Could the device, smartphone or PC, which you are using affect the moral decisions you make when using it? To test it, researchers presented multiple dilemmas to a sample set of 1,010 people. The participants were assigned a device at random.

    One case of the questions participants were asked is the classic “trolley(有轨电车) problem”: A runaway trolley is headed towards five people tied up on a-set of train tracks. You can do nothing, resulting in the deaths of five people, or push a man off a bridge, which will stop the trolley. The practical response is to kill one man to save five lives, which 33. 5 percent of smartphone users chose, compared to 22.3 percent of PC users.

    “What we round in our study is that when people used a smartphone to view classic moral problems, they were more likely to make more unemotional, reasonable decisions when presented with a highly emotional dilemma, “Dr Albert Barque-Duran, the lead author of the study, told City, University of London. “This could be due to the increased time pressure often present with smartphones and also the increased psychological distance which can occur when we use such devices compared to PCs.”

    As for why the researchers started this study, Dr Barque-Duran noted, “Due to the fact that our social lives, work and even shopping take place online, it is important to think about how the contexts where we typically face moral decisions and are asked to engage in moral behavior have changed, and the impact this could have on the hundreds of millions of people who use such devices daily. “It's clear that we need more research on how our devices affect our moral decision making because we're using screens at an ever increasing rate.

    If a person who lived 200 years ago was treated for a seizure(癫痫)today, they would be surprised by the treatment's freshness. That's because doctors in the 1800s were influenced more by original medical beliefs than science.

    Rather than thinking the brain caused seizures, people in the 1800s still thought they were the result of strange forces. They associated seizures with the work of evil spirits. Others felt that the seizures had a cosmic or lunar cause. They believed that the cycles of the moon and stars could make someone have a seizure.

    During a process to treat a patient who has seizures, doctors would force the patient to pray for the grace of the God. They thought if the patient did this, then the patient would rid themselves of the evil spirits causing the seizures.

    The arrival of modern psychiatry(精神病学) occurred during the 1800s. At that time people who suffered from seizures were placed in psychiatric hospitals. They were treated like they were mad. However, none of the out-of-date treatments worked.

    It wasn't until the late 1850s that the causes of seizures were understood. We know today that these causes are related to the brain. Misfired signals from the brain cause a jerking reflex(反射) in the body. These usually occur when someone is very tired.

    Once the causes of seizures were known, definitive treatments were developed. Today, treatments range from taking pills to having surgery. Treatment is personalized according to the type of seizure the patient has.

    Even today, some people are unsure about seizures. Their most common mistake is thinking that a person having a seizure will swallow their tongue. They often push some implement roughly in the person's mouth. However, this doesn't help. The implement often blocks the airway and prevents the person from breathing. Yet most of the public no longer fear people who have seizures. Instead, they can now help and comfort a person if they have a seizure.

    Your next car might drive itself. After years of trials on city streets, driverless vehicles are now on the way. Last month, a driverless bus began carrying passengers through Lyon, France. Most in the automobile industry think self-driving vehicles will be on the road by 2020 or earlier.

    Driverless cars will first be huddled with human-driven cars. But the first places where they will become dominant（统治的）are highly populated urban areas. Many advanced cities are already reducing the role of human-driven cars. Driverless cars will quicken that process and will bring us enormous benefits.

    Driverless cars will reduce accidents by around 90 percent. That's big—the annual deaths on the world's roads are about 1.2 million a year. Pollution and carbon emissions will drop, because urban driverless cars will be electric.

    On the other hand, driverless cars will cause problems. Over the next 20 years, the mostly low-skilled men who now drive trucks, taxis and buses will see their jobs reduced. Traditional carmakers are especially scared. The cars of the future might be made by tech companies such as Apple, Baidu and Google. Imagine Germany, where automobile making is the largest industry.

    Dramatic changes are coming, and driverless cars could arrive by 2020. But governments have barely begun thinking about it. Only 6 percent of the biggest US cities have taken them into their long-term planning. A decade ago anyone hardly saw the Smartphone coming. Now what about the driverless cars?

    Vinegar is great. It makes salad, fries and dumplings taste better, and you can even clean your windows with it. And now, according to scientists, it may even help the planet's population to ease hunger.

    Researchers from the RIKEN Center for Sustainable Resource Science (CSRS) in Japan found that growing plants in vinegar makes them more resistant to droughts.

