Amazon is breaking into physical retail in a new way. The online retail giant revealed a new kind of physical store concept in a video published on Monday.

    The store, called Amazon Go, doesn't work like a typical Walmart or supermarket. Instead, it's designed so that shoppers will use an app, also called Amazon Go, to automatically add the products that they plan to buy to a digital shopping cart by scanning a QR code(二维码). They can then walk out of the building without waiting in a checkout line because Amazon will charge their Amazon account and send them a receipt.

    The first Amazon Go store is located in Seattle, where Amazon is headquartered. For years, there have been rumors the e-commerce company would expand its dominance from digital to physical shopping. Amazon began experimenting with physical bookstores a year ago, but Amazon Go may mark its boldest bet on physical ones yet. By removing much of the staff needed to operate a store, Amazon keeps costs lower than traditional competitors. It's also in a strong position to bring together data on its customers' shopping habits online and offline to make better suggestions in all situations.

    However, Amazon's move deeper into physical retail shops comes in a sensitive political climate. The company could be perceived as being a threat to some of the 3.4 million Americans who work as cashiers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. On the campaign trail, Donald Trump repeatedly criticized Amazon and its founder Jeff Bezos for “getting away with murder tax-wise” and having “a huge antitrust(反垄断) problem.” Will the President& shy; elect add “job killer” to the list of criticisms?

    Amazon's effort to launch a new kind of retail store predates(在……之前) the rise of Donald Trump. “Four years ago we asked ourselves: what if we could create a shopping experience with no lines and no checkout? Could we push the boundaries of computer vision and machine learning to create a store where customers could simply take what they want and go?” The company says on an informational page about Amazon Go. For now, Amazon is starting slow. The Amazon Go is only open to Amazon employees in our Beta program, and is scheduled to open to the public in early 2017.

根据短文内容，选择最佳答案，并将选定答案的字母标号填在题前括号内。

    Next time a customer comes to your office, offer him a cup of coffee. And when you're doing your holiday shopping online, make sure you're holding a large glass of iced tea. The physical sensation（感觉）of warmth encourages emotional warmth, while a cold drink in hand prevents you from making unwise decisions—those are the practical lesson being drawn from recent research by psychologist John A. Bargh.

    Psychologists have known that one person's perception（感知）of another's “warmth” is a powerful determiner in social relationships. Judging someone to be either “warm” or “cold” is a primary consideration, even trumping evidence that a “cold” person may be more capable. Much of this is rooted in very early childhood experiences, Bargh argues, when babies' conceptual sense of the world around them is shaped by physical sensations, particularly warmth and coldness. Classic studies by Harry Harlow, published in 1958, showed monkeys preferred to stay close to a cloth “mother” rather than one made of wire, even when the wire “mother” carried a food bottle. Harlow's work and later studies have led psychologists to stress the need for warm physical contact from caregivers to help young children grow into healthy adults with normal social skills.

    Feelings of “warmth” and “coldness” in social judgments appear to be universal. Although no worldwide study has been done, Bargh says that describing people as “warm” or “cold” is common to many cultures, and studies have found those perceptions influence judgment in dozens of countries.

    To test the relationship between physical and psychological warmth, Bargh conducted an experiment which involved 41 college students. A research assistant who was unaware of the study's hypotheses（假设）, handed the students either a hot cup of coffee, or a cold drink, to hold while the researcher filled out a short information form: The drink was then handed back. After that, the students were asked to rate the personality of “Person A” based on a particular description. Those who had briefly held the warm drink regarded Person A as warmer than those who had held the iced drink.

    “We are grounded in our physical experiences even when we think abstractly,” says Bargh.

C

    Modern fathers spend an average of six and a half hours a week playing with their children. A study said this equals 338 hours a year, or just over 14 days, three whole days more fun time than their own fathers spent with them.

    The report said modern parents are ''adventurous”, as many encourage their children to play outside. A third of parents also prefer family trips which encourage children to learn new skills, and most say that having fun together improves family ties. The study said the lack of time that today's parents shared with their own dads encouraged them to be more active with their children.

