These days a green building means more than just the color of the paint. Green buildings can also refer to environmentally friendly houses，factories，and offices.

    Green building means "reducing the effect of the building on the land"，Taryn Holowka of the US Green Building Council (评议会) in Washington，D.C.，said. According to Holowka，building accounts for 65 percent of total US electricity use.

But green buildings can reduce energy and water use. Also，the buildings are often located near public transportation such as buses and subways，so that people can drive their cars less. That could be good for the environment，because cars use lots of gas and give off pollution. Green buildings are often built on developed land，so that the buildings don't destroy forests.

    Marty Dettling is project manager for a building that puts these ideas into action. The Solaire has been called the country's first green high-rise building. According to Dettling，"We've reduced our energy use by one-third and our water by 50 percent."

    The Solaire cuts energy in part by using solar power. "On the face of the building we have solar panels (光板) which change the sun's energy into electricity，" Dettling explained.

    The Solaire also has lights that automatically turn off when people leave the room. In addition，the building has lots of windows，allowing people to use the sun for light during the day. The Solaire cuts water by reusing it.

    Not everyone is eager to move into a green building，however. Some people think that things like solar panels cost more money than more traditional energy sources. Anyhow，Holowka said，"It's going to be big."

    It is believed that some of animals think a great deal. Many of them are like children in their sports. Some birds are very lively in their sports; and the same is true with some insects. The ants, hardworking as they are, have their times for play. They run races; they wrestle; and sometimes they have mock fights together. Very busy must be their thoughts while engaged in these sports.

    Animals think much while building their houses. The bird searches for what it can use in building its nest, and in doing this it thinks. The beavers think as they build their dams and their houses. They think in getting their materials, and also in arranging them, and in plastering them together with mud. Some spiders build houses which could scarcely have been made except by some thinking creature.

    As animals think, they learn. Some learn more than others. The parrot learns to talk, though in some other respects it is quite stupid. The mocking bird learns to imitate a great many different sounds. The shepherd dog does not know as much about most things as some other dogs, and yet he understands very well how to take care of sheep.

    Though animals think and learn, they do not make any real improvement in their ways of doing things, as men do. Each kind of bird has its own way of building a nest, and it is always the same way. They have no new fashions, and learn none from each other.

    It is plain that, while animals learn about things by their senses as we do, they do not think nearly as much about what they learn, and this is the reason why they do not improve more rapidly. Even the wisest of them, as the elephant and the dog, do not think very much about what they see and hear. Nor is this all. There are some things that we understand, but about which animals know nothing. They have no knowledge of anything that happens outside of their own observation. Their minds are so much unlike ours that they do not know the difference between right and wrong.

    No one is sure how the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids near Cairo. But a new study suggests they used a little rock 'n' roll. Long-ago builders could have attached wooden poles to the stones and rolled them across the sand, the scientists say.

    "Technically, I think what they're proposing is possible," physicist Daniel Bonn said.

    People have long puzzled over how the Egyptians moved such huge rocks. And there's no obvious answer. On average, each of the two million big stones weighed about as much as a large pickup truck. The Egyptians somehow moved the stone blocks to the pyramid site from about one kilometer away.

    The most popular view is that Egyptian workers slid the blocks along smooth paths. Many scientists suspect workers first would have put the blocks on sleds(滑板). Then they would have dragged them along paths. To make the work easier, workers may have lubricated the paths either with wet clay or with the fat from cattle. Bonn has now tested this idea by building small sleds and dragging heavy objects over sand.

    Evidence from the sand supports this idea. Researchers found small amounts of fat, as well as a large amount of stone and the remains of paths.

    However, physicist Joseph West thinks there might have been a simpler way, who led the new study. West said, "I was inspired while watching a television program showing how sleds might have helped with pyramid construction. I thought, 'Why don't they just try rolling the things?' "A square could be turned into a rough sort of wheel by attaching wooden poles to its sides, he realized. That, he notes, should make a block of stone "a lot easier to roll than a square".

    So he tried it.

    He and his students tied some poles to each of four sides of a 30-kilogram stone block. That action turned the block into somewhat a wheel. Then they placed the block on the ground.

    They wrapped one end of a rope around the block and pulled. The researchers found they could easily roll the block along different kinds of paths. They calculated that rolling the block required about as much force as moving it along a slippery(滑的)path.

    West hasn't tested his idea on larger blocks, but he thinks rolling has clear advantages over sliding. At least, workers wouldn't have needed to carry cattle fat or water to smooth the paths.

    There is virtue in working standing up. It sounds like a fashion. But it does have a basis in science.

