Each time I see a balloon , my mind flies back to a memory when I was a six-year-old girl . It was a rainy Sunday and my father had recently died . I asked my mum if my dad had gone to heaven . “ Yes , honey . Of course , ” she said . “ Can we write him a letter ? ”

    She paused , the longest pause of my short life , and answered , “ Yes . ” My heart jumped . “ Can the mailman go there ? ” I asked .

    “ No , but I have an idea . ” Mum drove to a party store and returned with a red balloon . I asked her what it was for . “ Just wait , honey . You'll see . ” Mum told me to write my letter . Eagerly , I got my favorite pen , and poured out my six-year-old heart in the form of blue ink . I wrote about my day , what I learned at school , how Mum was doing , and even about what happened in a story I had read . For a few minutes it was as if Dad were still alive . I gave the letter to Mum . She read it over , and a smile crossed her face . She made a hole in the corner of the letter to tie it to the balloon . We went outside and she gave me the balloon . It was still raining . “ Okay , on the count of three , let it go . One , two , three . ” The balloon , carrying my letter , flew upwards against the rain . We watched until it was swallowed by the mass of clouds . Later I realized , like the balloon , that Dad had never let his sickness get him down . He was strong . No matter what he suffered , he'd keep on , fly up , and finally go beyond this cold world and his sick body . He rose into sky and became something beautiful . I watched until the balloon disappeared into the grey and white and I prayed that his strength was passed on . I prayed to be a balloon .

    Do you have cold feet in winter? But now if you wear a pair of Ugg boots, you won't be troubled by that.

    UGG means Australian Sheepskin Boots. UGG boots became popular among shearers(剪羊毛的人）in the 1920s. The shearers sheared the sheep and grabbed a bit of dead sheep, wrapped it around their feet and called them “Ugly Boots”. Good old Australian slang shortened Shearers Ugly Boots to UGG boots. Thus UGG Boots date back as far as the 1920s in Australia.

    Ugg boots became so popular because of the amazing amount of comfort they bring to the feel. The sheepskin is made incredibly soft so the boots are warm and comfortable. Ugg boots fed more like socks than shoes, yet they are tough enough for outdoor wear. The unique, wool fool-beds lake the shape of the natural edge of each wearer's feet, creating personalized arch (弓形) supports.

    Our ugg boots are handmade with Australian sheepskin of the highest quality by our factory of Ugg Original Pty Ltd.

    We can also wear ugg boots in cold weather or summer. In cold weather, the thick wool of ugg boots provides a preventing layer of warmth by trapping your body heat. In the heat of summer, the natural fibres of the wool will actually cool your feet by absorbing sweat. Ugg boots are made to be worn barefoot to maximize the cushioning and warmth provided by the sheepskin.

    Why not pick up your phone and contact us right now at www.uggoriginal.com.au.?

    Is any economist so dull as to criticize Christmas? At first glance, the holiday season in western economies seems a treat for those concerned with such vagaries(奇思遐想)as GDP growth. After all, everyone is spending; in America, retailers make 25% of their yearly sales and 60% of their profits between Thanksgiving and Christmas. Even so, economists find something to worry about in the nature of the purchases being made.

    Much of the holiday spending is on gifts for others. At the simplest level, giving gifts involves the giver thinking of something that the recipient would like--he tries to guess her preferences, as economists say--and then buying the gift and delivering it. Yet this guessing of preferences is not easy; indeed, it is often done badly. Every year, ties go unworn and books unread. And even if a gift is enjoyed, it may not be what the recipient would have bought if they had spent the money themselves.

    Interested in this mismatch between wants and gifts, in 1993 Joel Waldfogel, then an economist at Yale University, sought to estimate the difference in dollar terms. In a study, he asked students two questions at the end of a holiday season: first, estimate the total amount paid(by the givers) for all the holiday gifts you received; second, apart from the sentimental value of the items, if you did not have them, how much would you be willing to pay to get them? His results were gloomy: on average, a gift was valued by the recipient well below the price paid by the giver.

    In addition, recipients may not know their own preferences very well. Some of the best gifts, after all, are unexpected items that you would never have thought of buying, but which turn out to be especially well picked. And preferences can change. So by giving a jazz CD, for example, the giver may be encouraging the recipient to enjoy something that was ignored before. This, a desire to build skills, is possibly the hope held by many parents who ignore their children's desires for video games and buy them books instead.

    Finally, there are items that a recipient would like to receive but not purchase. If someone else buys them, however, they can be enjoyed guilt-free. This might explain the volume of chocolate that changes over the holidays. Thus, the lesson for gift-givers is that you should try hard to guess the preference of each person on your list and then choose a gift that will have high sentimental value.

    Being a parent is tough. Prejudice against parents in the workplace only makes it harder.

