Ownership used to be about as straightforward as writing a cheque. If you bought something, you owned it. If it broke, you fixed it. If you no longer wanted it, you sold it or threw it away. In the digital age, however, ownership has become more slippery. Since the coming of smartphones, consumers have been forced to accept that they do not control the software in their devices; they are only licensed to use it. As a digital chain is wrapped ever more tightly around more devices, such as cars and thermostats, who owns and who controls which objects is becoming a problem. Buyers should be aware that some of their most basic property rights are under threat.

    The trend is not always harmful. Manufacturers seeking to restrict what owners do with increasingly complex technology have good reasons to protect their copyright, ensure that their machines do not break down, support environmental standards and prevent hacking. Sometimes companies use their control over a product's software for the owners' benefit. When Hurricane Irma hit Florida this month, Tesla remotely updated the software controlling the batteries of some models to give owners more range to escape the storm.

    But the more digital strings are attached to goods, the more the balance of control leans towards producers and away from owners. That can be inconvenient. Picking a car is hard enough, but harder still if you have to dig up the instructions that tell you how use is limited and what data you must give. If the products are intentionally designed not to last long, it can also be expensive. Already, items from smartphones to washing machines have become extremely hard to fix, meaning that they are thrown away instead of being repaired.

    Privacy is also at risk. Users become terrified when iRobot, a robotic vacuum cleaner, not only cleans the floor but also creates a digital map of the inside of a home that can then be sold to advertisers (though the manufacturer says it has no intention of doing so). Cases like this should remind people how jealously they ought to protect their property rights and control who uses the data that is collected.

    Ownership is not about to go away, but its meaning is changing. This requires careful inspection. Devices, by and large, are sold on the basis that they enable people to do what they want. To the extent they are controlled by somebody else, that freedom is compromised.

    Whenever we see a button, we are eager to press it because we know something will happen. This is true in most cases, for example on a doorbell and on the "on/off" button on the TV. But some buttons are actually fake, like the "close" button on a lift.

    Many people are in the habit of pressing the "close" button because they don't have the patience to wait for the lift doors to shut. But lifts' "close" buttons are a complete scam (骗局), at least in the US-the doors will not close any faster no matter how hard you press.

    It started in the 1990s when the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed in the US, making sure that all lifts stayed open long enough so that people with disabilities could enter. Only US firefighters and repairmen can use the buttons to speed up the door-closing process if they have a code or special keys.

    But to normal lift riders, the buttons aren't completely useless. According to psychologists, fake buttons can actually make you feel better by offering you a sense of control.

    "Perceived (能够感知的) control is very important. It reduces stress and increases well-being," Ellen J. Langer, a psychology professor, said, "having a lack of control is associated with depression（沮丧）."

    Experts have revealed that a lot of buttons that don't do anything exist in our lives for this same purpose. For example, many offices in the US have fake thermostats (温度调节器) because people tend to feel better when they think they can control the temperature in their workplace.

    Pedestrian(行人) crosswalk buttons don't live up to their names either. Pressing them used to help make the traffic signals change faster, but that was before computer-controlled traffic signals were introduced.

    But psychologists found it interesting that even when people are aware of these little "white lies", they still continue to push fake buttons because as long as the doors eventually close, it is considered to be worth the effort.

    "That habit is here to stay," John Kounios, a psychology professor, said. "Even though I have real doubts about the traffic light buttons, I always press them. After all, I've got nothing else to do while waiting. So why not press the button in the hope that this one will work?"

How Room Designs Affect Our Work and Feelings

    Architects have long had the feeling that the places we live in can affect our thoughts, feelings and behaviors. But now scientists are giving this feeling an empirical（经验的，实证的） basis. They are discovering how to design spaces that promote creativity, keep people focused and lead to relaxation.

    Researches show that aspects of the physical environment can influence creativity. In 2007, Joan Meyers-Levy at the University of Minnesota, reported that the height of a room's ceiling affects how people think. Her research indicates that higher ceilings encourage people to think more freely, which may lead them to make more abstract connections. Low ceilings, on the other hand, may inspire a more detailed outlook.

    In additions to ceiling height, the view afforded by a building may influence an occupant's ability to concentrate. Nancy Wells and her colleagues at Cornell University found in their study that kids who experienced the greatest increase in greenness as a result of a family move made the most gains on a standard test of attention.

    Using nature to improve focus of attention ought to pay off  academically, and it seems to, according to a study led by C. Kenneth Tanner, head of the School Design & Planning Laboratory at the University of Georgia. Tanner and his team found that students in classrooms with unblocked views of at least 50 feet outside the window had higher scores on tests of vocabulary, language arts and maths than did students whose classrooms primarily overlooked roads and parking lots.

