They wear the latest fashions with the most up-to-date accessories(配饰). Yet these are girls in their teens or twenties but women in their sixties and seventies. A generation which would once only wear old-fashioned clothes is now favoring the same high street looks worn by those half their age.

    Professor Julia Twigg, a social policy expert , said ,“Women over 75 are now shopping for clothes more frequently than they did when they were young in the 1960s .In the 1960s buying a coat for a woman was a serious matter . It was an expensive item that they would purchase only every three or four years — now you can pick one up at the supermarket whosever you wish to .Fashion is a lot cheaper and people felt tired of things more quickly . ”

    Fashion designer Angela Barnard ,who runs own fashion business in London ,said older women were much more affected celebrity(名流) style than in previous years .

    She said, “When people see stars such as Judi Dench and Helen Mirren looking attractive and fashionable in their sixties ,they want to follow them . Older women are much more aware of celebrities .There's also the boom in TV programs showing people how they can change their look, and many of my older customers do yoga to stay in shape well in their fifties . When I started my business a fen years ago .my older customers wended to be very rich, but now they are what I would call ordinary women .My own mother is 61 and she wears the latest fashions in a way she would call ordinary women .My own mother is 61 and she wears the latest fashions in a way she would never have done ten years ago.”

    Biologists believe that love is fundamentally a biological rather than a cultural construct, because the capacity for love is found in all human cultures and similar behavior is found in some other animals. In humans the purpose of all the desire is to focus attention on the raising of offspring. Children demand an unusual amount of parenting, and two parents are better than one. Love is a signal that both partners are committed, and makes it more likely that this commitment will continue as long as necessary for children to reach independence. But what does science have to say about the notion of love at first sight?

    In recent years the ability to watch the brain in action has offered a wealth of insight into the mechanics of love. Researchers have shown that when a person falls in love, a dozen different part of brain work together to release chemicals that trigger feelings of euphoria, bonding and excitement. It has also been shown that the unconditional love between a mother and a child is associated with activity in different regions of the brain from those associated with pair-bonding love.

    Passionate love is rooted in the reward circuitry of the brain—the same area that is active when humans feel a rush from cocaine. In fact, the desire, motivations and withdrawals involved in love have a great deal in common with addiction. Its most intense forms tend to be associated with the early stages of a relationship, which then give way to a calmer attachment form of love one feels with a long term partner.

    What all this means is that one special person can become chemically rewarding to the brain of another. Love at first sight, then, is only possible if the mechanism for generating long-term attachment can be triggered quickly. There are signs that it can be. One line of evidence is that people are able to decide within a second how attractive they find another person. This decision appears to be related to facial attractiveness, although men may favor women with waist-to-hip ratio of 0.7, no matter what their overall weight is. (This ratio may indicate a woman's reproductive health.)

    Another piece of evidence comes from work by a psychologist at Ben-Gurion University, who found in a survey that a small percentage (11%) of people in long-term relationships said that they began with love at first sight. In other words, in some couples the initial favorable impressions of attractiveness triggered love which sustained a lengthy bond. It is also clear that some couples need to form their bonds over a longer period, and popular culture tells many tales of friends who become lovers.

    One might also assume that if a person is looking for a partner with traits that cannot be quantified instantly, such as compassion, intellect or a good sense of humor, then it would be hard to form a relationship on the basis of love at first sight. Those more concerned with visual appearances, though, might find this easier. So it appears that love at first sight exists, but is not a very common basis for long-term relationships.

    One of the greatest contributions to the first Oxford English Dictionary was also one of its most unusual. In 1879, Oxford University in England asked Prof. James Murray to serve as editor for what was to be the most ambitious dictionary in the history of the English language. It would include every  English word possible and would give not only the definition but also the history of the word and quotations (引文) showing how it was used.

    This was a huge task, so Murray had to find volunteers from Britain, the United States, and the British colonies to search every newspaper, magazine, and book ever written in English. Hundreds of volunteers responded, including William Chester Minor. Dr. Minor was an American surgeon who had served in the Civil War and was now living in England. He gave his address as “Broadmoor, Crowthorne, Berkshire,” 50 miles from Oxford.

    Minor joined the army of volunteers sending words and quotations to Murray. Over the next 17 years, he became one of the staff's most valued contributors.

    But he was also a mystery. In spite of many invitations, he would always decline to visit Oxford. So in 1897, Murray finally decided to travel to Crowthorne himself. When he arrived, he found Minor locked  in a book-lined cell at the Broadmoor Asylum (精神病院) for the Criminally Insane.

    Murray and Minor became friends, sharing their love of words. Minor continued contributing to the dictionary, sending in more than 10,000 submissions in 20 years. Murray continued to visit Minor regularly, sometimes taking walks with him around the asylum grounds.

