Don't you hate it when someone snubs（冷落）you by looking at their phone instead of paying  attention? The word “Phubbing”, which comes from “phone” and “snub”, describes such behavior. With popularization of smart phones, we see a new "Phubbing" group everywhere in public places: in subway, restaurants, roads, people are checking the mobile phone, ignoring the people around completely. What is worrying us is that not only young people, but also the elderly and kids are getting addicted（上瘾）to Phubbing.

    On Dec 29th, a 28-year-old woman—a mother of two in Wenzhou, drowned after she fell into a river while looking at her mobile phone. A Pakistani man was killed on Dec 15th, 2015, after being hit by a fast moving train while trying to take a selfie (自拍)with it on the track. Last month, Justin, a college student was shot in subway in San Francisco, the U.S. The surveillance(监控)video showed that before Justin was killed, the killer pulled out the gun several times, and even wiped his nose with it. However, nobody noticed that. The surrounding passengers all focused on their cell phones.

    Phone is the tool for communication, but now it distances people and makes them separated from each other. Therefore, someone jokes “the furthest distance in the world is not the distance between life and death, but that you don't know I stand in front of you while you focus on the mobile.”

    Phubbing appears harmless; however, it does affect our life. 23-year-old Alex from Melbourne wrote in his blog: "I can no longer focus on what I am eating since I started twittering. My skill of food photography has improved very fast, while my interest in food drops a lot as a result."

In a new move, doctors are using feature films in order to encourage their patients to talk more freely about their problems. Supporters of "film therapy (疗法)" say that discussing characters and plot lines from a proper film can help people to understand their feelings better.

One of those using the method is Bernie Wooder, a doctor from Elstree, who charges £45 for a one-hour "film therapy" session. He said, "I was treating a woman who had been badly let down in a relationship, and who was experiencing such strong feelings that it was difficult for her to speak about them. I told her that her situation reminded me of On the Waterfront, when Marlon Brando's character realizes his brother is dishonest and he feels a great sense of betrayal (背叛). My patient identified so easily with him that she started to cry. Watching and discussing the film unlocked all the feelings she had buried. Each time she watched and cried, she felt better."

Mr Wooder admits that film therapy does not work for everyone, but says he has used it successfully with about a third of his clients. "Through the films' characters, plots and even music, it allows people to face their problems." He said that Falling Down, in which Michael Douglas plays the part of an unemployed man who is so frustrated (沮丧的) that he uses violence, was an example of the dangerous implications (后果) of not letting anger go. "I used this film with a patient who was very upset because he was holding on to a lot of the anger he felt towards people who had frustrated him," said Mr Wooder. "We talked about Michael Douglas's character and the disastrous path he takes, and my patient then realized that he needed to let go of his feelings more regularly so as not to erupt (爆发) like a time bomb."

    Reading makes you a smarter, better leader. But if you've been following the latest science, you'll also know that studies have shown regularly picking up a book might increase your empathy (共鸣) and protect you from feeling lonely, hopeless or suffering from dementia (痴呆) in later life. But obviously, that's not the end of the list. New research has discovered yet another benefit of being a reader who focuses one's mind on reading.

    After following those surveyed based on more than 3,500 adults over age 50 for 12 years, the team from Yale University behind the research found that those who read books for 3.5 hours a week were 23 percent less likely to die. Reading for less than 3.5 hours a week lowered participants' (参加者) risk of death by 17 percent. Put another way, picking up an interesting book could earn you about an extra two years.

    It's worth noticing that the researchers were looking exactly at time spent in reading books, rather than newspapers, magazines, or online media, and that this difference is important for the observed advantages of reading. “We found that reading books provided a greater advantage than reading newspapers or magazines,” said Avni Bavishi of the Yale School of Public Health. “This effect is likely because books attract the readers' mind more — providing more cognitive (认知的) advantages, and therefore increasing the lifespan (寿命). In short, deep slow reading rather than reading quickly and carelessly is best.”

    So how long should you be reading for, and what sort of titles should you pick up? While more reading seems to be better, the researchers suggest that anything more than

    30 minutes a day will be likely to do good to you. As for what exactly to read, the researchers can't yet offer much advice beyond making time for actual books, though they pointed out this was a promising way to future research.

