Sunscreens (防晒霜) can offer protection from two types of ultraviolet (UV) rays (紫外线): UVB, which according to the Skin Cancer Foundation, are the chief cause of sunburn and play a key role in the development of skin cancer, and UVA, which get through the skin more deeply and are largely responsible for skin aging and wrinkling, as well as skin cancer risk. The SPF (防晒指数) measurement on sunscreens refers to the UVB protection level — and the number may not mean what you think it does. SPF 15 doesn't protect you from 15% of UVB rays, just as SPF 100 doesn't protect you from 100% of the rays. In fact, as you get into the higher numbered SPF sunscreens (think: 50 and above), the difference in UVB protection is actually pretty small.

    Theoretically, though the increase in UVB protection with a super-high SPF sunscreen may be not worth considering, it may help, and certainly can't hurt, to use it — that is, as long as you do so correctly. “The only downside is whether you're giving yourself a sense of false security,” Dr. Gohara says.

    Indeed, as Dr. Wang also pointed out, when people choose increased SPFs, they may actually feel so protected by the product that they finally ignore proper sun protection. “When people use really high SPF products, they tend not to reuse, they tend to stay out in the sun much longer, and they don't use other protective measures such as clothing and hats,” he says. Regardless of any increase in protection that a high SPF may or may not offer, one thing is certain: It doesn't give your body a free pass from sunburns, aging, or cancers, and it doesn't protect you from those things for any greater length of time than the lower SPF options. Both Dr. Wang and Dr. Gohara emphasized that, no matter what the SPF is, it's important to reapply your sunscreen every two hours.

    Obama, Lady Gaga and Steve Jobs—what do they have in common? They are, of course, all Americans. And according to a survey by social networking site baidu. com, they all best illustrate(举例说明) the word “cool”.

    But just what does it mean to say someone is “cool”? Most would answer that it is something to do with being independent-minded and not following the crowd.

    Yale University art professor Robert Farris Thompson says that the term “cool” goes back to 15th century West African philosophy. “Cool” relates to ideas of grace under pressure.

    “In Africa,” he writes, “coolness is a positive quality which combines calmness, silence, and life.”

    The modern idea of “cool” developed largely in the US in the period after World War II. “Post-war 'cool' was in part an expression of war-weariness (厌战情绪), . . . it went against the strict social rules of the time,” write sociologists Dick Pountain and David Robins in Cool Rules: Anatomy of an Attitude.

    But it was the American actor James Dean who became the symbol for “cool” in the hugely successful 1955 movie Rebel without a Cause. Dean plays a tough guy who disobeys his parents and the authorities. He always gets the girl, smokes cigarettes, wears a leather jacket and beats up bullies. In the movie, Dean showed what “cool” would mean to American young people for the next 60 years.

    Today the focus of “cool” has changed to athletics (体育运动) stars. Often in movies about schools, students gain popularity on the athletics field more than in the classroom. This can be seen quite clearly in movies like Varsity Blues and John Tucker Must Die.

    But many teenagers also think being smart is cool. Chess and other thinking games have been becoming more popular in schools.

    “Call it the Harry Potterization of America—a time when being smart is the new cool,” writes journalist Joe Sunnen.

    What makes a building ugly? Everyone's got their own opinion, so it's hard to say. Now, let's take a look at some of the world's worst buildings.

    The Torre Velasca

    The Tone Velasca in Milan is in the centre of Milan (Italy). The tower, which went up in the 1950s, is about 100 metres tall. Its design is actually a modern representation of a traditional Lombard castle, where the lower parts were narrower (狭窄的）than the upper parts.

    The Mirador Building

    The Mirador Building in Madrid (Spain) was created by Dutch studio MVRDV and the Spanish architect Blanca Lleo. The building, which is a block of flats, opened in 2005. There is a large rectangular (矩形的）hole in the upper part of it, which is used by the neighbourhood as a meeting area and playground.

    The Prague TV Tower

    The Prague TV Tower is in Prague (the capital of the Czech Republic). It stands 216 metres high and looks a bit like a tall, thin space ship. Prague is famous for its architectural beauty,so when the tower was put up in 1985 by architect Vaclav Aulicky and engineer Jiri Kozak, many felt it didn't fit in.

    The Longaberger Basket Company

    The Longaberger Basket Company building is in Newark, Ohio (USA). The office block was opened in 1997 and looks like a very large basket. It，s got seven floors and two handles at the top. The handles weigh about 150 tons. It may not be the ugliest building in the world but it's certainly one of the most unusual.

    It was one of those days when there was way too much to do. I had fallen behind in most of my household chores.