    That, by itself, may not be surprising. Health ministries ask people for decades to do more exercise. What is surprising is that long periods of inactivity are bad regardless of how much time you also spend on officially approved high-impact stuff like pounding treadmills(跑步机) in the gym. What you need instead, the latest research suggests, is constant low-level activity. This can be so low-level that you might not think of it as activity at all. Even just standing up counts, for it invokes muscles that sitting does not.

Researchers in this field trace the history of the idea that standing up is good for you back to 1953, when a study published in The Lancet found that bus conductors, who spent their days standing, had a risk of heart attack half that of bus drivers, who spent their shifts on their backsides. But as the health benefits of exercise and vigorous(强度大的) physical activity began to become clear in the 1970s, says David Dunstan, a researcher at the Baker IDI Heart & Diabetes Institute in Melbourne, Australia, interest in low-intensity activity — like walking and standing — became weaker.

    Over the past few years, however, interest has been excited again. A series of studies, none big enough to provide convincing evidence, but all pointing in the same direction, persuaded Emma Wilmot of the University of Leicester, in Britain, to carry out a meta-analysis. This is a technique that combines diverse studies in a statistically meaningful way. Dr Wilmot combined 18 of them, covering almost 800,000 people and concluded that those individuals who are the least active in their normal daily lives are twice as likely to develop diabetes(糖尿病) as those who are the most active. She also found that the immobile are twice as likely to die from a heart attack and two-and-a-half times as likely to suffer cardiovascular disease as the most mobile. Crucially, all this seemed to be independent of the amount of vigorous, gym-style exercise that volunteers did.

    Sitting has been called the new smoking for its supposed Public health risks, especially for people with sitting down office jobs. Over the past 15 years or so sitting has been connected with heart disease and diabetes (糖尿病). But is sitting really that risky?

    In our latest study we examined if not only the total amount of sitting, but different types of sitting, were connected with developing type 2 diabetes. We wanted to see if there was any difference among sitting watching TV, sitting at work, or sitting at home but not watching TV.

    We studied sitting habits of 4. 811 middle-aged people, who didn't have diabetes or heart problems at the start of the study. Over the next 13 years, 402 people developed diabetes. Once we considered obesity (AE RF), Physical activity, and other things that may develop type 2 diabetes, neither total sitting time, sitting at work nor sitting at home but not watching TV were connected with developing diabetes. We found only a weak connection with the time spent sitting watching TV and an increased risk of developing diabetes.

    This is different from the results of five older TV studies that showed a stronger connection. But hardly any of the included studies mentioned obesity, a major cause of diabetes.

    For people who are physically inactive, though, the story's different. Two recent studies show the total time spent sitting a day is connected with developing diabetes, but only in people who are physically inactive or both physically inactive and obese.

    That's not the whole story. At least two things determine if sitting is a risk factor in its own right: the type and situation of sitting.

    For example, sitting down at work isn't strongly connected with long-term health risks, Perhaps that's because higher position jobs needs more sitting, and higher socioeconomic (社会经济) position is connected with a lower risk of disease. It's a different case for sitting watching TV, the type of sitting most possibly connected with long-term health risks. People who watch a lot of TV tend to (a) be of lower socioeconomic positions, unemployed, have poorer mental (精神上的) health, eat unhealthy foods and face more unhealthy food advertising.

    You don't need to get in a time-traveling machine to see how technology will reshape our lives, such as the way we shop. Several new technologies that are to change your buying habits already exist. Let's see what's waiting for your future shopping.

    Try it on, virtually(虚拟的). Want to shop online for a new pair of eyeglasses? You don't need to guess which pair looks best on you. Go and see the eBay Fashion iPhone app to try a pair of eyewear you're checking out on a picture of your face. But what if you want to buy something bigger? Thanks to Microsoft Kinect's motion tracking camera, you can cover clothes on your screen body. You can even choose the background of your virtual fitting room to enrich your shopping experience.

    Get a perfect, custom fit. Everyone's body is shaped differently. To get a perfect fit, you sometimes have to get your clothes changed. But by using 3D scanning(扫描) technology, all the clothes you buy will fit your body perfectly. Some companies scan your body using High-tech to get the most exact sizes, so they can make special clothes just for you.

    Experience high-tech shopping carts and checkout counters. High-tech shopping carts could, in time, be a common sight in malls and supermarkets. Microsoft Kinect-enabled carts are under test at present. The cart can follow you along the aisles (通道), controlled only by your movement and your voice. In China, a supermarket chain(连锁超市) introduced tablet-equipped carts that guide shoppers around the stores' aisles.

    In the United States, several supermarkets use a device(装置) called Scan It that gives buyers the freedom to scan goods on their own while they shop. While it's great not having to line up at a checkout counter, we wouldn't mind it if the store used Toshiba's new Object Recognition Scanner. The machine identifies(辨认) a product as soon as it's placed in front of a camera just by its shape and color, even if it has no bar code(条形码).