    Recent study on room lighting design suggests than dim（暗淡的） light helps people to loosen up. If that is true generally, keeping the light low during dinner or at parties could increase relaxation. Researchers of Harvard Medical School also discovered that furniture with rounded edges could help visitors relax.

    So far scientists have focused mainly on public buildings. "We have a very limited number of studies, so we're almost looking at the problem through a straw（吸管）," architect David Allison says. "How do you take answers to very specific questions and make broad, generalized use of them? That's what we're all struggling with."

    Chinese high school students who want to enter the University of Cambridge may find that their scores on the national college entrance examination, or gaokao, will help their applications in the future.

    The University of Cambridge said in March that it has been using scores on gaokao as part of its admission criteria (标准) for Chinese students for several years, according to its official Weibo account. In addition to top scores on gaokao, Chinese applicants also need to meet English language requirements, participate in an interview and take a subject-specific wrillcn admission assessment (评估).

    The gaokao has been crillcized by some as a one shot exam that focuses on rote learning (死记硬背) rather than creativity. However, more and more people believe that there's no perfect predictor (侦测指标) of academic performance, and gaokao has the advantage of being what educational experts call a criterion-referenced (标准参照) exam—tests when her students are able to master a given body of knowledge , as well as their ability to work hard and consistently. Recent years have seen more and more foreign universities begin to accept gaokao scores as part of the application process.

    Despite the gaokao's growing acceptance among US universities, "There is a long way to go before the US education circle fully recognizes the gaokao, as there are still many US universities that don't accept it as part of their application process," Chu Zhaohui, a researcher from the National Institute of Education Sciences, told the Global Times.

    3D printing is a recent technological development that has started making its way into the marketplace. It is a way of making 3D objects from computer models. 3D printing works by adding together layers of material. This pattern is repeated until the layers form a shape for almost any purpose. The almost unlimited possibility of 3D printing is quickly leading to a revolution in how things are made and produced. As with most technology, 3D printing may help to create things that could benefit humans. However, it could also be used to create things that could harm other people.

    One of the promising aspects (方面) of 3D printing is that it may help doctors treat patients in need. Currently 3D printing is being used to create prostheses (假体) that helps replace missing noses and eyeballs, thus greatly cutting down on the usual wait time for a new prostheses. Dentists are also using 3D printers to create custom toothbrushes for patients' teeth. The toothbrush fits a person's teeth well, which means that they get a much cleaner mouth than with regular toothbrushes. Many scientists see the potential for 3D printing to create replacement organs for people who need organ transplants. This would save lives as it remove the need for such patients to wait for an organ donation (捐献).

    Although many people believe 3D printing is a positive technology that could help humans, it may also have the opposite effect. There is a recent controversy (争议) about the ability of 3D printing to produce arms such as guns. Recently, one organization announced the plans to produce a 3D plastic gun. Anyone with the proper technology and with the determination to make a gun could potentially do so. Will the future of 3D printing provide hope or danger to humans?

For a number of Indians who for over half a century have replayed a race again and again, Milkha Singh's 400 metres final run at the Rome Olympics should be among the greatest heartbreaks in global sporting history. In fact, they hoped it would throw up a different result.

However, continued praise for the man decades later is due to the effort by India's greatest track athlete on that September day in the Italian capital, though he still missed out on becoming India's first Olympic track medallist.

As he was growing up, he used to run barefoot daily on hot sand to school, which was situated 20 kilometres from his house. He thinks this was good training but knows it is not possible to ask children to do this today. However, he does feel that the early identification of talented athletes is also important for India's athletic teams to shine.

India has in the last few years judged success purely in terms of medals, but looking into the past reveals how a more generous generation saluted Milkha as a pioneer. Milkha is India's finest track athlete of all time. He remains the only Indian male to win an individual Commonwealth Games athletics gold—he won the 400 metres at Cardiff in 1958，the first athlete from independent India to do so.

Since retiring from athletics, the former champion athlete has set up the Milkha Singh Charitable Trust, which helps poorer families survive if an athlete in their family has died. A percentage of the profits from the film Bhaag Milkha Bhaag are going to his trust.

Finally, let's read a quote from Milkha himself: "There is no shortcut to success." A scene in the film shows Milkha Singh running with injured feet—this actually happened. "I haven't found an alternative to hard work. You need to be patient, dedicated and true to yourself and your work."