly employees. These regulations shift huge social welfare costs directly onto often-struggling small businesses, while being proportionally much less costly for larger companies.

    This is partly an unintended issue of resources—established companies can cope with new costs more easily—but it's also deliberate. For instance, big insurance companies got a seat at the table to help write Obamacare, but less politically powerful firms—like medical device manufacturers—got squeezed.

    Mature, successful corporations can employ ex-lawmakers with connections, distribute campaign contributions and even write regulations for themselves. They are also more likely to want to protect steady revenue streams than revolutionize their industry.

    Major companies that have been so ill-managed they would otherwise collapse—airlines, car companies and banks—stagger（蹒跚）on because politicians ride to the rescue with bags of taxpayer money.

    The genius of our unique system of government is the determination to protect and defend the rights of the individual over the rights of the nation. As such, the rise of a well-connected oligarchy（寡头政治）that protects big business at the expense of small business, and the established over the new, is opposite to American ideals.

    Income inequality—which is directly caused by faulty government policy—is being promoted as the reason to impose more of that bad policy. But let's be perfectly clear, we do not have a free market but one where government picks winners and losers through regulations and financial aids.

    Politics is, and always has been, about balancing competing interests seeking to benefit themselves, and that's as it should be, but the force of government should never be used to reduce competition, kill innovation or support and extend artificial monopolies（垄断）by harming the consumer, the taxpayer and the economy. Policy must breed our new and small businesses or see the as-yet undreamed of innovations that could be our bright future die in infancy.

    When Carson Palmer, a professional American football player, hurt his arm a few years ago, he took a week off from throwing the football. But in his head, Palmer practiced every day. The following weekend, Palmer had the best game of his life.

    For more than a century, scientists have been trying to understand how this mental training works. In the 1930s, researchers proved by experiment that when you're imagining an action, your brain sends signals to your muscles(肌肉) which are too weak to tighten the muscles but might help train the body to perform. In other words, mental practice might create a pattern in your head, like an inner how-to guide for a particular skill.

    Sports psychologists have conducted hundreds of studies comparing imagined and physical practice for actions. On the whole, the research shows that mental training works. A 2012 study, for example, compared 32 amateur golfers who practiced hitting the balls to another 32 who merely held a golf club in their hands and visualized（想象）their swings. Under the same training rules, both groups improved their skills by getting the ball about 4 inches closer to the hole.

    Visualization has advantages over the real thing: You can do it anywhere, even when injured. It is safe-a major plus for high-risk performers such as gymnasts and surgeons. And you can practice for longer periods of time because you're not restricted by physical tiredness, That's not to say it's easy, we've had Olympic-level athletes sitting in our lab, visualizing the movements for two hours," says Tadhg Macintyre, a sports psychologist at the University of Limerick in Ireland. “When we're done, they're absolutely tired.”

    It doesn't work for everyone, though. "If you're a novice, the effect can be harmful,” warns Macintyre. If you're trying to visualize a free throw, and you don't even know the proper movement, then you're probably going to mentally practice the wrong skill.”

    If a woman has an extra piece of cake，don 't blame it on greed, blame it on her brain.

Scientists have found that women's brains react to food very differently — and much more strongly — than men' s. Academics found that decades of dieting pressure on women and advertising have programmed certain parts of the female brain to react strongly when faced with any kind of food. Men，on the other hand, are not usually as obsessive (着迷的）about what they eat.

    Dr. Rudolf Uher and his colleagues at the Institute of Psychiatry in King's College London used brain scanning technology，known as functional magnetic resonance imaging ( FMRI)，to look at the brains of eighteen men and women.

    The volunteers were given images of food to look at, as well as food to taste. Their brain reactions were observed by the scientists. They found that the female brains reacted much more strongly than those of males. The same reaction did not happen when they were shown non-food images. The team believe this means women think more about food than men tend to. Dr. Uher said, “This could be related to biological differences between men and women. But the more likely explanation is that women have a more complicated reaction to food because of social pressure. ”

Professor Carey Cooper，psychology and health professor at Lancaster University，said，“for centuries women have had a providing role — preparing and cooking food for their families. And it's part of that role to make sure the food is safe. They will therefore be much more sensitive to food than men are, and I would not be surprised if that was now built into their DNA. If the female brain react to food because it historically has developed neural (神经的）pathways to do this, then food will be the way they express their stress. Food actually，is a comfort for women. ”

    But other experts have said that more research must be done before the results can be proved. American scientist Angelo del Parigi of the John B. Pierce Laboratory in New Haven, Connecticut, said, “Looking at an FMRI alone cannot make sure whether the stronger reaction in women is due to innate (天生的）differences or a learned process. ''

    I am sure we've all come across inspiring quotes（引言）that made us nod in agreement or made us think, "Wow, that's good quotes". But we end up going back to procrastinating（拖延）on whatever it was we were procrastinating on. So is it worthwhile to read these inspirational quotes? Well, that depends.