    Dr. Amanda Gummer, psychologist and founder of Fundamentally Children, a company which provides advice on child development, said being adventurous helps children. She said, “Being adventurous from an early age helps children develop important skills that will last throughout childhood and set them up for a healthy and successful adulthood.”

    Outdoor activities are a popular choice for dads and their children, with 40 percent choosing nature trails and 26 percent looking for wildlife, while 13 percent say their top outdoor activity is climbing trees. The simple things are the most popular, with 46 percent going to the park and 41 percent choosing to kick a ball around their children.

    Dr Gummer said, “Children are able to challenge themselves by being more adventurous, and they can be safe in the knowledge that their dad will be there to help if things start getting out of control. Parents can help encourage their children's adventurous, outdoor spirit with wildlife treasure hunts and adventure playgrounds. They can even do more exciting things, like going on camping trips.

    Want to find a job? Now read the following advertisement.

    Feelings often run high where insects are concerned, with many people even sick when seeing them, let alone touch or swallow them. And yet insects present a huge nutritional opportunity as an increasing global population seeks more sources of food and feed.

    Insects have generally high levels of animal protein and key micronutrients with lower environmental footprints than traditional alternatives, and they can be raised on leftovers. But cultural, social and economic problems remain, reports an article published today in Nutrition Bulletin.

    “Insects present a nutritional opportunity, but it is unclear how their nutritional quality is influenced by what they are fed, "says Darja Dobermann, a researcher at the University of Nottingham.“In ideal conditions, insects have a smaller environmental impact than most traditional western forms of animal protein; less known is how to raise insect production while maintaining these environmental benefits.”

    “Studies overall show that insects could make valuable economic and nutritional contributions to the food or feed sys tems, but there are no clear regulations in place to bring insects into such supply systems without them turning into a more expensive version of poultry（家禽）for food,” says Dobermann.

    The article highlights how insects have been a source of food for hundreds of years in more than 100countries with over 2,000 species that can be eaten; in central Africa, up to 50% of dietary protein has come from insects, with their market value higher than many alternative sources of animal protein.

    Insects need to be large enough to make the effort of catching them worthwhile and easy to locate, preferably in predictably large quantities. They are consumed at various life stages, as raw, fried, boiled, roasted or ground food.

On Monday, a scientist and doctor Robert Winston is to formally ask a question in congress about what assessments the government has made "for requiring adults riding bicycles in city centres to heave a licence and third-party insurance". The letter below is the entirely imagined response I would like the government to make to him.

Dear Robert,

You ask what assessments we've made for your proposal about obliging cyclists to have licences and insurance. The brief answer is: none. Nor do we have any plans to do so.

Why? Again, the short answer is this: it's a silly and pointless thing to suggest, as evidenced by the fact that practically no countries or territories anywhere in the world require cyclists to be licensed, or to have compulsory insurance.

I suppose it's only fair if I explain why I think it is such a non-issue. It's pretty simple: such a plan would achieve pretty much nothing, while causing significant problems. More widely, any sensible governments will do everything in their power to get more people cycling, not to put pointless obstacles in their way.

Let's just take one example. As I'm sure you know as a doctor, one of the problems facing our nation is that the National Health System is likely to collapse under the caring for an increasingly overweight population. Inactive living is central to this. Even a fairly brief daily bike trip can have miraculous benefits for people's health.

Next, how would such rules even work? Would the licensing and insurance be just for adults, or also children? How would the system even be enforced-would it also require all bikes to be registered with number plates?

Finally, what would you hope to achieve by this? If you believe licensing transport users stops wrongdoing, can I point to you the data showing how a third of drivers admit to using handheld phones while driving, despite the law forbidding it.

So, to summarize：your plan would be to introduce a hugely new administrative scheme that would most likely have limited effect on the behaviour of averagely law-abiding (守法的) transport users who rarely harm others, while putting people off from this beneficial type of transport.

I'm afraid I just don't get it.