Getting rid of dirt(灰尘), in the opinion of most people, is a good thing. However, there is nothing fixed about attitudes to dirt.

    In the early 16th century, people thought that dirt on the skin was a way to block out disease, as medical opinion had it that washing off dirt with hot water could open up the skin and let illnesses in. A particular danger was thought to lie in public baths. By 1538, the French king bad closed the bath houses in his kingdom. So did the king of England in 1546. Thus it began a long time when the rich and the poor in Europe lived with dirt in a friendly way. Henry IV, King of France, was famously dirty. Upon learning that a nobleman had taken bath, the king ordered that, to avoid the attack of disease, the nobleman should not go out.

    Though the belief in the merit of dirt was long-lived, dirt has no longer been regarded as a nice neighbor ever since the 18th century. Scientically speaking, cleaning away dirt is good to health. Clean water supply and hand washing are practical means of preventing disease. Yet, it seems that standards of cleanliness have moved beyond science since World War ll. Advertisements repeatedly sell the idea: clothes need to be whiter than white, cloths ever softer, surfaces to shine. Has the hate for dirt, however, gone too far?

    Attitudes to dirt still differ hugely nowadays. Many first-time parents nervously try to warm(警告)their children of touching dirt, which might be responsible for the spread of disease. On the contrary, Mary Ruebush, an American immunologist(免疫学家), encourages children to play in the dirt to build up a strong immune system. And the latter position is gaining some ground.

    Booking a trip on an online travel site is convenient, but comes with its own set of problems.

    They know who's going to spend more.

    Last year, US travel research company Orbitz tracked people's online activities to test out whether Mac users spend more on travel than PC users. It turns out that on average, Mac users lay out US $20-30 more per night on hotels. As a result, online travel sites show these users more expensive travel options first. To avoid paying more, sort results by price.

    Their software doesn't always link to the hotel's system.

    A guaranteed reservation is almost impossible to come by anywhere — but the risk of your flight or hotel being overbooked increases with third-party providers. The middleman's software isn't immune(防护作用的) to system errors, so always call the hotel or airline to make sure your booking was processed.

    Don't be fooled by packages: Often, they're low-end items grouped together.

    Ever notice how travel sites recommend a hotel, a rental car, and tour package all in one click? These deals usually feature travel that no one wants, like flights with multiple layovers(中途停留). Check the fine print.

    Once your trip is purchased, you're on your own.

    An online travel agency can't provide assistance the same way an agent can if a flight is cancelled or a room is substandard. Basically, when you arrive at the airport or hotel, you're just another customer who booked at the lowest rate.

    You probably know who Marie Curie was, but you may not have heard of Rachel Carson. Of the outstanding ladies listed below, who do you think was the most important woman of the past 100 years?

    Jane Addams (1860-1935)

    Anyone who has ever been helped by a social worker has Jane Addams to thank. Addams helped the poor and worked for peace. She encouraged a sense of community by creating shelters and promoting education and services for people in need. In 1931, Addams became the first American woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Rachel Carson (1907-1964)

    If it weren't for Rachel Carson, the environmental movement might not exist today. Her popular 1962 book Silent Spring raised awareness of the dangers of pollution and the harmful effects of chemicals on humans and on the world's lakes and oceans.

    Sandra Day O'Connor (1930-present)

    When Sandra Day O'Connor finished third in her class at Stanford Law School, in 1952, she could not find work at a law firm because she was a woman. She became an Arizona state senator (参议员) and, in 1981, the first woman to join the U.S. Supreme Court. O'Connor gave the deciding vote in many important cases during her 24 years on the top court.

    Rosa Parks (1913-2005)

    On December 1,1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Rosa Parks would not give up her seat on a bus to a white passenger. Her simple act landed Parks in prison. But it also set off the Montgomery bus boycott. It lasted for more than a year, and kicked off the civil-rights movement. “The only tired I was, was tired of giving in,” said Parks.

    Ten years ago, I set out to examine luck. I wanted to know why some people were always in the right place at the right time, while others consistently experienced ill fortune. I placed advertisements in national newspapers asking for people who felt consistently lucky or unlucky. Hundreds of extraordinary men and women volunteered for my research. Over the years I have interviewed them, monitored their lives and had them take part in various experiments.

