We ate on the go more than ever before. Here are three health apps that can help you better manage your health when you pursue your dreams.

⑴Doctors On Demand

    Doctors On Demand enables you to visit a doctor without ever leaving your home, helping you use a computer, tablet or smart phone to have a doctor video chat with you. The service will help you locate and connect you to licensed doctors, psychologists, pediatricians (儿科医生) and more. Fees can be paid with HAS&FSA. It costs $40 for 15 minutes with a doctor or $50 for 20 minutes with a psychologist.

⑵Text4baby

    I'm a big fan of Text4baby for a few reasons. The free service for pregnant women and new moms works by sending text messages to your smart phone three times a week with information about how to have a healthy pregnancy and baby. And the messages are timed to the pregnant woman's due date or the baby's date of birth, sending tips that are relevant to where a mother is in her pregnancy or where a baby is in stages of development. Tips range from breastfeeding to car seat safety to reminders about exercise, nutrition and more. The service combines interactive text messages, an app, video and web content in English and Spanish. Sign up by texting BABY to 511-411 or by downloading the app.

⑶RISE

    RISE, an app available on iPhone(coming to Android in 2016), pairs you up with (与……绑定) a registered dietitian to improve your diet and reach health goals. You share photos of your meals and your exercise for the day with your coach, who then looks for areas where you can improve and gives advice, helps you set goals and is there to pat you on the back virtually(虚拟地) when you hit a milestone. What's also great is that you can text as much as you want with your dietitian and there is no need to go into an office. Fees for this service range from $9 per month to $50 a month. There is a free 7-day trial so you can try it out for a week to see if it's fit for you.

    Studies show that you may be lied to every day anywhere from 10 to 200 times. We say, “Nice song.” “Honey, you don't look fat in that, no.” But another study showed that strangers lied three times within the first 10 minutes of meeting each other. We lie more to strangers than we lie to coworkers. Men lie eight times more about themselves than they do about other people. Women lie more to protect other people. If you're married, you're going to lie to your wife/ husband in one out of every 10 communications. If you're unmarried, that number drops to three. But look, if at some point you got lied to, it's because you agreed to get lied to. Truth about lying: lying's a cooperative act. Not all lies are harmful. Sometimes we're willing to get lied to for social dignity(尊严), maybe to keep a private secret.

    Lying is complex. It exists in our daily and business lives. We're deeply disturbed by the truth. We explain it, sometimes for very good reasons, other times just because we don't understand the gaps between ideals and realities in our lives. We're against lying, but secretly we're for it in ways that our society has practiced for centuries and centuries. It's as old as breathing. It's part of our culture and history. Think the stories from Dante, Shakespeare, the Bible, News of the World.

    Lying has great value to the evolution of human beings. Researchers have long known that the more intelligent the species, the more likely it is to lie. We humans like to become leaders. It starts really early. How early? Well, babies will pretend to cry, pause, wait to see who's coming and then go right back to crying. One-year-olds learn hiding truth. Five-year-olds lie outright and try to control through flattery (奉承). Nine-year-olds, masters of covering up.

    So what do we do about lies? Well, there are steps we can take to guide our way through the bushes. Trained lie spotters (检测员) get to the truth 90% of the time. The rest of us, we're only 54% right. There are clever liars and stupid liars, but there're no real creative liars. While lying, we all make the same mistakes, and we all use the same techniques.

    Kiss crisis, hug horrors and the UK's handshake headaches

    Greeting someone, saying goodbye — these situations fill me with unease. You have a second to make a dangerous decision. One peck (轻吻)? Two pecks? Three? No kisses at all? Why, I think, as I crash into the other person's face, why can't it be as simple as a handshake?

    A survey by the soap company Redox in May showed one in five Brits now feels a handshake is “too formal”, according to the Daily Mail. Some 42 percent said they never shook hands when greeting friends. For one third of people the alternative was a hug, for 16 percent a kiss on the cheek.

    British people are known to be reserved (保守的) — unfriendly, some would say. Handshakes used to work for us because we didn't have to get too close. But the super-British handshake is no longer fashionable. We want to be more like our easygoing Mediterranean neighbors who greet each other with kisses and hugs.

    The trouble is, we still find it a bit awkward. What does a married man do when greeting a married female friend, for example? How should someone younger greet someone older?

    Guys don't tend to kiss one another; my male friends in Britain go for the “manly hug”, taking each other stiffly (不自然地) in one arm and giving a few thumps on the back with words like “Take it easy, yeah?”.

