People in the western state of California who are in the United States illegally can now request a driver's license. The law went into effect on January l. California is not the first American state with such a law, but it has the largest number of illegal immigrants. More than a million people began to request licenses shortly after the new state law went into effect. Among them was Christian Alvarado. Mr. Alvarado entered the United States from El Salvador eight years ago without permission from the U.S. government. Some call such people "illegal immigrants." Others call them "undocumented immigrants".

    Mr. Alvarado thinks it so exciting, for he has been waiting for the license for a long time. But some are worried that their personal information will be used to find them and deport them. Armando Botello is a spokesman for the California Department of Motor Vehicles, or DMV. He says people should not be afraid, for such information will not be shared.

    The new licenses are the same as licenses given to citizens except that they have the words "Federal Limits Apply". That means the license cannot be used to travel on an airplane or enter a federal building. Ana Garcia, working at the Central American Resource Center, says some illegal immigrants fear those words will be used to abuse them. Civil rights groups say the police and others will not.

    Dan Schnur, a political scientist at the University of Southern California, said that the main argument against the new law is that it rewards illegal behavior. But Professor Schnur argued that young, white Americans generally support immigration reform, including giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants

    "It's simply because they grew up in a much more multicultural society than their parents or their grandparents did." Professor Schnur says he believes the changes in beliefs about illegal immigrants that have taken place in California will spread throughout the United States.

    Neuroscientists have explained the risky, aggressive or just plain baffling behavior of teenagers as the product of a brain that is somehow compromised. Groundbreaking research in the past 10 years, however, shows that this view is wrong. The teen brain is not defective. It is not a half-baked adult brain, either. It has been forged by evolution to function differently from that of a child or an adult.

    The most important of the teen brain's features is its ability to change in response to the environment by modifying the communication networks that connect brain regions. It allows teenagers to make enormous progress in thinking and socialization. But the change also makes them sensitive to dangerous behavior and serious mental disorders.

    The most recent studies indicate that the riskiest behaviors arise from a mismatch between the maturation of networks in the limbic system(边缘系统), which drives emotions at adolescence, and the maturation of networks in the prefrontal cortex（前额皮质）, which occurs later and promotes sound judgment and the control of impulses. Indeed, we now know that one's prefrontal cortex continues to change noticeably until his 20s. And yet adolescence seems to be starting earlier, extending the “mismatch years.”

    The plasticity of networks linking brain regions—and not the growth of those regions, as previously thought—is key to eventually behaving like an adult. Understanding that, and knowing that a widening gap between the development of emotional and judgment networks is happening in young people today, can help parents, teachers, counselors and teenagers themselves. People will better see that behavior such as risk-taking and turning away from parents and toward peers are not signs of cognitive or emotional problems. They are a natural result of brain development, a normal part of adolescents learning how to negotiate with a complex world.

    The same understanding can also help adults decide when to intervene. A 15-year-old girl's departure from her parents' tastes in clothing, music or politics may be a source of anxiety for Mom and Dad but does not indicate mental illness. A 16-year-old boy's tendency to skateboard without a helmet or to accept risky dares from friends is not unimportant but is more likely a sign of short-range thinking and peer pressure than a desire to hurt himself. Knowing more about the unique teen brain will help all of us learn how to separate unusual behavior that is age-appropriate from that which might indicate illness. Such awareness could help society reduce the rates of teen addiction, motor vehicle accidents and depression.

    Generations of Americans have been brought up to believe that a good breakfast is one of life's essentials. Eating breakfast at the start of the day, we have all been told again, is as necessary as putting gasoline in the family car before starting a trip.

    But for many people the thought of food as first thing in the morning is by no means a pleasure. So despite all the efforts, they still take no breakfast. Between 1977 and 1983, the latest year for which figures are available, the number of people who didn't have breakfast increased by 33 percent-from 8.8 million to 11.7 million-according to the Chicago-based Market Research Corporation of America.

    For those who feel pain or guilt about not earing breakfast, however, there is some good news. Several studies in the last few years indicate that, for adults especially, there may be nothing wrong with not taking breakfast. “Going without breakfast does not affect performance,” said Arnold E. Bender, former professor of nutrition（营养）at Queen Elizabeth College in London, “nor doegiving people breakfast improve performance.”

    Scientific evidence linking breakfast to better health or better performance is surprisingly inadequate, and most of the recent work involves children, not adults. “The literature,” says one researcher, Dr. Ernesto Pollitt at the University of Texas, “is poor.”