    Asking for flexible schedule is not unique to working parents only. I've worked with people in their twenties that requested to work a four-day schedule so they could go back to school part time. I've seen older adults in the workplace change their schedules so that they can spend more time at home. Almost everyone has to cut out of the office every now and again for a doctor's appointment or other personal matters. Flexible schedules seem to be synonymous(代名词) with working parents, but in reality, they are not.

    Parents aren't devoted to their jobs. This is really surprising because it's quite the contrary. There is actually strong evidence that parents are more devoted to their jobs than many other employees. They are some of the most focused employees out there. Parents are less likely to change jobs than other employees. Stability(稳定) is key when raising a family.

    Parents aren't good team members. Since it is parents that need to leave the office at 5 or aren't able to come in before 9, most people think that the singletons on the team need to make up for it. In today's technology world, this is hardly the case. While many parents do limit their physical "in office" hours, most spend time on weekends, early mornings, and after work working. Besides, parents may be more likely to take vacations during major holidays due to children's school schedules.

    Parents are at work only out of financial needs. Why would anyone want to leave their children behind and come to the workplace if they didn't have to? Actually, a lot of people do. Caring for children is a wonderful experience, but everyone needs a break. Many parents may still be interested in their field of work, finding work interesting. Money is nice, but it's certainly not the only reason that parents are there.

    That the US stock market dropped sharply immediately after the US government put forward the proposal on Tuesday to tighten the control on exports of various artificial intelligence technologies indicates what the market thinks of the move.

    Multi-national corporations have led the way in the profound compressing(压缩) of time and space that has flattened and changed the world over the last couple of decades, and the overwhelming majority of international technological transfers have been conducted among multi-national companies in pursuit of profits.

    Thus the proposal the US government put forward on Tuesday to tighten the control to "avoid negatively impacting US leadership in the science, technology, engineering and manufacturing sector" is being viewed not only as a brake on the US economy but also as a barrier to maintaining that leadership since it will reduce cooperation with the rest of the world and shrink the market for US companies preventing them from investing research and development.

    The bigger its market, the more profits a technology company can earn, and the more money it then has to invest in developing even more advanced technologies. This is as true for US companies as it is for others.

    Behind the proposal is the narrow-mindedness of policymakers in the US administration, who choose to ignore the fact that the United States would not have become the world leader in science and technology if it had kept its doors closed.

    If such controls are intended to contain China's development, they will certainly fail.

    It is true that China has a lot to do to catch up with the US and other developed countries. Yet it has made great steps forward by opening its doors and cooperating with other economies.

    As it opens its door wider, it will have even more opportunities to cooperate with other countries in science and technology.

The de-materialization of economic activities — with economic output and income generation increasingly reliant on information rather than inputs of raw materials — only increases the need for cooperative agreements and a cross-disciplinary approach to increase the capabilities of AI and advance its application.

    By trying to enforce and exploit an invented-here ideal that is untenable, the US will undoubtedly lose the leadership in science and technology gradually to which it has become accustomed, and prevent the progress of both humans and machines.

    They hide in trees, hang from helicopters, even follow people down on motorcycles—all so that they can snap a shot of a celebrity. They are paparazzi—photographers who make a living by taking pictures of the rich and famous.

    This September, California, a state with plenty of celebrities, passed a law aimed at taking action against paparazzi. The law forbids photographers from entering private property to take pictures, from using high-tech devices to take pictures of people on private property, and from "persistently following in order to take a picture." Violators can be fined or spend time in prison. The United State Congress is considering passing a similar law.

    Supporters of the California law say it will protect the privacy of celebrities, whom paparazzi have been bothering for years. Opponents (反对者) say the law restricts photojournalists from doing their job.

    Most celebrities seem to like having their pictures taken when they are in public at award shows or other events. After all, it's free publicity. But when they're not in public, they say, photographers should leave them alone. Yet paparazzi have been known to secretly look in windows and worse. Actor Michael J. Fox said that paparazzi have even "tried to pretend to be medical personnel at the hospital where my wife was giving birth to our son."

    Celebrities have as much right to their privacy as anyone else, supporters of the law state. Supporters further argue that the California law is a fair way to keep the press at bay, because the law still allows photographers to do their job. It only punishes them, supporters say, when they violate celebrities' privacy.

    Opponents of the law say it violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (美国宪法第一修正案), which guarantees that no laws will be made to limit "the freedom of speech, or of the press." Although some people might not consider paparazzi a part of the legal press, the California law does not single out paparazzi. It applies to photographers working for any publication.

    Opponents of the law are also concerned about its wording. "Does 'persistently' mean following someone for six minutes, six seconds, or six days?" asked lawyer Douglas Mirell. The wording of the law is too vague, critics complain, and could be used to punish almost any news photographer.

    The United States needs a free press to keep the public informed about important news, paparazzi law opponents say. Limiting the press in any way, they argue, limits the freedom of all.