    Quotes, books, articles, audio programs… all of these things are just tools and they're only effective when you use them. I don't know about you but most quotes I read don't do anything for me. However, every now and then, I will come across one that will positively affect me in some way such as reminding me to be grateful, getting me to work out extra hard at the gym without being pressed by my wife, or never give up when things get tough.

      From my experience, reading quotes is more effective when you're actually trying to motivate yourself rather than just reading them for the sake of reading them. The second you feel the urge to take action, you'd better immediately get up off your chair and take action.

    These quotes aren't for everyone. If you have read tons of them and have never been motivated or had a positive change in the way you look at life or how you treat others, or these quotes don't help you to insist on doing something when you feel like giving up on it, then it's probably not worthwhile to read more of them. If you have done something a bunch of times and it's not giving you the results you want, don't keep doing it. Try something else.

    Now if you've found some value in reading these quotes in the past, continue to make them more effective by letting them guide your life.

    For many years, machines have been doing work that people once did, including some difficult jobs. Search and rescue operations in dangerous environments are often seen as the first areas that will employ high technology robots. But there is another area where they may soon take jobs traditionally held by human beings: the restaurant industry.

    Teams from around the world competed in early June at the DARPA Robotic Challenge Finals in California. A team from R. O. Korea and its robot, called DRC-Hubo, won first place in the competition. The second and third place finishers were from the United States.

    The robots were required to drive a vehicle, climb up steps and do mechanical work. Such activities are easy for humans to perform, but more difficult for machines.

    Not all of the competitors were successful. The failures showed how difficult it is to design effective walking machines.

    Recently, crowds gathered for the food machinery and technology show in Tokyo, Japan. They witnessed a robotic chef preparing food. Other machines cooked, baked tasty pastries and even made sushi.

    Akihiro Suzuki works at Yaskawa Electric, a company that develops robots. He says robots cannot do everything a human can, but they are able to work without becoming tired.

    He says robots cannot taste food, change heating levels or seasonings to get the best flavor. But he says if a food can be easily prepared, a robot can repeat the same movement to reproduce the same meal.

    One Japanese woman who saw the robots working wanted to bring them home. Masayo Mori says she would like to have a husband who could work like a robot. Suzumo Machinery demonstrated its sushi maker robot. It performs the often difficult work of wrapping the popular Japanese food. Hiroshi Monden is an official with the company. He says people all over the world now eat sushi, but there are not enough skilled workers to prepare for it. He says his machine can help anyone make sushi.

    Like infectious diseases, ideas in the academic world are epidemic (传染的). But why some travel far and wide while equally good ones has been a mystery? Now a team of computer scientists has used an epidemiological model to simulate (模仿) how ideas move from one academic institution to another. The model showed that ideas originating at famous institutions caused bigger "epidemics" than equally good ideas from less famous places, explains Allison Morgan, a computer scientist at the University of Colorado Boulder.

    "This implies that where an idea is born shapes how far it spreads," says senior author Aaron Clauset.

    Not only is this unfair— "it reveals a big weakness in how we're doing science," says Simon DeDeo, a professor of social and decision sciences at Carnegie Mellon university, who was not involved in the study. "There are many highly trained people with good ideas who do not end up at top institutions. They are producing good ideas, and we know those ideas are getting lost," DeDeo says. "Our science, our scholarships, is not as good because of this."

    The Colorado researchers first looked at how five big ideas in computer science spread to new institutions. They found that hiring a new faculty member accounted for this movement a little more than a third of the time--and in 81 percent of those cases, transmissions took place from higher – to lower-prestige (声望) universities. Then the team simulated the spread of ideas using an infectious disease model and found that the size of an idea "epidemic" depended on the prestige of the originating institution.

    The researchers' model suggests that there "may be a number of quite good ideas that originate in the middle of the pack, in terms of universities." Clauset says. There is a lot of good work coming out of less famous places, he says: "You can learn a huge amount from it, and you can learn things that other people don't know because they're not even paying attention."