Multitasking

    What is the first thing you notice when you walk into a shop? The products displayed (展示) at the entrance? Or the soft background music?

    But have you ever notice the smell? Unless it is bad, the answer is likely to be no. But while a shop's scent may not be outstanding compared with sights and sounds, it is certainly there. And it is providing to be an increasing powerful tool in encouraging people to purchase.

    A brand store has become famous for its distinctive scent which floats through the fairly dark hall and out to the entrance, via scent machines. A smell may be attractive but it may not just be used for freshening air. One sports goods company once reported that when it first introduced scent into its stores, customers' intension to purchase increased by 80 percent.

    When it comes to the best shopping streets in Pairs, scent is just as important to a brand's success as the quality of its window displays and goods on sales. That is mainly because shopping is a very different experience to what it used to be.

    Some years ago, the focus for brand name shopping was on a few people with sales assistants' disproving attitude and don't touch what you can't afford displays. Now the rise of electronic commerce (e-commerce) has opened up famous brands to a wider audience. But while e-shops can use sights and sounds, only bricks-and-mortar stores (实体店) can offer a full experience from the minute customers step through the door to the moment they leave. Another brand store seeks to be much more than a shop, but rather a destination. And scent is just one way to achieve this. Now a famous store uses complex man-made smell to make sure that the soft scent of baby powder floats through the kid department, and coconut (椰子) scent in the swimsuit section. A department store has even opened a new lab, inviting customers on a journey into the store's windows to smell books, pots and drawers, in search of their perfect scent.

    Rome, Paris and New York are the world's top fashion cities, all of which have produced some of the top trends, from fashionable skirts to the hottest new shoes. But have you ever wondered about the negative ideas that they have enforced?

    In April 2016, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in Britain banned an ad from Gucci that featured models dancing around and having fun, because they were all extremely skinny. Banning ads due to the models' extreme figures isn't new. The ASA banned an ad in 2015 for the same reason. In France, it has been ruled that models are to provide a doctor's note providing that they are at a healthy weight.

    So what is the healthy weight for models? Twenty years ago, the average fashion model weighed 8% less than the average woman. Today, they weigh 23% less.

    People may think that being at an unhealthy weight will help them gain the benefits that the models do. This provides a standard of beauty, and therefore people who want to achieve those things may attempt to obtain them through unhealthy ways. People may think that they are overweight, due to the images of models¹ thin figures. They see something wrong with their bodies, whether they are overweight or not. This is a key factor in a lowered body image, low self-esteem, depression and possibly even eating disorders.

    I'm not blaming the fashion industry by any means. It's not their fault that many people look up to the models and expect to live a life like theirs. I am glad that the ASA is raising its voices when discussing the growing issue of body images in the fashion industry. By banning photos and videos, speaking out against them and pushing for doctor's notes from the models, it's pushing for the ideas that the traditional fashion industry's body image demands should be changed and something more needs to be questioned.

    The possibility of self-driving robot cars has often seemed like a futurist's dream, years away from coming into reality in the real world. Well, the future is apparently now. The California Department of Motor Vehicles began giving permits in April for companies to test truly self-driving cars on public roads. The state also cleared the way for companies to sell or rent out self-driving cars, and for companies to operate driverless taxi services. California, it should be noted, isn't leading the way here. Companies have been testing their cars in cities across the country. It's hard to predict when driverless cars will be everywhere on our roads. But however long it takes, the technology may change our transportation systems and our cities, for better or for worse, depending on how the transformation is managed.

    While much of the debate so far has been focused on the safety of driverless cars, policymakers should be talking more about how self-driving cars can help reduce traffic jams, cut emissions(排放)and offer more convenient and affordable choices to move around. The arrival of driverless cars is a chance to make sure that those cars are environmentally friendly and more shared.

    Do we want to copy or even worsen the traffic of today with driverless cars? Imagine a future where most adults own their self-driving cars. They accept long, slow journeys to and from work on crowded highways because they can work, entertain themselves or sleep on the ride. They take their driverless car to a date and set the empty car to circle the building to avoid paying for parking. Instead of walking a few blocks to pick up a child or the dry cleaning, they send the self-driving minibus. The convenience even leads fewer people to take public transport — an unwelcome side effect researchers have already found in ride-hailing(网约车)services. Policymakers should start thinking now about how to make sure the appearance of driverless cars doesn't worsen the transportation system we have today. The coming technological development presents a chance for cities and states to develop transportation systems designed to move more people, and more affordably. The car of the future is coming. We just have to plan for it.