    After breakfast, I sat down at the computer to write an article. My youngest daughter, Julia, walked toward me. "But, Mommy, I thought we were going to do something fun today," she said. "Since it's our day off from school." "I know it's your day off, but it's not Mommy's day off," I explained.

    "Can you play a game with me?" she begged. "Like Candy Land? Or beauty shop?" I sighed. I really didn't have time to play. I desperately needed to get some work done. But then I had an idea. "Can we play beauty shop while I work?" So I got my article done, and my toenails(脚趾甲) painted at the same time. My oldest, Austin, volunteered to fix lunch so I could keep working. Shortly after lunch, we went to the grocery store and I got what I needed. Back at home, the kids decided to play "grocery store". For the remainder of the afternoon, I cleaned house, folded laundry, and started dinner. The kids continued with their game until my husband, Eric, walked through the door.

    He saw me and smiled. "So how was the kids' big day off today?" I began to explain that we hadn't done anything special. But my two middle kids, Jordan and Lea interrupted me. They told their dad, "We had such a special day today, Dad! It was a blast!" I looked at my children's faces. They were lit up with excitement.

    I nodded, realizing how right he was. Happiness is far more about our attitude than our circumstances. I hugged my kids and thanked them for reminding me to look for happiness in the little things. Julia smiled and said, "And the little things that make you the happiest are us, right, Mommy?" Wow, my kids sure are smart.

    Norman Garmezy, a development psychologist at the University of Minnesota, met thousands of children in his four decades of research. A nine-year-old boy in particular stuck with him. He has an alcoholic mother and an absent father. But each day he would walk in to school with a smile on his face. He wanted to make sure that "no one would feel pity for him and no one would know his mother's incompetence." The boy exhibited a quality Garmezy identified as "resilience".

    Resilience presents a challenge for psychologists. People who are lucky enough to never experience any sort of adversity (逆境) won't know how resilient they are. It's only when they're faced with obstacles, stress, and other environmental threats that resilience, or the lack of it, comes out. Some give in and some conquer.

    Garmezy's work opened the door to the study of the elements that could enable an individual's success despite the challenges they faced. His research indicated that some elements had to do with luck, but quite large set of elements was psychological, and had to do with how the children responded to the environment. The resilient children had what psychologists call an "internal lens of control(内控点)". They believed that they, and not their circumstances, affected their achievements. The resilient children saw themselves as the arrangers of their own fates.

    Ceorge Bonanno has been studying resilience for years at Columbia University's Teachers College. He found that some people are far better than others at dealing with adversity. This difference might come from perception(认知) whether they think of an event as traumatic(创伤), or as an opportunity to learn and grow. "Stressful" or "traumatic" events themselves don't have much predictive power when it comes to life outcomes. "Exposure to potentially traumatic events does not predict later functioning," Bonanno said. "It's only predictive if there's a negative response." In other words, living through adversity doesn't guarantee that you'll suffer going forward.

The good news is that positive perception can be taught. "We can make ourselves more or less easily hurt by how we think about things," Bonanno said. In research at Columbia, the neuroscientist Kevin Ochsner has shown that teaching people to think of adversity in different ways--to reframe it in positive terms when the initial response is negative, or in a less emotional way when the initial response is emotionally "hot"—changes how they experience and react to the adversity.

    For most of us, work is the central, dominating fact of life. We spend more than half our conscious hours at work, preparing for work, traveling to and from work. What we do there largely determines our standard of living and our status to a considerable extent. It is sometimes said that because leisure has become more important, the injustices of work can be pushed into a corner, and that because most work is pretty intolerable, the people who do it should compensate for its boredom, frustrations and humiliations by concentrating their hopes on the other parts of their lives. For the foreseeable future, however, the material and psychological rewards which work can provide will continue to play a vital part in determining the satisfaction that life can offer.

    Yet only a small minority can control the pace at which they work or the conditions where their work is done; only for a small minority does work offer scope for creativity, imagination or initiative.

    Inequality at work is still one of the most glaring (明显的) forms of inequality in our society. We cannot hope to solve the more obvious problems of industrial life, many of which arise from the frustrations created by inequality at work, unless we handle it determinedly.

    The most glaring inequality is that between managers and the rest. For most managers, work is an opportunity and a challenge. Their jobs engage their interest and allow them to develop their abilities. They are constantly learning. They are able to exercise responsibility. They have a considerable degree of control over their own and others' working lives. Most important of all, they have opportunities to initiate. By contrast, for most manual workers, work is a boring, dull, even painful experience. They spend all their working lives in intolerable conditions. The majority have little control over their work. It provides them with no opportunity for personal development. Many jobs are so routine that workers feel themselves to be mere cogs (齿轮) in the bureaucratic machine. As a direct consequence of their work experience, many workers feel alienated (疏远) from their work and their firm.