Many Americans think of driverless cars as a futuristic technology that will revolutionize travel in cities and along state highways. But recent experiments are proving that autonomous vehicles also have the potential to improve the quality of life for millions of Americans underserved by traditional modes of transportation, such as the elderly and disabled, so long as lawmakers make smart policies that pave the way for innovation.

    A retirement community in San Jose, Calif. , which has been transformed by a small fleet of driverless taxis, shows the potential of self-driving cars to transform people's lives. Built by a tech start-up called Voyage, the modified Ford Fusions are currently limited to a two-mile road, but residents are already having the benefits of these autonomous vehicles, which allow them to participate in social activities they would otherwise be unable to enjoy simply because they could not get to them.

    When the trial run finally expands to 15 miles of road, these residents—whose average age is 76—will also have a convenient and reliable new way to appointments. As these cars continue to serve residents there, it is easy to understand why California is moving to simplify regulations for the industry.

    In Michigan, forward-thinking policies have the potential to unlock other hidden benefits of autonomous vehicles, especially for those with physical disabilities. The Michigan Disability Rights Coalition has strongly advocated for the development of this technology, saying that it could give people with disabilities greater opportunities in the workforce and enable them to lead more fulfilling, independent lives.

    Many recognize that autonomous vehicles will be the future of transportation, but it is too often overlooked that this future cannot arrive fast enough for millions of Americans who are forced to depend on others for day-to-day travel. The policymakers should follow the lead of places like California and Michigan, and pass rules and regulations to unlock these hidden benefits of driverless cars.

    A new library in Tianjin—Tianjin Binhai Public Library—recently became an online hit. The Daily Mail described it as “breathtaking”. One look at the library and you'll see why. With its very futuristic design and walls loaded with books, it's the dream library of every book lover.

    But there's a burning question lying in the back of our minds: with physical bookstores closing down one by one, what makes libraries survive the wave of digitalization? Do we really still need libraries as we've got the internet in our hands?

    Reporter Ian Clark has the answer. “Libraries are not declining in importance. People are simply changing the way they use them,” he wrote on the Guardian website. Since not everyone can afford a smartphone, a tablet or an internet connection, and not everyone knows how to search the Internet correctly and efficiently, it's public libraries that make sure that these resources are available to a larger group of people.

    And one of the pitfalls that come with online materials is that they're not always reliable. “Google doesn't tell you what you're not getting, so people need to evaluate (评估) the quality of what they see on their screens,” Sarah Pritchard, dean of libraries at Northwestern University, told Northwestern Research Magazine. And libraries are usually where that “evaluation” happens.

    But we still need the physical space that a library provides. It's something that's called a “third place”, according to the Seattle Times. This is a place in which we can fully concentrate on our study and work without easily getting distracted. Compared to other “third places” like coffee shops, libraries have a “non-commercial nature” that allows you to relax completely.

    “Nobody is trying to sell you anything in the library. There is no pressure to buy and there is no judgment of your choices,” Anne Goulding, a professor at Victoria University in New Zealand, wrote on the Newsroom website.

Be careful on January 8^th — It's officially the most dangerous day of the year. The insurance company Hyperion has studied accident statistics(统计数字) and has found that there are more accidents on January 8^th than on any other day.

    Accidents are certainly more likely to happen at particular times of the year. One general rule is that more accidents happen in winter months, because risk increases in bad weather. In 2004 and 2005 Hyperion found that the worst day was January 8^th, with 298 accidents reported to them. March 3^rd was the safest day, with only 89 reports. Six of the ten worst days for driving were in January.

    It's clear that icy and snowy conditions are dangerous, but some other statistics are puzzling. A British Medical Journal report in 2001, for example, found that hospital admissions(住院) were always higher than usual on Friday the 13^th.

But it is not only when Friday falls on the 13^th that it is a dangerous day. Four of the top ten worst days for accidents last year were Fridays — perhaps because everyone is rushing home for the weekend — while Thursdays are the safest day of the week.

At what time of the day is an accident most likely to happen? The Health and Safety Authority found that people are most likely to have an accident at 11.00 a.m., while the safest time of day is between 4.00 and 5.00 a.m. — probably because most people are in bed!

    Finally, good news for Harry Potter fans. Doctors at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford noted that fewer children were in hospital on the weekend when Harry Potter books were available to the public. Casualties(伤亡人员) fell by over 50% when the last two books went on sale. So if you want to be really safe, you should read a Harry Potter book in bed, at around 5.00 on a Thursday morning, in summer.

