The oddness of life in space never quite goes away. Here are some examples.

    Television has turned 88 years old onSeptember 7, 2015, and it has never looked better. In its youth, television wasa piece of furniture with a tiny, round screen showing unclear pictures oflow-budget programs. In spite of its shortcomings, it became popular. Between1950 and 1963, the number of American families with a television jumped from 9%to 92% of the population.

    As the audience got larger, thetechnology got better. Television sets became more reliable through the 1960s.The reception (接收效果) improved. The picture improved. The major networks started broadcastingprograms in color.

    Even greater improvements were comingaccording to Sanford Brown, who wrote an article for the Post in 1967. Surprisingly, just about every prediction he made in the article became areality. For example: All sets in the not-distant future will be colorinstruments. He also predicted that TV sets would become smaller, simpler, morereliable and less expensive and may forever put the TV repairman out of work.Smaller sets do not, of course, mean smaller screens. TV engineers expectscreens to get much bigger. However, today's 3-D TV is even farther away, if it's coming at all. There is some doubt whether the public would be eager topay for it, in view of people's cold reception given to 3-D movies.

    But the technology with the greatestpotential, according to Brown, was cable television (有线电视), whichwas still in its early stages then. As he predicted, the future of cabletelevision was highly interactive (互动的). It wasn't cable television that gaveAmericans their electronic connection to the world, however. It was theInternet. He even foresaw the future office: using picture phones, big-screentelevisions for conferences, and computers providing information at the touchof a button.

    Brown ever said, “The future oftelevision is no longer a question of what we can invent. It's a question ofwhat we want.”

    Imagine that you're looking at your company-issued smartphone and you notice an e-mail from Linkedln: “These companies are looking for candidates like you!” You aren't necessarily searching for a job, but you're always open to opportunities, so out of curiosity, you click on the link. A few minutes later your boss appears at your desk. “We've noticed that you're spending more time on Linkedln lately, so I wanted to talk with you about your career and whether you're happy here,” she says. Uh-oh.

     It's an awkward scene. Attrition (损耗) has always been expensive for companies, but in many industries the cost of losing good workers is rising, owing to tight labor markets. Thus companies are making greater efforts to predict which workers are at high risk of leaving ,so that managers can try to stop them. Methods range from electronic monitor to well-designed analyses of employees' social media lives.

     Some of this work may be a reason to let employees to quit. In general, people leave their jobs because they don't like their boss, don't see opportunities for promotion or growth, or are offered a higher pay; these reasons have held steady for years.

    New research conducted by CEB, a Washington-based technology company, looks not just at why workers quit but also at when. “We've learned that what really affects people is their sense of how they're doing compared with other people in their peer group, or with where they thought they would be at a certain point in life, says Brian Kropp, who heads CEB's HR practice. “We've learned to focus on moments that allow people to make these comparisons.”

Technology also provides clues about which star employees might be eyeing the exit. Companies can tell whether employees using work computers or phones are spending time on (or even just opening e-mails from) career websites, and research shows that more firms are paying attention to these things. Large companies have also begun searching for badge swipes (浏览痕迹)—- employees' use of an ID to enter and exit the building or the parking garage—to identify patterns that suggest a worker may be interviewing for a job.

    If English means endless new words, difficult grammar and sometimes strange pronunciation, you are wrong. Haven't you noticed that you have become smarter since you started to learn a language?

    According to a new study by a British university, learning a second language can lead to an increase in your brain power. Researchers found that learning other languages changes grey mater. This is the area of the brain which processes information. It is similar to the way that exercise builds muscles.

    The study also found the effect is greater when the younger people learn a second language. A team led by Dr. Andrea Mechelli, from University College London, took a group of Britons who only spoke English. They were compared with a group of bilinguals who had learnt a second language before the age of five, as well as a number of later learners.

    Scans showed that grey mater density(密度) in the brain was greater in bilinguals than in people without a second language.

    “Our findings suggest that the structure of the brain is changed by the experience of learning a second language,” said the scientists. It means that the change itself increases the ability to learn.

    Professor Dylan Vaughan Jones of the University of Wales, has researched the link between bilingualism and maths skills. “Having two languages gives you two windows on the world and makes the brain more flexible,” he said. “You are actually going beyond language and have a better understanding of different ideas.”

    The findings were matched in a study of native Italian speakers who had learned English as a second language between the ages of two and thirty-four. Reading, writing, and comprehension were all tested. The results showed that the younger they started to learn, the better. “Studying a language means you get an entrance to another world,” explained the scientists.

    Canada is a very large country. It is the second largest country in the world. By contrast it has a very small population. There are only about 29 million people there. Most Canadians are of British or French origin, and French is an official language of Canada as well as English. About 45% of the people are of British origin, that is, they or their parents or grandparents, etc., come from Britain. Nearly 30% are of French origin. Most of the French-Canadians live in the province of Quebec.

    Over the years, people have come to live in Canada from many countries in the world. They are from most European countries and also from China, besides other Asian countries.

    However, Canada was not an empty country when the Europeans began to arrive. Canadian Indians lived along the coast, by the rivers and lakes and in forests. Today there are only about 350, 000 Indians in the whole country, with their own languages. In the far north live the Inuit. There are only 27, 000 Canadian-Inuit. Their life is hard in such a difficult climate.

    There is virtue in working standing up. It sounds like a fashion. But it does have a basis in science.

    That, by itself, may not be surprising. Health ministries ask people for decades to do more exercise. What is surprising is that long periods of inactivity are bad regardless of how much time you also spend on officially approved high-impact stuff like pounding treadmills(跑步机) in the gym. What you need instead, the latest research suggests, is constant low-level activity. This can be so low-level that you might not think of it as activity at all. Even just standing up counts, for it invokes muscles that sitting does not.

Researchers in this field trace the history of the idea that standing up is good for you back to 1953, when a study published in The Lancet found that bus conductors, who spent their days standing, had a risk of heart attack half that of bus drivers, who spent their shifts on their backsides. But as the health benefits of exercise and vigorous(强度大的) physical activity began to become clear in the 1970s, says David Dunstan, a researcher at the Baker IDI Heart & Diabetes Institute in Melbourne, Australia, interest in low-intensity activity — like walking and standing — became weaker.

    Over the past few years, however, interest has been excited again. A series of studies, none big enough to provide convincing evidence, but all pointing in the same direction, persuaded Emma Wilmot of the University of Leicester, in Britain, to carry out a meta-analysis. This is a technique that combines diverse studies in a statistically meaningful way. Dr Wilmot combined 18 of them, covering almost 800,000 people and concluded that those individuals who are the least active in their normal daily lives are twice as likely to develop diabetes(糖尿病) as those who are the most active. She also found that the immobile are twice as likely to die from a heart attack and two-and-a-half times as likely to suffer cardiovascular disease as the most mobile. Crucially, all this seemed to be independent of the amount of vigorous, gym-style exercise that volunteers did.