    In one of the experiments, I gave both lucky and unlucky people a newspaper, asking them to look through it and tell me how many photographs were inside. I had secretly placed a large message halfway through the newspaper, saying, "Tell the experimenter you have seen this and you will win $50." This message took up half of the page and was written in type that was more than two inches high. It was staring everyone in the face, but the unlucky people tended to miss it and the lucky people tended to spot it.

    Unlucky people are generally more nervous than lucky people, and this anxiety affects their ability to notice the unexpected. As a result, they miss opportunities because they are too focused on looking for something else. They go to gatherings concentrating on finding their perfect partners and miss opportunities to make good friends. They look through newspapers determined to find certain types of job advertisements and miss other types of jobs.

    Lucky people are more relaxed and open, and therefore see what is there rather than just what they are looking for. My research eventually showed that lucky people are skilled at noticing opportunities, make lucky decisions by listening to their intuition (直觉), are open to new experiences, and adopt a never-say-die attitude that transforms bad luck into good luck.

Reading a book and watching a film are two very different experiences, but expectations can be high when a film of a favourite book is made. There are very many times I have been disappointed by a film of a book I love. So maybe highly regarded books do not always make good films. It is safe to say that great movies may be made from not particularly good books.

The source material may be anything from classic novels, short stones, comic books and stage plays, as well as non­fiction such as biography and autobiography, even those written by ghostwriters. All can work well, but why do many adaptations and indeed remakes fail with both cinema audiences and critics?

A key question is obviously how close to the original the film is. Since a typical film is only around two hours long, it becomes a question of what to leave out, and how to script the dialogue. Sometimes there may be changes to the plot, additions and even different endings to please producers, directors and test audiences. I, like many people, have often left the cinema feeling "the film is not like the book".

Another problem area is the cast. Whether suitable actors are found or not can mean the difference between success and failure. Readers of the book use their imaginations to visualize characters and have very definite ideas about how characters look and sound. This is where I think many film adaptations fall down.

Some books are just too difficult to film for technical reasons, although movies like The Life of Pi are changing this perception. The impact of CGI technology has had a huge impact on the movie industry and allowed the previously unfilmable to become a reality.

 Sometimes authors are very involved in the process and many may even be the screenwriters. This can actually be a bad thing because they may be too close to the material and find it difficult to adapt. At other times they are not the screenwriters, and there are instances where writers have been very unhappy with the film versions of their work. Roald Dahl and Stephen King are examples of this. Even more extreme was novelist J. D. Salinger who made sure no film versions of his popular novels could ever be made. In this situation, it is clear viewers will not be disappointed.

It is the stock response to a parent struggling with a crying baby or a bad-tempered teenager: "Treasure every moment because they grow up so fast." Now researchers have found there may be something in the old saying. Watching children grow up really does seem to make time fly. Scientists have found that parents feel time passing more quickly than non-parents.

The findings could be due to the fact that children change fast. "Over ten years, children go through dramatic changes not only in their physical appearance, but also in their understanding abilities and their status," the researchers said. The results could also be a consequence of parents spending a large amount of their time on their children, they said, even though they found no difference in the time pressures recorded by parents compared with non-parents in the study.

For the study, published in the journal Timing & Time Perception (感知), the researchers asked 431 people aged from 20 to 59 to fill in a subjective time questionnaire, a tool used by psychologists to measure time perception. They were asked: "How fast did the last ten years pass for you?" An answer of very slowly gave a score of-2; slowly was-I; neither fast nor slow was 0; fast was I and very fast scored 2. So the higher the score, the faster they felt time had passed. The parents had an average score of I. 22, compared with 0. 76 for the non-parents.

Participants were also asked how quickly the last year, month and week had passed, but there were no differences between the groups for these shorter intervals (间隔). Previous studies have suggested that time also seems to speed up when we get older. Research published in 2019 by Duke University in North Carolina suggests this could be due to physical changes in our bodies, with a slowdown in image processing speeding up our perception of time passing.

Days that seemed to last forever in our youth were "not due to experiences being much deeper or meaningful", the researcher Adrian Bejan said, "but due to the fact that they were being processed rapidly."