Hold your smartphone, smile at the front camera, and click! You get a selfie. There is no doubt that this photo is yours. But if a monkey takes a selfie, does the camera owner have the right to decide how to use it?

    Recently, this question has caused a problem between Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization, and British wildlife photographer David J. Slater.

    In 2011, Slater was visiting a park in Indonesia when a macaque(猕猴) got hold of one of his cameras. “They were quite naughty, jumping all over my equipment,” Slater told The Telegraph, “and it looked like they were already posing for the  camera when one hit the button.” The result was hundreds of monkey selfies. The best of images was a female macaque grinning toothily into the lens.

    This week, the grinning monkey selfie returned to the news when Wikimedia refused Slater's request to take the photos down from Wikimedia Commons, a website that is run by the organization and offers free images.   5

According to Wikimedia, anyone who downloads the monkey selfie, or any of the millions of images on the site, can “copy and use any works here freely as long as they follow what the author says.” The question that arose here was whether Slater, who had not held the camera, set up the shot, or pressed the shutter(快门) button, could be considered the photographer of the monkey selfie. Wikimedia's position on this was clear: as the work of a non-human animal, this photo has no human author who owns the copyright.”

    Only authors of creative works, like a piece of writing or a song, own copyrights. In terms of photos, US copyright law says whoever pushes the button on the camera owns the copyright to the image produced, which means that if tourists ask you to take a photo of them, and you happen to hit the shutter button at the exact moment that Justin Bieber, a Canadian singer, made faces behind them. You, as the photographer, would have the photo's copyright and sell it. The tourists, who own the camera on which the photo was taken and asked you to take the photo don't get the right to use it without you allowing them to. All this has been complicated by the appearance of surveillance cameras(监控摄像头), smart phones, and large-scale photography projects for which assistants often press the shutter button to produce works whose copyrights belong to their boss.

    Slater seems to be thinking along these lines. He says that buying the cameras, spending thousands of pounds to transport himself to Indonesia, and allowing the monkeys to “steal” his cameras makes him the author of the image, regardless of who pushed the button. “In law, if I have an assistant then I still own the copyright,” he told the “Today” Show. “I believe in this case, the monkey was my assistant.”

    If that seems unfair, think about this. If a person left her laptop in a café, and a poet picked it up, opened up a word-processing program, and typed out a poem which turned out to be the best poem of this generation, could she ask for much more than her laptop back?

    A so-called “smart drug” intended to improve people's cognitive (认知的) function to protect the brain from altitude sickness.

    Visiting high-altitude sites for work, spot, religious pilgrimages and military can result in cognitive effects, including memory loss and attention difficulties. There's little you can do to prevent these symptoms except acclimatize -but this takes time and doesn't always work. A drug called oxiracetam might be the answer.

    ShengLi Hu at the Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China and her colleagues studied the performance of male military personnel at altitude. All lived in towns around 1,800 meters above sea level, During the study, they spent eight days at this altitude and then climbed for three days to reach 4,000 meters, where they stayed for up to a month.

    Twenty participants took oxriacetam three times a day for the first 15 days of the study, while another 20 received no intervention. The man did tests of attention and memory at the start and end of the study and 20 days in, by which time they had been at 4,000 meters for nine days.

    While all the participants experienced a drop in cognitive ability at 4,00 meters, those who took oxiracetam showed a much smaller drop than the control group.

    The team found that at high altitude the brain stem, which plays a critical role in supporting basic living functions, received blood at the expense of areas responsible for more advanced cognitive functions. But in people who took oxiracetam, blood flowing throughout the brain rose, thus offering more oxygen to these areas. This may be how the drug seems to lessen cognitive problems like with low oxygen.

    It isn't yet known whether diverting blood in this way could have negative effects in the long run. "The results are striking and imply that oxiracetam may be beneficial for helping to relieve cognitive ability decline caused by altitude." says Timothy Hales at the University of Dundee, UK.

    "Opinion" is a word that is used carelessly today. It is used to refer to matters of taste, belief, and judgment. This inaccurate use would probably cause little confusion if people didn't attach too much importance to opinion. Unfortunately, most attach great importance to it. "I have as much right to my opinion as you to yours,'' and "Everyone's entitled to his opinion,'' are common expressions. In fact, anyone who would challenge another's opinion is likely to be branded intolerant.

    Is that label accurate? Is it intolerant to challenge another's opinion? It depends on what definition of opinion you have in mind. For example, you may ask a friend "What do you think of the new Ford cars?" And he may reply, "In my opinion, they're ugly." In this case, it would not only be intolerant to challenge his statement, but foolish. For it's obvious that by opinion he means his personal preference, a matter of taste. And as the old saying goes, "It's pointless to argue about matters of taste."