    Although toys packaging says it's educational, it doesn't make it so. That's the finding from a new study in JAMA Pediatrics that found some toys being marketed as language promoters got in the way of learning.

    Research shows that for kids to understand, speak and eventually read or write a language, they need to hear it - lots of it. And it's never too early for parents and to caregivers to get talking. That explains the booming industry in talking electronic toys that claim to help kids learn language.

    Professor Anna Sosa, of Northern Arizona University, led the study and says she gave families three different kinds of toys to play with: books, traditional toys like humble blocks and a shape sorter, and electronic toys. Sosa says she picked those toys because they are advertised in their packaging as language-promoters for babies between the ages of 10 and 16 months.

    "We had a talking on farm-animal names and things," Sosa says of the electronic toys. "We had a baby cell phone. And we had a baby laptop. So you open the cover and start pushing buttons, and it tells you things. The parent-child couples were asked to play separately with each type of toy over the course of three days."

    "When there's something else that's doing some talking, the parents seem to be sitting on the sidelines and letting the toy talk for them and respond for them," Sosa says. "That's bad because the best way a toy can promote language in infants and toddlers is by stimulating interaction between parent and child. There's simply no evidence that a young child can learn language directly from a toy. It isn't responsive enough. It isn't social."

    As for the other toys, traditional blocks and puzzles stimulated more conversation than the electronic toys, and books outscored them all. But don't underestimate the humble block. While traditional toys fell short of books in interaction quantity, Sosa notes, they kept pace in terms of quality.

In recent years American society has become increasingly dependent on its universities to find solutions to its major problems. It is the universities that have been to blame for developing the expertise to place men on the moon; for dealing with our urban problems and with our worsening environment; for developing the means to feed the world's rapidly increasing population. The effort involved in meeting these demands presents its own problems. In addition, however, this concentration on the creation of new knowledge significantly impinges on the universities' efforts to perform their other principal functions, the transmission and interpretation of knowledge-the imparting of the heritage of the past and the preparing of the next generation to carry it forward.

With regard to this, perhaps their most traditionally acknowledged task, college and universities today find themselves in a serious situation. On one hand, there is the American commitment, especially since World War Ⅱ, to provide higher education for all young people who can profit from it. The result of the commitment has been a dramatic rise in enrollments(登记入学) in our universities, coupled with a striking shift from the private to the public sector of higher education. 

On the other hand, there are serious and continuing limitations on the resources available for higher education. While higher education has become a great "growth industry", it is also at the same time a tremendous drain(耗竭) on the resources of the nation. With the vast increase in enrollment and the shift in priorities away from education in state and federal(联邦的) budgets, there is in most of our public institutions a significant decrease in expenses for their students. One crucial aspect of this drain on resources lies in the persistent shortage of trained faculty(全体教师), which has led, in turn, to a declining standard of competence in instruction.

Intensifying these difficulties is, as indicated above, the concern with research, with its increasing claims on resources and the attention of the faculty. In addition, there is a strong tendency for the institutions' organization and functioning to fulfill the demands of research rather than those of teaching.

As the pandemic makes clear, cities are possibly humanity's greatest invention, but cities with huge populations also make us easily suffer from the rapid spread of disease. Yet humans aren't the only species that face this problem. Honeybees have lived social lives for tens of millions of years, making them some of the most experienced in the battle against infection. And over time, natural selection has given them quite a few impressive strategies for reducing transmission within bee groups.

However, these strategies are not enough to prevent every threat. Honeybees are battling their own global disease, for which they were totally not prepared. A parasitic mite (寄生螨) originally existed only in the groups of Asian honeybees, but later jumped to infect Western honey bees. Today, it has spread to every region where honeybees are kept except Australia and a handful of remote islands, quickly becoming a global disease of the bees.

If left untreated, a group of bees will typically die from the mites within two years. These infections, plus farm chemicals and poor nutrition, have forced beekeepers to struggle to keep their bees alive. Of the 2.6 million honeybee groups in the US, over half of them have parasitic mite.

And that's only the count of those bees that are tested and reported; the actual numbers are likely much higher. Beekeepers have still managed to slowly increase the number of groups they keep, on average, but at a much higher cost.

Western honeybees did not grow with parasitic mite, and the Western bees lack the behavioral features those Asian honeybees have, like permanently burying the members infested by parasitic mite and, perhaps the most extreme strategy, where the bees are so sensitive to parasitic mite that they completely die as soon as infected, sacrificing themselves to prevent the mite from reproducing.