    Societies all over the world name places in similar ways. Quite often there is no official naming ceremony but places tend to be called names as points of reference by people. Then an organized body steps in and gives the place a name. Frequently it happens that a place has two names: One is named by the people and the other by the government. As in many areas, old habits died hard, and the place continues to be called by its unofficial name long after the meaning is lost.

Many roads and places in Singapore(新加坡) are named in order that the pioneers will be remembered by future generations. Thus we have names such as Stamford Road and Raffles Place. This is in keeping with traditions in many countries — in both the West and the East.

Another way of naming places is naming them after other places. Perhaps they were named to promote friendships between the two places or it could be that the people who used to live there were originally from the places that the roads were named after. The mystery is clearer when we see some of the roads named in former British bases. If you step into Selector Airbase you will see Piccadilly Circus — obviously named by some homesick Royal Air Force personnel.

    Some places were named after the activities that used to go on at those places. Bras Basah Road is an interesting example, "Base Basah" means "wet rice" in Malay(马来语). Now why would anyone want to name a road "Wet Rice Road"? The reason is simple. During the pioneering days, wet rice was laid out to dry along this road.

    A few roads in Singapore are named by their shapes. There is "Circular Road" for one. Other roads may have part of their names to describe their shapes, like "Paya Lebar Crescent". This road is called a crescent (月牙) because it begins on the main road, makes a crescent and comes back to join the main road again.

    Imagine possessing something that you loved so much. Imagine what it would feel like if you lost it. While that item may be something as simple as a doll, you would still feel very upset, but you could replace it with a new one. Now imagine losing something that you depend on for survival and cannot be replaced. That is what it would be like if we lost the natural environment around us.

    Firstly, I believe the environment should be preserved because it supports human life. One of the largest examples is that we get all of our food and drinks from the environment. If the environment were to be destroyed beyond revival, then the human race would be over in months. Scientists have yet to find another planet with similar conditions to the Earth, and if it's found, we don't have the technology to get to that planet on time.

    Secondly, I believe that the environment serves as an amazing educational tool for students. When I was in second grade, I had an absolute interest in animals. When we had a field trip to the Daggerwing Nature Center, I was very excited. When we got there, I could hardly believe what I was seeing. There was a bridge to get to the main building, and under the bridge was a small swamp (沼泽) with turtles, fish, and my personal favorite, alligators. I was so surprised that I almost ran into the tour guide. We walked into the building and saw various animals in their habitats. I was so inspired by this visit. Six years later, I have taken an animal behavior class for three weeks. Meeting by chance with the environment can inspire people, and if preserved it will continue to inspire people.

    In conclusion, the environment is so valuable because it can't be replaced, keeps us alive, and serves as a great educational tool.

    Babies born in summer are more likely to become short-sighted in late life, a study has shown.

    As many as a quarter of all cases of short-sightedness are caused by too great an exposure to sunlight in the first weeks of life, say eye experts.

    They are advising all parents to put sunglasses on their babies during the first weeks.

    Scientists had already established that over-exposure to sunlight caused shortsightedness in animals.

    Researchers who compared the months in which babies were born with whether they needed glasses later on say the principle also applies to humans.

    A study of almost 300, 000 young adults-the largest of its kind-showed that those born in June and July had a 25 per cent greater chance of becoming severely short-sighted than those born in December or January.

    Research leader Professor Michael Belkin, of Tel Aviv University, said it was because prolonged illumination(光照) causes the eyeball to lengthen-causing short-sightedness.

    Hence the more light a newborn is exposed to, the more the eyeball lengthens and the worse the short-sightedness will be.

    The mechanism which lengthens the eyeball is associated with levels of melatonin(褪黑激素), a pigment (色素) which protects the skin against harmful rays of the sun.

    In young babies not enough melatonin is released as protection, meaning they are more vulnerable to sunburn and changes to eyeball shape.

    Sight expert Professor Daniel O'Leary, of Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, said "At the moment we don't know the precise cause of why light exposure affects sight, but the evidence seems to prove that it is one of the reasons for people becoming shortsighted."