    In 1910, Minor left Broadmoor for an asylum in his native America. Murray was at the port to wave goodbye to his remarkable friend.

    Minor died in 1920, seven years before the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary was completed. The 12 volumes defined 414,825 words, and thousands of them were contributions from a very scholarly and devoted asylum patient.

    My dad loved pennies, especially those with the elegant stalk of wheat curving around each side of the ONE CENT on the back. Those were the pennies he grew up with during the Depression (大萧条).

    As a kid, I would go for walks with Dad, spying coins along the way—a penny here, a dime (一角硬币) there. Whenever I picked up a penny, he'd ask, "Is it a wheat?" It always thrilled him when we found one of those special coins produced between 1909 and 1958, the year of my birth.

    One gray Sunday morning in winter, not long after my father's death in 2002, I was walking down Fifth Avenue, feeling bereft. I found myself in front of the church where Dad once worked. I was warmly shown in and led to a seat. Hearing Dad's favorite "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God", I burst into tears. We'd sung that at his funeral. After the service, I shook the pastor's hand and stepped onto the sidewalk—and there was a penny. I bent to pick it up, turned it over, and sure enough, it was a wheat. A 1944, a year my father was serving on a ship in the South Pacific.

    That started it. Suddenly wheat pennies began turning up on the sidewalks of New York everywhere. I got most of the important years: his birth year, my mom's birth year, the year he graduated from college, the year he met my mom, the year they got married, the year my sister was born. But alas, no 1958 wheat penny—my year, the last year they were made.

    The next Sunday, after the service, I was walking up Fifth Avenue and spotted a penny in the middle of a crossing. Oh, no, it was a busy street; cabs were speeding by—should I risk it? I just had to get it.

    A wheat! But the penny was worn, and I couldn't read the date. On arriving home, I took out my glasses and took it to the light. There was my birthday!

    I found 21 wheat pennies on the streets of Manhattan in the year after my father died, and I don't think that's a coincidence.

    You signed up for soccer, and played every game of the season. Sure, you're not the best player on the team, but most days you gave it your all. Do you deserve a trophy (奖杯)?

    If the decision is up to Carol Dweck, the answer would likely be no. She's a psychology professor at Stanford University, California. She says a player doesn't have to be the best to get a trophy. But those who receive an award should have to work for it. She suggests trophies go to the most improved player, or the one who contributed most to the team spirit, as well as to those who play the best.

    “The trophy has to stand for something，” Dweck told TFK. “If we give a trophy to everyone, then the award has no value.” Dweck argues that giving kids trophies for particular reasons, such as improving in a sport, and teaches kids that adults value hard work and trying our best.

    Others say that there's no harm in giving awards to all kids who play a sport, regardless of how they played or whether or not they improved.

    “I think we should encourage kids' participation in sports，” says Kenneth Barish, a psychology professor at Weill Cornell Medical College, in New York City. “A trophy is one way to encourage kids' efforts.”

    Barish argues that when we only single out the best or even the most improved players with a trophy, we are teaching kids the wrong lesson. We are sending the message that winning is everything. “Winning is only part of the equation (等式)，” Barish told TFK.“Playing sports also teaches kids about teamwork and the importance of exercise.”

    There will be plenty of opportunities for kids to learn about competition as they get older, says Barish. They'll soon realize that only one soccer team wins the World Cup and only one football team wins the Super Bowl. For now, he thinks there's nothing wrong with letting all kids who play a sport feel like winners. That means trophies for everyone.

    In today's society, language plays a key role in defining gender (性别) by vocabulary, and also their non-verbal (非语言的) vocabulary. Each one of these different types of ways of communicating is obviously different between men and women.

    Many different studies show that men tend to talk much more than women. It has also been proven that women tend to speak faster than men; this is due to the fact that women tend to be interrupted more often than men are, and also have the ability to speak more clearly, precisely, and more quickly than men. In one study it was found that women spoke for an average of three minutes describing a painting, as opposed to the thirteen-minute average it took men to describe it.

    Men and women also tend to have a very different non-verbal way of communicating, which can also make it very hard for one another to understand what the opposite sex is trying to say. Men's body language is much more reserved when talking to women. Men tend not to make as much eye contact and they generally stay farther away from women when talking to them. Men avoid other people's body space while talking, and they also tend to sit back when talking. All of these have given off the impression of disinterest or boredom. Women are by far better listeners and much more enjoyable to talk with and they tend to raise more topics for conversation.

    Women also make it clearer whether or not the conversation is going somewhere or just stuck in neutral. After learning about our styles of communicating with each other, I have decided that although men have not quite mastered communicating, what fun would it be if we all spoke the same "language"? The little games men and women play with each other while conversing would be lost. The question everyone asks himself or herself after talking with someone of the opposite sex, "I wonder if there's something there?" would no longer exist.