C

    This month, Germany's transport minister, Alexander Dobrindt, proposed the first set of rules for autonomous vehicles(自主驾驶车辆). They would define the driver's role in such cars and govern how such cars perform in crashes where lives might be lost.

    The proposal attempts to deal with what some call the “death valley” of autonomous vehicles: the grey area between semi-autonomous and fully driverless cars that could delay the driverless future.

    Dobrindt wants three things: that a car always chooses property(财产) damage over personal injury; that it never distinguishes between humans based on age or race; and that if a human removes his or her hands from the driving wheel — to check email, say — the car's maker is responsible if there is a crash.

    “The change to the road traffic law will permit fully automatic driving,” says Dobrindt. It will put fully driverless cars on an equal legal footing to human drivers, he says.

    Who is responsible for the operation of such vehicles is not clear among car makers, consumers and lawyers. “The liability(法律责任) issue is the biggest one of them all,” says Natasha Merat at the University of Leeds, UK.

    An assumption behind UK insurance for driverless cars, introduced earlier this year, insists that a human “ be watchful and monitoring the road” at every moment.

    But that is not what many people have in mind when thinking of driverless cars. “When you say ‘driverless cars', people expect driverless cars.”Merat says. “You know — no driver.”

    Because of the confusion, Merat thinks some car makers will wait until vehicles can be fully automated without operation.

    Driverless cars may end up being a form of public transport rather than vehicles you own, says Ryan Calo at Stanford University, California. That is happening in the UK and Singapore, where government-provided driverless vehicles are being launched.

    That would go down poorly in the US, however. “The idea that the government would take over driverless cars and treat them as a public good would get absolutely nowhere here,” says Calo.

    It was once common to regard Britain as a society with class distinction. Each class had unique characteristics.

    In recent years, many writers have begun to speak the “decline of class”and “classless society”in Britain. And in modern day consumer society everyone is considered to be middle class.

    But pronouncing the death of class is too early. A recent wide-ranging society of public opinion found 90 percent of people still placing themselves in particular class; 73 percent agreed that class was still a vital part of British society; and 52 percent thought there were still sharp class differences. Thus, class may not be culturally and politically obvious, yet it remains an important part of British society. Britain seems to have a love of stratification.

    One unchanging aspect of a British person's class position is accent. The words a person speaks tell her or his class. A study of British accents during 1970s found that a voice sounding like a BBC newsreader was viewed as the most attractive voice, Most people said this accent sounded “educated” and “soft”. The accents placed at the bottom in this study, on the other hand, were regional（地区的）city accents. These accents were seen as “common” and “ugly”. However, a similar study of British accents in the US turned these results upside down and placed some regional accents as the most attractive and BBC English as the least. This suggests that British attitudes towards accent have deep roots and are based on class prejudice.

    In recent years, however, young upper middle-class people in London, have begun to adopt some regional accents, in order to hide their class origins. This is an indication of class becoming unnoticed. However, the 1995 pop song “Common People” puts forward the view that though a middle-class person may “want to live like common people” they can never appreciate the reality of a working-class life.

    During my early twenties, to make my parents stop feeling angry, and simply to escape, I decided to live in my birthplace for a period of time, something I'd sworn I would never do. My parents were thrilled. They prayed that I'd come back triumphantly with a picture－perfect bridegroom. That was the furthest thing from my mind as I packed my faded jeans, tank tops, boots, and a photo of my freckle－faced then－boyfriend who was of Scottish descent.

    The moment I landed in Seoul, I was aware of how much I felt like a misfit. All my life I had tried to blend into the dominant culture and couldn't. And finally, when I was in a place where everyone looked like me, I still stood out. I took it for granted that I'd feel a sense of freedom. I thought I'd blend into the landscape. This was not the case. People stared at me with curious eyes. I became conscious of my American－girl swaggering body movements and inappropriate dress.

    Collecting my courage, I traveled to the demilitarized zone on my own. I touched the high barbed－wire fence that stretched across the belly of the peninsula(半岛), dividing Korea in half. I visited thousand－year－old temples and magnificent palace gates that had survived modernization and centuries of battle. I met with distant cousins who welcomed me with outstretched arms into their homes and related heroic tales about my mother and Halmoni (Grandmother) during the war. How Halmoni had led her young children out of north to the United Nation－backed south. How my mother, at the age of thirteen, saved the life of her baby sister.

    I listened with such an overwhelming thirst that when I returned to the States a year and a half later, I began to ask my parents and Halmoni (who had immigrated to the States some time after we did) all about the past. The past was no longer a time gone by, a dead weight. I now saw that it held ancient treasures. And the more I dug and discovered, the more I felt myself being steered toward a future I had never imagined for myself. I began to write. I didn't even know I could write. My family helped me knit stories into a book using Halmoni's voice. As her powerful words moved through me I was able to reflect and meditate on the ridiculous life I had fashioned for myself. I could feel my sense of self rising. This sparked a newfound awareness and excitement. I became a spokeswoman on Korean culture, traveling to various college campuses across the country. “Be proud. Embrace your heritage.” I said to young Korean American students wearing extra－large, trendy sportswear. But the whole time I was lecturing, I had very little understanding of what that self－concept meant. I was merely talking the talk. I hadn't yet fully embraced my own identity.

