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.

    The universe looks like a pretty quiet place to live. But the universe is filled with dangerous things, all struggling to be the one to wipe us off the planet. Happily for us, they're all pretty unlikely, but if you wait long enough, one of them is certain to get us. But which one?

1). Death by Asteroid (小行星)

    Of all the ways we might meet our untimely death, getting wiped out by an asteroid is the most likely. Why? Because we sit in a universal shooting gallery, with 100 tons of material hitting us every day. The problem, though, occurs every few centuries when something big this way comes. If you could ask a dinosaur, I'd imagine they would tell you to take this seriously.

2). Death by Exploding Star

    When a huge star ends its life, it does so with a bang, which sends death spreading across space in the form of high-energy radiation. Many studies show that the bang would have to be closer than about 75 light years to do us any harm. The good news: no stars so close are able to do the deed.

3). Death by Dying Sun

    The sun is important to us; without it, we'd freeze. But the sun is also middle-aged, already halfway to running out of fuel, expanding into a red giant, and cooking us to a fine crisp. Even long before then, it'll warm up enough to raise our average temperature and cause a runaway greenhouse effect, boiling our oceans. Happily, that's a long time from now.

4). Death by Black Hole

    Black holes are misunderstood. They don't wander the galaxy looking for tasty snacks in the form of planets and stars; they turn around the Milky Way just like the hundreds of billions of other stars do. But it's possible that one could wander too close to us. If it did, planetary paths would be disturbed, causing the Earth to drop into the sun or be thrown out into deep space.

    Given that it could be trillions of years or more before even that happens, we don't have to worry too much about black holes.

    My advice? Go outside, look up, enjoy the sun, the moon, and the stars. They may be there forever as far as any one of us is concerned...and forever is a long, long time.

    Our risk of cancer rises dramatically as we age. So it makes sense that the elderly should be routinely screened for new tumors — or doesn't it?

    While such vigilant(警觉的) tracking of cancer is a good thing in general, researchers are increasingly questioning whether all of this testing is necessary for the elderly. With the percentage of people over age 65 expected to nearly double by 2050, it's important to weigh the health benefits of screening against the risks and costs of routine testing.

    In many cases, screening can lead to additional biopsies(活检) and surgeries to remove cancer, which can cause side effects, while the cancers themselves may be slow-growing and may not pose serious health problems in patients' remaining years. But the message that everyone must screen for cancer has become so ingrained(根深蒂固的) that when health care experts recommended that women under 50 and over 74 stop screening for breast cancer, it caused a riotous reaction among doctors, patients and advocacy groups.

    It's hard to uproot deeply held beliefs about cancer screening with scientific data. Certainly, there are people over age 75 who have had cancers detected by routine screening, and gained several extra years of life because of treatment. And clearly, people over age 75 who have other risk factors for cancer, such as a family history or prior personal experience with the disease, should continue to get screened regularly. But for the remainder, the risk of cancer, while increased at the end of life, must be balanced with other factors like remaining life expectancy(预期寿命).

    A recent study suggests that doctors start to make more objective decisions about who will truly benefit from screening—especially considering the explosion of the elderly that will soon swell our population.

    It's not an easy calculation to make, but one that make sense for the whole patient. Dr. Otis Brawley said, “Many doctors are ordering these tests purely to cover themselves. We need to think about the rational(合理的) use of health care and stop talking about the rationing of health care.”

    That means making some difficult decisions with elderly patients, and going against the misguided belief that when it comes to health care, more is always better.

    Vincent Van Gogh was the son of a pastor (牧师) in Holland. Around his early twenties he decided to become an artist. He felt that color was his main influence and he used it to express himself. The way he painted was very unusual during the late 1800s because he paid much attention to colorful abstract art. Van Gogh had many paintings that have changed the way we look at art. His paintings weren't popular during his lifetime because of an illness that was possibly a mental disorder. However, they are now considered to be the most popular forms of art in the world today. In what ways can we appreciate his paintings?

    Learn about the artistic style of expressionism. In Van Gogh's artwork, the style that he used was expressionism, which was the only one of this kind compared to other paintings.

    Look for key symbols that would help you understand his artwork better such as the background of the objects.

    Try to understand the artist's aims. You can do this by watching the use of colors, perspectives, and the subject. Knowing the artist's aims, you will be able to understand why he created the work.

    Take what you have learned from the artwork and put it in your feelings to see how it affects you and is related to you. This will allow you to make a connection with the artist.

    Inspired by a 9-year-old cyclist, Lauren Turner, who can only use one hand, a group of University of Guelph students has won an international award for their invention — a bike brake lever (刹车手柄) that pulls both the front brake and the back brake at the same time.

    Lauren Tuner was able to ride her bike, but not as confidently and quickly as her friends.

    "She couldn't use the front brake. She only used the back brake, but the front brake makes you stop twice as fast," says Micha Wallace, who, with Katie Bell, Anina Sakaguchi and Andrew Morries won second prize in the James Dyson Award for their single-handed bike brake lever.

    "Lauren Turner tried the device (装置) first and she used it all last summer. She had no problems. It helped her go faster because she felt more confident in her braking abilities. She felt safer." says Wallace.

    The invention was the fourth-year design project for the four students. They designed, tested and created a prototype (模型) within a four-month period.

    When Wallace heard about the James Dyson Award on the news, she and her co-inventors entered their project in the U. K. -based contest, which rewards students designers who create products that improve the way we live. The students collected the runner-up prize — £2,000 for them and £500 for their school.

    As well, they had a chance to meet James Dyson, a U.K. famous inventor. Praising the students for their invention, Dyson says the single-handed brake lever could improve safety for all cyclists. By using both brakes at once, you could prevent the possibility of flying over the handlebars and ending up with an injury.

    The students hope to sell it to a major company. It may be used in other devices that require two hands for operation.

That night, when Aksionov was lying on his bed and just beginning to sleep, someone came quietly and sat down on his bed. He peered(看) through the darkness and recognized Makar.

"What more do you want of me?" asked Aksionov. "Why have you come here?"

Makar Semyonovich was silent. So Aksionov sat up and said, "What do you want? Go away, or I will call the guard!"

Makar Semyonovich bent close over Aksionov, and whispered, "Ivan Dmitrich forgive me!"

"What for?" asked Aksionov.

"It was I who killed the merchant and hid the knife among your things. I meant to kill you, too, but I heard a noise outside, so I hid the knife in your bag and escaped out of the window."

Aksionov was silent, and didn't know what to say. Makar Semyonovich slid off the bed-shelf and knelt upon the ground. "Ivan Dmitrich" he said, "forgive me! I will confess that it was I who killed the merchant, and you will be released and can go to your home."

"It is easy for you to talk," said Aksionov "but I have suffered for you these twenty-six years. Where could I go now?... My wife is dead, and my children have forgotten me. I have nowhere to go..."

Makar Semyonovich did not rise, but beat his head on the floor. "Ivan Dmitrich, forgive me!" he cried. "When they flogged(鞭打) me with the knot, it was not so hard to bear as it is to see you now... yet you had pity on me and did not tell. Forgive me, devil that I am!" And he began to sob.

When Aksionov heard him sobbing, he too, began to weep. "I will forgive you!" he said. "Maybe I am a hundred times worse than you." And at these words his heart grew light, and the longing for home left him. He no longer had any desire to leave the prison, but only hoped for his last hour to come.

In spite of what Aksionov had said, Makar Semyonovich confessed his guilt. But when the order for his release came, Aksionov was already dead.