    The biggest questions, if you do decide to kiss, are how many times and which cheek first. Unlike the French, who comfortably deliver three, our cheek-pecks usually end in embarrassed giggling (咯咯笑): “Oh, gosh, sorry, I didn't mean to kiss you on the lips, I never know where to aim for first!”

    But then it's never been easy for us poor, uncomfortable Brits. Even the handshake had its problems: don't shake too hard, but don't hold the other person's hand too limply (无力地) either, and definitely don't go in with sweaty hands.

    Maybe it's better to leave it at a smile and a nod. 

    I began cycling in 2004 when I was a poor student. It was dangerous, sure, but cycling is the fastest, cheapest point-to-point form of transport in Melbourne. I own a car now, but that's just for transporting the baby or groceries.

    I hate driving. So it's been quite encouraging watching the growth in cyclist numbers over the past decade. It is estimated 10,000-plus cyclists enter the CBD (Central Business District) each day, taking pressure off public transport. But as more people take to cycling as a mode of transport, the number of cyclists seriously injured or killed keeps climbing. And that is a sign that our infrastructure (基础设施) is still not good enough.

    Melbourne was once a dream for cyclists-flat, long, wide roads, with plenty of paths along rivers. Now, cycling can be deadly, with roads dominated by cars. I have a friend who broke her back and was lucky to escape paralysis, and others with broken bones. In my time riding, I've been forced off the road by a truck, cut off by four-wheel drives, and told to get off the road.

    These things don't exactly happen to trams and buses, those other slowcoaches on Melbourne's roads. No—drivers reserve a particular savagery (残暴行为) for cyclists. And that's a sign of exactly one thing: inadequate infrastructure.

    We shouldn't need to be taught how to coexist in the same narrow space. Drivers and cyclists should be kept apart. The present debate over how to minimize “dooring” is a distraction.

    Dooring is not a legal problem. You cannot legislate (制定法律) it away. Designing bike paths so riders are channelled between moving cars and parked cars is deadly. All it takes is one daydreaming driver to fling open the door and you are gone. That's what happened to the young university student James Cross.

    This year, there are to be new anti-dooring lanes (车道) built on Glenferrie Road, Hawthorn, where Cross died in 2010. But these lanes are not safe. Cyclists must still pass between two rows of cars.

    The days of the hunter are almost over in India. This is partly because there is practically nothing left to kill, and partly because some steps have been taken, mainly by banning tiger-shooting, to protect those animals which still survive.

    Some people say that Man is naturally a hunter. I disagree with this view. Surely our earliest forefathers, who at first possessed no weapons, spent their time digging for roots, and were no doubt themselves often hunted by meat-eating animals.

    I believe the main reason why the modern hunter kills is that he thinks people will admire his courage in overpowering dangerous animals. Of course, there are some who truly believe that the killing is not really the important thing, and that the chief pleasure lies in the joy of the hunt and the beauties of the wild countryside. There are also those for whom hunting in fact offers a chance to prove themselves and risk death by design; these men go out after dangerous animals like tigers, even if they say they only do it to rid the countryside of a threat. I can respect reasons like these, but they are clearly different from the need to strengthen your high opinion of yourself.

    The greatest big-game hunters expressed in their writings something of these finer motives. One of them wrote.

    "You must properly respect what you are after and shoot it cleanly and on the animal's own territory(领地)。You must fix forever in your mind all the wonders of that particular day. This is better than letting him grow a few years older to be attacked and wounded by his own son and eventually eaten, half alive, by other animals, Hunting is not a cruel and senseless killing - not if you respect the thing you kill, not if you kill to enrich your memories, not if you kill to feed your people."

    I can understand such beliefs, and can compare these hunters with those who hunted lions with spears(矛) and bravely caught them by the tail. But this is very different from many tiger-shoots I have seen, in which modern weapons were used. The so-called hunters fired from tall trees or from the backs of trained elephants. Such methods made tigers seem no more dangerous than rabbits.

    Once a teacher was giving her young students a lesson on how the government works. She was trying to explain the principle of income tax(所得税).

    "You see," she began speaking slowly and carefully, "each person who works must pay part of his or her salary to the government. If you make a high salary, your taxes are high. If you don't make much money, your taxes are low."

    "Does it make sense?" she asked. "Does everyone understand the meaning of income tax?" The students nodded.

    "Are there any questions?" she asked. The students shook their heads.

    "Very good!" she said. "Now, I would like you to take a piece of paper and write a short composition on the subject of income tax."

    Little Joe was a slow learner. He had lots of problems with spelling and grammar, but at least this time he seemed to understand the task. He took his pen and after a few minutes, he handed the teacher the following composition: Once I had a dog. His name was Tax. I opened the door and in come Tax.