    This could mean that in the future, worries about climate change affecting the world's supply of food will be much lower.

    The discovery was made after the researchers studied the Arabidopsis, a plant known for its ability to survive in dry weather. It was found that when the plant was placed in drought-like conditions, it produced a chemical called acetate(醋酸盐) – the main component of vinegar.

    After discovering this, the scientists experimented further by adding acetate to the soil of other plants, before they stopped giving them water completely. After leaving the plants for 14 days, they found that the ones treated with acetate had survived, while the untreated plants had dried up and died. It's hoped that this simple method of survival could soon be used to help farmers in dry countries keep their crops alive.

    Jong Myong Kim, co-author of the study, told Popular Science magazine that he's already been in touch with people all over the world who are interested in trying this simple and cost-effective method out for themselves from flower growing companies to amateur gardeners.

    Although at this point keeping thirsty plants alive isn't as easy as just pouring vinegar over them, Kim said he and his team are working on making the process as simple as possible. "Now we are trying to cooperate with some farmers, and also some companies, to make a method to apply this system." he said.

    And for those of us who always forget to ask our neighbors to water our plants when we go away, hopefully this means the end of returning home from a trip to find our favorite flowers have died.

    I'm not so sure I like my friends any more. I used to like them — to be honest. We'd have lunch, talk on the phone or exchange e-mails, and they all seemed normal enough. But then came Facebook and I was introduced to a sad fact: many of my friends have dark sides that they had kept from me.

    Today my friends show off the more unpleasant aspects of their personalities via Facebook. No longer hidden, they're thrown in my face like TV commercials — unavoidable and endless advertisements for the worst of their personalities.

    Take Fred. If you were to have lunch with him, you'd find him warm, and down-to-earth. Read his Facebook and you realize he's an unbearable, food-obsessed bore. He'd pause to have a cup of coffee on his way to save a drowning man — and then write about it.

    Take Andy. You won't find a smarter CEO anywhere, but now he's a CEO without a company to lull. So he plays Mafia Wars on Facebook. He's doing well — level 731. Thanks to Facebook, I know he's playing about 18 hours a day. Andy, you've run four companies — and this is how you spend your downtime(业余时间)? What happened to golf? What happened to getting another job?

    Take Liz. She is positive that the H1N1 vaccine(甲流疫苗) will kill us all and that we should avoid it. And then comes Chris who likes to post at least 20 times a day on every website he can find, so I get to read his thoughts twice, once on Facebook and once on Twitter.

    In real life, I don't see these sides of people. Face to face, my friends show me their best. They're nice, smart people. But face to Facebook, my friends are like a blind date which goes horribly wrong.

    I'm left with a dilemma. Who is my real friend? Is it the Liz I have lunch with or the anti-vaccine lunatic(狂人)on Facebook? Is it the Fred I can grab a sandwich with or the Fred who weeps if he's at a party and the wine isn't up to his standards?

 Last week, my younger brother visited me for five days. To ensure I could spend as much time with him as possible, I worked extra hard during the weekend before he arrived.

 It amazed me how much I could accomplish when I had a strong motivation to be efficient.

 During the week, I put in a couple of hours in the mornings to handle pressing issues and then spent the afternoons and evenings going out with him. Once again, I was surprised to realize just how much free time was available to me if I consciously chose to be more effective while working.

 This made me think of Parkinson's Law: Work expands to fill the time available for its completion.

 I realized then that I'd given myself more time than necessary for work, and as a result, I ended up spending a lot of time delaying needlessly and entertaining myself online.

 How might things change for me, I wondered, if I chose to commit to more social and recreational activities, made them priorities and was motivated to finish work quicker?

 I realize not everyone has flexible work schedules, but I believe we could all create more time for ourselves if we were motivated to cut out the choices that don't match our strongest desires and intentions. Maybe it's being absent-minded in front of the TV or searching the web.

 I believe what English musician John Lennon said is true: Time that you enjoyed wasting was not wasted.1 don't think there's anything wrong with using technology if we've consciously chosen to do it.

 However, we owe it to ourselves to get out in the world and explore different possibilities—to be playful, curious, engaged and just to be.

 Perhaps it would be easier to do that if we asked ourselves: How can I be more effective? Can I minimize what I am currently doing? How can I start using the time I've created in a way that will excite and inspire me?