    Hold your smartphone, smile at the front camera, and click! You get a selfie. There is no doubt that this photo is yours. But if a monkey takes a selfie, does the camera owner have the right to decide how to use it?

    Recently, this question has caused a problem between Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization, and British wildlife photographer David J. Slater.

    In 2011, Slater was visiting a park in Indonesia when a macaque(猕猴) got hold of one of his cameras. “They were quite naughty, jumping all over my equipment,” Slater told The Telegraph, “and it looked like they were already posing for the  camera when one hit the button.” The result was hundreds of monkey selfies. The best of images was a female macaque grinning toothily into the lens.

    This week, the grinning monkey selfie returned to the news when Wikimedia refused Slater's request to take the photos down from Wikimedia Commons, a website that is run by the organization and offers free images.   5

According to Wikimedia, anyone who downloads the monkey selfie, or any of the millions of images on the site, can “copy and use any works here freely as long as they follow what the author says.” The question that arose here was whether Slater, who had not held the camera, set up the shot, or pressed the shutter(快门) button, could be considered the photographer of the monkey selfie. Wikimedia's position on this was clear: as the work of a non-human animal, this photo has no human author who owns the copyright.”

    Only authors of creative works, like a piece of writing or a song, own copyrights. In terms of photos, US copyright law says whoever pushes the button on the camera owns the copyright to the image produced, which means that if tourists ask you to take a photo of them, and you happen to hit the shutter button at the exact moment that Justin Bieber, a Canadian singer, made faces behind them. You, as the photographer, would have the photo's copyright and sell it. The tourists, who own the camera on which the photo was taken and asked you to take the photo don't get the right to use it without you allowing them to. All this has been complicated by the appearance of surveillance cameras(监控摄像头), smart phones, and large-scale photography projects for which assistants often press the shutter button to produce works whose copyrights belong to their boss.

    Slater seems to be thinking along these lines. He says that buying the cameras, spending thousands of pounds to transport himself to Indonesia, and allowing the monkeys to “steal” his cameras makes him the author of the image, regardless of who pushed the button. “In law, if I have an assistant then I still own the copyright,” he told the “Today” Show. “I believe in this case, the monkey was my assistant.”

    If that seems unfair, think about this. If a person left her laptop in a café, and a poet picked it up, opened up a word-processing program, and typed out a poem which turned out to be the best poem of this generation, could she ask for much more than her laptop back?

    Do you have a spare room in your house? What about a driveway for your car? Both of these can help you make money. Many people who are feeling the pinch are taking advantage of what's been called the “sharing economy”.

Perhaps the best-known example of a company in this field is Airbnb—an American web business which allows you to rent out your spare room to holidaymakers. It says it operates in 34,000 cities and it has over 1,500,000 listings.It seems to have concerned the market!

A British company is doing something with parking spaces. JustPark's founder, Anthony Eskinazi, says,“When I had the original idea, Ispotted a driveway close to a sports stadium. It would have been so convenient if I could have just parked in that driveway rather than in commercial car park.” And he has a big clientele（客户）:around 20,000 people have advertised their spaces on the site, and he says around half a million drivers use it. There are other sites doing very similar things, like Uber and Lyft—these let drivers share their cars with other passengers. Any driver knows how valuable a place to park is .A church near Kings Cross in central London has apparently made over £200,000 by renting out space in its yard to travelers!

    Because this is a new business world, those rules aren't there yet and many people are happy to share...as long as it pays!

    But the sharing economy has its critics: the competitors of these new companies. People who run things like traditional B&B, commercial car parks and taxi services are afraid of ending up out of pocket. And there is another issue: regulations on these new business are unclear. How will renting out your driveway affect your neighbor?

    Why is it that many people who have suffered a major shock, such as divorce or death of a family member, seem to be weaker against a variety of major and minor illness? One common idea among psychologists has been that people could deal with suffering more effectively if they were able to understand and accept it. Indeed, many experts stress the value of expressing thoughts and feelings connected with upsetting events.

    Recently, a team of medical researchers studied the links between describing psychologically painful events and long-term health. In one experiment healthy college students were asked to write about either personally disturbing experiences or ordinary topics over a period of four days. In the months afterwards, students who had chosen to show their inner thoughts and feelings in their writing visited the health center for illness much less often than those who had written about everyday topics.

    In an experiment that followed, another group of healthy students were given the four-day writing exercises. Some chose to write about highly personal and upsetting experiences (including loneliness, problems with family and friends, and health). When questioned immediately afterwards, they said that they did not feel any better. However, their blood samples(样本) taken before and after the experiment showed evidence of an improved resistance to illness. The white cells that fight off bacteria and viruses had increased their reaction and sensitivity to these "invaders". This trend continued over the following six weeks, when another blood sample was taken. Individuals who showed the best results were those who wrote about topics that they had actively kept from telling others about.

    The researchers suggested that failure to face up to painful experience can be a form of stress itself, and can increase the possibility of illness. It follows, then, that actively dealing with a major shock makes possible its understanding and acceptance. The answer is not to suffer in silence. It may not always be possible to talk about personal problems, but writing them down will help the body to fight disease in the long run.