R. U. Darby and his uncle were digging for gold in the West. After weeks of labor, he was rewarded when he discovered shining ore(矿石). He needed machinery to bring the ore to the surface. So he borrowed money from his relatives and neighbors and went back to work on the mine.

    The first car of ore was mined and sent to a smelter. The gold that they got in return proved they had one of the richest mines in Colorado! A few more cars of that ore would clear the debts. Then would come the big profits.

    Down went the drills! Up went the hopes of Darby and Uncle! Then something happened! The vein of gold ore disappeared! The pot of gold was no longer there! They drilled on, desperately trying to pick up the vein again, but they found nothing.

    Finally, they decided to quit. They sold the machinery to a man for a few hundred dollars, and took the train back home. That man asked a mining engineer to look at the mine and do a little calculating. The engineer said that the project had failed because the owners were not familiar with “fault lines(裂纹线)”. His calculations showed that the vein would be found just three feet from where it was found.

    The man took millions of dollars in ore from the mine, because he knew enough to ask for expert advice before giving up.

    R.U. Darby was struggling for years to pay back the money from his relatives and neighbors. He went into the business of selling life insurance.

    Remembering that he lost a huge fortune because he stopped three feet from gold, Darby profited from the experience in his chosen work, by the simple method of saying to himself , “I stopped three feet from gold, but I will never stop because men say 'no' when I ask them to buy insurance.”

    Darby is part of a small group of fewer than 50 men who sell more than a million dollars in life insurance every year. His “stick-ability” comes from the lesson he learned from his “quit-ability” in the gold mining business.

A Blessed Teacher

    I remembered Ricky came back to see me ten years after he was in my class. He told me how I had inadvertently(不经意地) changed his life.

    Ricky often gazed out the window during one of my ninth-grade history classes early in my teaching career. He was quiet, and his good grades and mild manner were why I did not move him away from the seat by the window.

    One day, I leaned over his shoulder and quietly asked, “What are you looking at? You gaze out of this window during every class.”

    He said, “I am looking at the band.”

    According to Ricky, I said, “If you like the band so much that you have to look at them during this class every day, I want you to go down to Mr. Overby (the band teacher) and tell him that I sent you. Tell him that you want to be in the band. Now turn around and finish working before the bell rings.”

    The next day Ricky went to Mr. Overby and told him I had sent him and he wanted to be in the band. He added that he did not know how to play any instrument.

    When Ricky visited me ten years later, he thanked me for telling him to go to Mr. Over by because he fell in love with music and discovered his musical talent that had not been tapped. His musical talent resulted in him getting a scholarship to college and earning a degree that now allowed him to provide for his family. Most of all, music had brought great pleasure and satisfaction to his life.

    After Ricky thanked me, I pointed out that he did all of the hard work it took to become the wonderfully talented person that he was. I did not make him walk downstairs to join the band, practice his instrument, and get the good grades that led to his college scholarship.

    Ricky responded that I could have yelled at him for looking out the window. Instead, I gave him an alternative that changed his whole life.

    After he left, I thought about his words. I realized that I was teaching children with every word I said, every action I took, and with every decision I made. Ricky's story raised my teaching bar. Most of all, I have never forgotten the lesson Ricky taught me, a blessed teacher.

    Your next ca might drive itself. After years of trials on city streets, driverless vehicles are now nearing the live phase. Last moth, a driverless bus began carrying passengers through Lyon, France, Most in the automobile industry think self-driving vehicles will be on the road by 2020 or before.

    Driverless cars will at first be huddled with human-driven cars. But the first places where they will become dominant（统治的）are dense urban areas — precisely the spots most damaged by the automobile age. Many advanced cities are already reducing the role of human-driven cargo. Driverless cars will quicken that process and will bring us enormous benefits.

    Driverless cars will reduce accidents by around 90 percent. That's big—the annual death toll on the world's roads is about 1.2 million a year. Pollution and carbon emissions will drop, because urban driverless cars will be electric. The old, otherwise they would stay at home most of the time and the disabled and teenagers will suddenly gain mobility.

    On the other hand, driverless cars will bring catastrophe. The best thing about the automobile age was that it employed tens of millions of people to make, market, insure and drive vehicles. Over the next 20 years, the mostly low-skilled men who now drive trucks, taxis and buses will see their jobs reduced. Carmakers are especially scared. The few cars of the future might be made by tech companies such as Apple, Baidu and Google. Imaging the impact on Germany, where the automotive sector is the largest industry.

    Dramatic change is coming, and driverless cars could arrive by 2020. But governments have barely begun thinking about it. Only 6 percent of the biggest US cities have factored them into their long-term planning.