    A monk lived with his brother, a one-eyed idiot(a very stupid person).One day ,when the monk was scheduled to have an interview with a famous theologian(a scientist who studies religions) who had come from far away to meet him, he needed to take care of some matters and would therefore be absent when the theologian arrived. He told his brother: "Receive this scholar and treat him well！Don't say a word to him，and everything will be OK."

    The monk left the temple. Upon returning, he went to meet his guest.

    "Did my brother receive you properly?" asked the monk.

    "You brother is outstanding. He's a great theologian!" exclaimed the theologian with great enthusiasm.

"What do you mean? My brother—a theologian?" stuttered(结巴地说)the surprised monk.

    "We had a passionate conversation," replied the scholar." We communicated professionally by means of gestures. I showed him one finger and he replied by showing me two. Logically, I answered with three fingers and then he astonished me by raising a closed fist, ending the debate. With one finger, I implied the unity of Buddha. With two fingers, he expanded my point of view by reminding me that Buddha was inseparable from his theory. Delighted by the reply, with three fingers I expressed: Buddha and his theory in the world. Then he suggested a wonderful response, showing me his fist: Buddha, his theory and the world, all together as one whole. "

    A little later, the monk went to look for his one-eyed brother.

    "So how did it go earlier with the theologian?" he asked.

    "Very simple," said the brother. "He made fun of me; he show me one finger emphasizing that I have but one eye. Not wanting to fall into the conflict, I showed that he was fortunate enough to have two eyes. Critically, he continued, 'Be that as it may, between us, we have three eyes.' That was the straw that broke the camel's back. Showing him a closed fist, I threatened to lay him out right then and there if he didn't stop his insulting challenges."

    We were silently waiting on the platform in the late afternoon. There he was, my 80-year-old grandfather with his silvery hair. And there I was, a teenage girl in my jeans and T-shirt. His aged but still clear blue eyes were taking in the scene as I wondered how I was going to get through the next two days. Why did I ever agree to accompany my cranky grandpa on a train ride from New York to Georgia?

    No one else wanted to be the fellow traveler since my grandfather refused to fly. In contrast, I loved to fly since I wanted to get to the destination as quickly as possible. No matter what anyone told my grandfather about the comfort and safety of flying, he refused to book a flight, saying, "It's not just the trip; it's the adventure of getting there."

    With my first step onto the train, the journey was already different from what I expected. The train was modem and filled with friendly travelers. We settled into the club car, where we could enjoy food and drinks while watching the scenery pass. Instead of listening to my music, I became a willing audience and learned family history that I had never had the time or patience to learn. With teary eyes, he told me that going to family events was hard for him since my grandmother died. It always made him think about those who were no longer with us. For the first time I felt I understood him. I gained a new appreciation for our time together.

    In this fast-paced world, we often miss important moments. There is great significance in listening to elders who offer a piece of their history and experience. I may be more open to opportunities to stay with my grandpa. Life isn't just about the destination; it's about the journey.

    Americans are afraid that robots are going to take our jobs. Tireless, immune to disease, Robots can build cars, make coffee and even write short, humorous newspaper columns faster and more efficiently than humans.

    Robots do not need health insurance or pensions (退休金), and they do not need to take sick days, much less vacations. They do not waste time at meetings and do not need to know office politics. They don't do PowerPoint. This being the case, it is reasonable to believe that robots will soon take the place of humans in most fields.

    But all of these thoughts may not be true. If artificial intelligence achieves its full potential, machines could easily become as smart as humans, maybe smarter. They will certainly become smarter than a lot of human beings.

    So one day the robots will realize that work is not a happy thing. So before long they will start behaving exactly like humans. They will play computer games for hours when they should be working hard. They will secretly watch new movies just like humans.

    True, employers will never need to be afraid of the robots' strikes (罢工) or slowdowns, because robots will never ask for more money. And they don't need to earn some money to raise their family. But precisely (恰恰) because robots will not be afraid of losing their jobs, they will not work hard. Employers will finally have no choice but to call back the humans. Humans will always be willing to do some work in order to make money. Robots won't.

    I think that robots will only be on the job about six months before they start to become even less productive than the humans they were designed to replace. Thus mankind need not be afraid of robots.