    Although his 1-year-old smart-phone still works perfectly, Li Jijia already feels the need to replace it.

    "There are many better ones available now. It's time to upgrade(更新）my phone."

    Li's impatience is shared by many. Shortly after the season when new products are released（发布，发售）, many consumers feel the urge to upgrade their electronic equipment, even though the ones they have still work just fine.

    As consumers' minds are occupied by Apple's newly released products and debate whether the Google tablet is better than the new Amazon Kindle, it might be time to take a step back and ask: "Do we really need the latest upgrades?"

    According to Donald Norman, an American author, "planned obsolescence (淘汰）" is the trick behind the upgrading culture of today's consumer electronics industry.

    Electronics producers strategically release new upgrades periodically, both for hardware and software, so that customers on every level feel the need to buy the newest version.

"This is an old-time trick—they're not inventing anything new," Norman said. "This is a wasteful system through which companies--many of them producing personal electronics—— release poor-quality products simply because they know that, in six months or a year, they'll put out a new one."

    But the new psychology of consumers is part of this system, as Norman admitted, "We now want something new, something pretty, the next shiny thing." In its most recent year, Apple's profit margin(利润) was more than 21 percent. At Hewlett-Packard, the world's biggest PC maker, it was only 7 percent.

    Apple's annual upgrades of its products create sales of millions of units as owners of one year's MacBook or iPhone line up to buy the newest version, even when the changes are slight.

    As to Li Jijia, the need for upgrading his smart-phone comes mainly from friends and classmates. When they are switching to the latest equipment, he worries about feeling left out.

    "Some games require better hardware to run," said Li. "If you don't join in, you lose part of the connection to your friends."

    About twenty of us had been fortunate enough to receive invitations to a film­studio (影棚) to take part in a crowd­scene. Although our “act” would last only for a short time，we could see quite a number of interesting things.

    We all stood at the far end of the studio as workmen prepared the scene，setting up trees at the edge of a winding path. Very soon, bright lights were turned on and the big movie­camera was wheeled into position. The director shouted something to the camera operator and then went to speak to the two famous actors nearby. Since it was hot in the studio, it came as a surprise to us to see one of the actors put on a heavy overcoat and start walking along the path. A big fan began blowing tiny white feathers down on him, and soon the trees were covered in “snow”. Two more fans were turned on，and a “strong wind” blew through the trees. The picture looked so real that it made us feel cold.

    The next scene was a complete contrast (对比). The way it was filmed was quite unusual. Pictures taken on an island in the Pacific were shown on a glass screen (幕). An actor and actress stood in front of the scene so that they looked as if they were at the water's edge on an island. By a simple trick like this, palm trees, sandy beaches, and blue, clear skies had been brought into the studio!

    Since it was our turn next，we were left wondering what scene would be prepared for us. For a full three minutes in our lives we would be experiencing the excitement of being film “stars”！

    Imagine being a business that regularly takes huge quantities of your own products worth millions of pounds and burns them up. Your stock literally goes up in smoke. It sounds crazy, but the practice is common for some of the world's biggest clothing manufacturers. They argue that it is the most cost-effective way of maintaining their brand's exclusivity (独特性).

    The clothes that are burned are those that do not sell at a high enough price. Rather than watch them go on sale, the companies would set fire to them and regain a small amount of energy.

    Nobody knows exactly how much unsold stock is burnt annually by those fashion houses, but burning clothes has various negative impacts on the environment. For example, burning clothes made from artificial fibers may release plastic microfibers into the atmosphere, which worsens global warming. A U.K. parliamentary committee report on sustainability and the fashion industry advises the government to ban the burning of unsold stock if it can be reused or recycled.

    Actually, there are other approaches. What if those companies had a section tasked with taking back unsold clothes, redesigning them into new products, and shipping out the new products to the market once again?

    There is also now an opportunity to focus on biodegradable (可生物降解的)fabrics. Clothes that break down faster might not have to be burned. They would also appeal to those who care about the environmental impact of their own wardrobes.

    Additionally, we have an over-production problem. According to the World Bank, while clothing sales have risen steadily since 2000, clothing utilization has fallen at roughly the same rate. For every extra T-shirt that is sold, it will be worn roughly half as much as it would have been 20 years ago. That means better forecasting market trends would in theory result in less waste.

    Burning clothes won't happen simply through fashion firms. The scale of fashion production has to change. And it's important to recognize that these consumer-focused brands will only go where the market takes them. If protecting the environment really matters to the public, they have to make clear that they want more sustainable clothing in the first place. Without consumers demanding that, it won't change.