    A decade ago anyone hardly saw the Smartphone coming. It has bought an epidemic of mass addiction. Let's hope we do a better job of handling the driverless car.

    All across the nation, in Americans' backyards and garages and living rooms, wild animals kept as pets live side by side with their human owners. It's believed that more exotic animals live in American homes than are cared for in American zoos. The exotic-pet business has drawn criticism from animal welfare advocates and wildlife conservationists alike, who say it's not only dangerous to bring wildlife into households but it's cruel and criminal. Yet the issue is far from black or white.

    The term exotic pet has no firm definition. It can refer to any wildlife kept in human households or simply to a pet that's more unusual than the common dog or cat. Privately owning exotic animals is currently permitted in a handful of states with no restrictions in America. Adam Roberts of Born Free USA keeps a running database of deaths and injuries caused by exotic-pet ownership：In Connecticut a 55-year-old woman's face was permanently disfigured by her friend's lifelong pet monkey；in Ohio an 80-year-old man was attacked by a 200-pound kangaroo；in Nebraska a 34-year-old man was strangled(勒)to death by his pet snake. And that list does not include the number of people who become sick from coming into contact with zoonotic(动物传染的) diseases.

    Some people see wild animals as pets as a way to connect with the natural world. Other exotic-pet owners say they are motivated by a desire to preserve threatened species. They believe climate change and human population growth could wipe out a species in record time, so having a backup population is a good idea.   

    But some groups like Born Free USA and the World Wildlife Fund gay that captive breeding(圈养)of endangered species by private owners—whether for commercial, conservation, or educational reasons—serves only to continue a booming market for exotic animals. That, in turn, results in a greater risk to animals still living in their natural habitat.

    In recent years I have had two very good roles on television: Florence, the wisecracking maid on the series The Jeffersons, and Mary, the mother who holds things together on 227. But 17 years ago, in 1972 when I was just getting started in theater work, I thought I'd never make it as an actress. For that matter, I couldn't even hold my life together or afford a home of my own.

    Back then I had about as much self-confidence as a chicken in a fox's nest. I was recovering from surgery and had been off work for six months from my job as a United Airlines reservations agent. I'd had some bit parts in local theater groups, but those came and went, not leading to anything bigger.

    Worse, as a single mother with three youngsters, I had no place to live. My children were staying with their father while I recovered in an aunt's apartment. Lying in bed, staring hopelessly at the wall, I didn't know what to do or where to turn.

    Then one Sunday morning I aimlessly turned on the television set, and there were actor Robert Young and his wife talking about their faith. I sat right up in bed. They said, "When one door closes, a better one opens," Well, I wasn't going to just sit staring at the closed one. So I got up and trudged (跋涉) on. Even if my shoes wore out, I decided, my faith wouldn't.

    Later, when I began filling small parts in television productions, that self-confidence showed. I'd always done my best to play the role as I thought the director wanted, but now I found myself freer to interpret it, I was more natural, more me.

Reading a book and watching a film are two very different experiences, but expectations can be high when a film of a favourite book is made. There are very many times I have been disappointed by a film of a book I love. So maybe highly regarded books do not always make good films. It is safe to say that great movies may be made from not particularly good books.

The source material may be anything from classic novels, short stones, comic books and stage plays, as well as non­fiction such as biography and autobiography, even those written by ghostwriters. All can work well, but why do many adaptations and indeed remakes fail with both cinema audiences and critics?

A key question is obviously how close to the original the film is. Since a typical film is only around two hours long, it becomes a question of what to leave out, and how to script the dialogue. Sometimes there may be changes to the plot, additions and even different endings to please producers, directors and test audiences. I, like many people, have often left the cinema feeling "the film is not like the book".

Another problem area is the cast. Whether suitable actors are found or not can mean the difference between success and failure. Readers of the book use their imaginations to visualize characters and have very definite ideas about how characters look and sound. This is where I think many film adaptations fall down.

Some books are just too difficult to film for technical reasons, although movies like The Life of Pi are changing this perception. The impact of CGI technology has had a huge impact on the movie industry and allowed the previously unfilmable to become a reality.

 Sometimes authors are very involved in the process and many may even be the screenwriters. This can actually be a bad thing because they may be too close to the material and find it difficult to adapt. At other times they are not the screenwriters, and there are instances where writers have been very unhappy with the film versions of their work. Roald Dahl and Stephen King are examples of this. Even more extreme was novelist J. D. Salinger who made sure no film versions of his popular novels could ever be made. In this situation, it is clear viewers will not be disappointed.