    But consider this very different use of the term. A newspaper reports that the Supreme Court has delivered its opinion in a controversial case. Obviously the justices did not share their personal preferences, their mere likes and dislikes. They stated their considered judgment, painstakingly arrived at after thorough inquiry and deliberation(审议).

    Most of what is referred to as opinion falls somewhere between these two extremes. It is not an expression of taste. Nor is it careful judgment. Yet it may contain elements of both. It is a view or belief more or less inaccurately arrived at, with or without examining the evidence.

    Is everyone entitled to his opinion? Of course, this is not only permitted, but guaranteed. We are free to act on our opinions only so long as, in doing so, we do not harm others.

    Going to university is supposed to be a mind-broadening experience. That statement is probably made in comparison to training for work straight after school. But is it actually true? Jessika Golle of the University of Tubingen, in Germany reports in Psychological Science this week that those who have been to university indeed seem to leave with broader and more curious minds than those who have spent their immediate post-school years in vocational (职业的) training for work. However, it was not the case that university broadened minds. Rather, vocational training for work seemed to have narrowed them. The result is not quite what might be expected.

    Dr. Golle came to this conclusion after she and a team of colleagues studied the early careers of 2,095 German youngsters. The team used two standardized tests to assess their volunteers' personality traits (特点) including openness, conscientiousness (认真) and so on, and attitudes such as realistic, investigative and enterprising twice, once towards the end of each volunteer's time at high school, and then again six years later. Of the original group, 382 had to make a choice between the academic and vocational routes, and it was on these that the researchers focused. University beckoned for 212 of them. The remaining 170 chose vocational training and a job.

    When it came to the second round of tests, Dr. Golle found that the personalities of both groups had not changed significantly. As for changes in altitude, again, none were noticeable in the university group. However, those who had chosen the vocational route showed marked drops in interest in tasks that are investigative and enterprising in nature. And that might restrict their choice of careers.

    The changes in attitude that the researchers recorded were more worrying. Vocational training has always been what Germany prides itself on. If Dr Golle is correct, and changes in attitude brought about by the very training are narrowing people's choices that is indeed a matter worthy of serious consideration.

    America is a mobile society. Friendships between Americans can be close and real, yet disappear soon if situations change. Neither side feels hurt by this. Both may exchange Christmas greetings for a year or two, perhaps a few letters for a while—then no more. If the same two people meet again by chance, even years later, they pick up the friendship. This can be quite difficult for us Chinese to understand, because friendships between us flower more slowly but then may become lifelong feelings, extending (延伸) sometimes deeply into both families.

    Americans are ready to receive us foreigners at their homes, share their holidays, and their home life. They will enjoy welcoming us and be pleased if we accept their hospitality (好客) easily, but truly can't manage the time to do a great deal with a visitor outside their daily routine. They will probably expect us to get ourselves from the airport to our own hotel by bus. And they expect that we will phone them from there. Once we arrive at their homes, the welcome will be full, warm and real. We will find ourselves treated hospitably.

    Another difficult point for us Chinese to understand Americans is that although they include us warmly in their personal everyday lives, they don't show their politeness to us if it requires a great deal of time. This is usually the opposite of the practice in our country where we may be generous with our time. Sometimes, we, as hosts, will appear at airports even in the middle of the night to meet a friend. We may take days off to act as guides to our foreign friends. The Americans, however, express their welcome usually at homes,

    For the Americans, it is often considered more friendly to invite a friend to their homes than to go to restaurants, except for pure business matters. So accept their hospitality at home!

    I was in Walt Disney World with my son, Daniel, who is autistic (患自闭症的), and at that time he was 7 years old. My wife and our three other sons were with us too. He was having one of his melt down screaming tantrums (发怒), only God knows why. So my wife and I decided I would take the bus back to the hotel, and she would stay in the park with the other three children.

After we got on the bus, the screaming continued. My son looks "normal". To the many people on the bus, he appeared to just be a kid screaming — or a spoiled child who did not get his special toy that day. It did not take long — less than a minute — before the screaming brought about stares, then glares from the other passengers.

    To my shame, I found myself losing my temper at my own son. I was embarrassed, angry, and frustrated, and felt cheated by God for not being able to enjoy a normal vacation with my family because of him. I started to wonder what life would be like without having to deal with this cross (痛苦).

    And just as the reactions of the other passengers were becoming most intense, a man seated just in front of me turned around to face me. I cheered myself up for his advice on how to raise a well-behaved child.

    He said calmly, "Is he alright?" I said, "He's autistic." Then the man said, "It's alright." And he smiled. That's all.

    And suddenly, all the anger building up inside me was gone. I almost wept for shame at how I had felt a moment before. It no longer mattered what the other people thought. My son was my gift from God.

    I will never forget that man, nor his small, simple act of kindness and understanding. I truly believe he was my son's guardian angel that day maybe mine too.