NEW YORK－Australian mining enterprise Clive Palmer on Tuesday unveiled(公布)blueprints for TitanicⅡ, a modern copy of the doomed ocean liner, although he didn't call the ship unsinkable any more.

    The ship will largely recreate the design and decoration of the fabled original, with some modifications to keep it in line with current safety rules and shipbuilding practices, and the addition of some modern comforts such as air conditioning, Palmer said at a press conference in New York.

    The three passenger classes, however, will be prevented from mingling(混杂), as in 1912, Palmer said. “I'm not too superstitious(迷信的).”Palmer said when asked whether recreating a ship best­known for sinking was tempting fate.

    White Star Line, the operator of the original ship, had said the Titanic was designed to be unsinkable. About 1, 500 people died on Titanic's maiden voyage in 1912 from Southampton to New York after the ship collided with an iceberg in the North Atlantic.

    Palmer, who created the company Blue Star Line last year, refused to make a similar boast.

    “Anything will sink if you put a hole in it, ” Palmer said. “I think it would be very cavalier to say it.”

    Unlike the original, TitanicⅡwill have more than enough space in its lifeboats for every person on board and will have additional escape staircases. Markku Kanerva, sales director at Deltamarin, the Finnish company designing the ship, said it would be the “safest cruise ship in the world”．

    Palmer refused to answer questions about the project's cost. Although the Titanic was the world's largest ship in her time, she would be smaller than many of today's modern cruise ships.

    “It's not about the money，” Palmer said. “I've got enough money for it. I think that's all that matters.”

    Forbes estimated Palmer's net worth to be $795 million in 2012.He describes himself as a billionaire.

    TitanicⅡwill be built by Chinese state­-owned CSC Jinling Shipyard, which has already built four ore carriers for Palmer's mining business, he said. The contract to build TitanicⅡhas not yet been signed, Palmer said.

    This is the incredible school where the headteacher's unique dedication to handwriting practice means EVERY pupil is ambidextrous.

Only ten percent of the population are left-handed, and only ONE percent can write with both hands. But all 300 students at Veena Vandini School in India can write with both their left and right hand, with some able to do both at the same time—in different languages.

    Every 45-minute lesson features 15 minutes devoted to handwriting practice, to make sure all students at the remote rural school have the skill.

    The school, which was founded in 1999, is located in a remote area, in Singrauli district, Madhya Pradesh. School founder and former solider Vp Sharma said he was inspired to demand the lessons by India's first president.

     “I read in a magazine that Dr Rajendra Prasad used to write with both hands. This inspired me to give it a try. Later, when I launched my school at my native village, I tried training the students.

     “We began training students from standard I and by the time they reach standard III, they were comfortable writing with both the hands. Students of standard VII and VIII can write with speed and accuracy. Further, they can write two scripts simultaneously, one with each hand.

     “Students also know several languages, including Urdu.”

    Mr Sharma said their unique dedication to handwriting led South Korean researchers to visit and study the pupils two years ago, to find out more about ambidexterity.

    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?

    Regulating a complex new technology is hard, particularly if it is evolving rapidly. With autonomous vehicles(AVs) just around the corner, what can policymakers do to ensure that they arrive safely and smoothly and deliver on their promise?

    The immediate goal is to make sure that AVs are safe without preventing innovation. In America, experimental AVs are allowed on the road in many states as long as the companies operating them accept responsibility. Chris Urmson of Aurora says American regulators have got things right, working closely with AV firms and issuing guidelines rather than strict rules that might prevent the progress of the industry. “It's important that we don't jump to regulation before we actually have something to regulate.” he says.

    On the other hand, Singapore's government has taken the most hands-on approach to preparing for AVs, says Karl Iagnemma of Nutonomy, an AV startup that has tested vehicles in the city-state. For example, it has introduced a “driving test” that AVs must pass before they can go on the road. This does not guarantee safety but sets a minimum standard.

    Elsewhere, regulators have permitted limited testing on public roads but want to see more evidence that the vehicles are safe before going further, says Takao Asami of the Renault issan-Mitsubishi alliance(联盟). “Simple accumulation of mileage(里程) will never prove that the vehicle is safe.” he says. Instead, regulators are talking to car makers and technology firms to develop new safety standards. Marten Levenstam, head of product strategy at Volvo, compares the process to that of developing a new drug. First, you show in the laboratory that it might work; then you run clinical trials in which you carefully test its safety and efficiency; and if they are successful, you ask for regulatory approval to make the drug generally available. Similarly, autonomous cars are currently at the clinical-trial stage, without final approval as yet. It is not possible to prove that a new drug is entirely safe, but the risk is worth taking because of the benefits the drug provides. It will be the same for AVs, he suggests. After all, nowadays human-driven vehicles are hardly risk-free.

    I began smoking at 13, with a friend in the evenings when we were out. I never thought of the damage it brought me. But I had a bad cough after a cold, and my teeth weren't as white as my sister's, who never smoked. I no longer played any sports. Since all my friends smoked, I never felt different.

    I met and married my husband Paul when we were 22，both smoking like chimneys (烟囱). I had two children by the time I was 26, and life went on as normal. We smoked around our children, never thinking it would be doing them any harm. They both begged us to stop when they learned about the hazards of smoking. We just rolled our eyes at each other.

    My parents quit smoking, and my aunts quit smoking, but they were older. I had lots of time to quit in my life. Paul's mother died of a heart attack at only 55, after suffering two diseases caused by smoking. And still we smoked.

    At the age of 36, I had a child with a breathing problem. We moved outside to smoke, as she had such trouble breathing, and we didn't want to add to that!

    Then my father died a few years later of cancer throughout his body. Still I smoked, even as he asked me on his deathbed to try to stop. I did mean to, but I thought that I had too many worries to deal with. How would I face them without a smoke? Little did I know then that the smoking was only adding to my inability (无能) to deal with trouble, clouding my whole world in smoke.

    Then Paul had an extremely serious problem in his heart because of a condition caused by smoking. Finally, I decided to quit smoking. I knew I'd suffer greatly too if I kept smoking. Paul decided to join me, of course. He had no choice if he didn't want to die.

    Luckily, we made it. Now I have enough energy, a joy in living, and more confidence than ever before.

    Jim suffered heart problems. In conversation he expressed little joy and it seemed that his life was drawing to a close.

    When his heart problems led to operation, Jim went through it successfully, and a full recovery was expected. Within days, however, his heart was not beating properly. Jim was rushed back to operation, but nothing was found to explain the cause of his illness. He died on the operating table on the day before his 48th birthday.

    Dr. Bruce Smoller, a psychologist(心理学家), had had many conversations with him, and the more he learned, the stranger he realized Jim's case was. When Jim was a child, his father, a teacher, suffered a heart attack and stayed home to recover. One morning Jim asked his father to look over his homework, promising to come home from school at noon to pick it up. His father agreed, but when Jim returned his father had died. Jim's father was 48.

    "I think all his life Jim believed he killed his father," Dr. Smoller says. "He felt that if he had not asked him to look at his homework, his father would have lived. Jim had been troubled by the idea. The operation was the trial(判决) he had expected for forty years." Smoller believes that Jim willed himself not to live to the age of 48.

    Jim's case shows the powerful role that attitude(态度) plays in physical health, and that childhood experiences produce far-reaching effect on the health of grown-ups. Although most cases are less direct than Jim's, studies show that childhood events, besides genes, may well cause such midlife diseases as cancer, heart disease and mental illness.