Elizabeth Freeman was born about 1742 to African American parents who were slaves. At the age of six months she was acquired, along with her sister, by John Ashley, a wealthy Massachusetts slaveholders. She became known as “Mumbet” or “Mum Bett.”

    For nearly 30 years Mumbet served the Ashley family. One day, Ashley's wife tried to strike Mumbet's sister with a spade. Mumbet protected her sister and took the blow instead. Furious, she left the house and refused to come back. When the Ashleys tried to make her return, Mumbet consulted a lawyer, Theodore Sedgewick. With his help, Mumbet sued(起诉) for her freedom.

While serving the Ashleys, Mumbet had listened to many discussions of the new Massachusetts constitution. If the constitution said that all people were free and equal, then she thought it should apply to her. Eventually, Mumbet won her freedom—- the first slave in Massachusetts to do so under the new constitution.

    Strangely enough, after the trial, the Ashleys asked Mumbet to come back and work for them as a paid employee. She declined and instead went to work for Segdewick. Mumbet died in 1829, but her legacy lived on in her many descendants(后裔). One of her great-grandchildren was W.E.B. Du Bois, one of the founder of the NAACP, and an important writer and spokesperson for African American civil rights.

    Mumbet's tombstone still stands in the Massachusetts cemetery where she was buried. It reads, in part: “She was born a slave and remained a slave and remained a slave for nearly thirty years. She could neither read nor write, yet in her own sphere she had no superior or equal.”

    In colleges around the country, most students are also workers. The reality of college can be pretty different from the images presented in movies and television. Instead of the students who wake up late, party all the time, and study only before exams, many colleges are full of students with pressing schedules of not just classes and activities, but real jobs, too.

    This isn't a temporary phenomenon. The share of working students has been on the rise since the 1970s, and one-fifth of students work year round. About one-quarter of those who work while attending school have both a full-course load and a full-time job. The arrangement can help pay for tuition (学费) and living costs, obviously. And there's value in it beyond the direct cause: such jobs can also be critical for developing important professional and social skills that make it easier to land a job after graduation. With many employers looking for students with already-developed skill sets, on-the-job training while in college can be the best way to ensure a job later on.

    But it's not all upside. Even full-time work may not completely cover the cost of tuition and living expenses. The study notes that if a student worked a full-time job at the federal minimum wage, they would earn just over $15,000 each year, certainly not enough to pay for tuition, room, and board at many colleges without some serious financial aid. That means that though they're sacrificing time away from the classroom, many working students will still graduate with at least some debt. And working full time can reduce the chance that students will graduate at all, by cutting into the time available for studying and attending classes.

    There is little reward for attending but not finishing college. Students who end up leaving school because of difficulty in managing work and class are likely to find themselves stuck in some of the same jobs they might have gotten if they hadn't gone at all. The difficulty of working too much while in school can create a cycle that pushes students further into debt without receiving any of the financial or career benefits.

    One of the most firmly established idea of manliness is that a real man doesn't cry. Although he might shed a tear at a funeral, he is expected to quickly regain control. Sobbing openly is for girls. One study found that women cry significantly more than men do—five times as often, on average, and almost twice as long per period.

    Historically, however, men routinely wept, and no one saw it as shameful. For example, in the Middle Ages, knights cried purely because they missed their girlfriends. In The Knight of the Cart, no less a hero than Lancelot weeps at a brief separation from Guinevere. There's no mention of the men in these stories trying to restrain or hide their tears. They cry in a crowded hall with their heads held high. Nor do their companions make fun of this public crying; it's universally regarded as an admirable expression of feeling.

    So where did all the male tears go? The most obvious possibility is that this shift is the result of changes as we moved from an agricultural society to one that was urban(城市的) and industrial. In the Middle Ages, most people spent their lives among those they had known since birth. If men cried, they did so with people who would sympathize. But from the 18th to 20th centuries, the population became increasingly urbanize, and people were living in the midst of thousands of strangers. Furthermore, changes in the economy required men to work together in factories and offices where emotional expressions and even private conversations were discouraged as time wasting.

    Yet human beings weren't designed to swallow their emotions, and there's reason to believe that holding back tears can be harmful to your well-being. Research from the 1980s has suggested a relationship between stress-related illnesses and inadequate crying. Weeping is also, somewhat related with happiness and wealth. Countries where people cry the most tend to be richer and more confident.

    My grandmother often said to me, "You can count the number of your true friends on the fingers of one hand." For a long time I thought this was true. However, I've now discovered my grandmother was only half right. Maybe we do only make a few "best" friends in our lifetime, but those aren't the only people that we can call friends. There are many different types. Let me tell you about a few of them.

    One type of friends is the type I call the "football mom friends". My neighbour Sally is a good example. We both have kids who play football in a football club, and someone has to take them to practise and pick them up. Sally and I and two other mothers do this. We meet sometimes and have tea and talk about what our kids are doing, but those are the only times that we meet each other. I enjoy being with these women, but we don't do anything else together.

    Another type is called the "hobby friend". That's the person you share an interest or a hobby with. Michael and Cater, who are brothers, are a good example of this type. We're all in a bird watching club. Every few weekends the members of the club go on a trip to watch different kinds of birds. There's nothing romantic about my relationship with Michael and Cater, of course. We just share interest in birds.

    Then there's the "other half the couple" type of friends. Jim is married to Rose, a friend that I have known since college. When Rose married Jim, I realized that I would have to be Jim's friend if I want to continue to be Rose's. Jim and I don't share so many interests, but we do have a friendly relationship.

    At least 12 other murders since 1997 have been linked to an addiction to violent video games. This year, the parents of a 14-year-old murder victim in the UK blamed the killer's addiction to the game Manhunt, causing a government review of legislation (立法) to protect children.

    But is there any scientific evidence that mere games can make children and young adults more aggressive, or possibly have the desire to murder? There is no doubt children are being exposed to more games violence than ever: around a quarter of all games released in the US contain some violence. And the violence is becoming more obvious as increases in computing power make the games look ever more realistic.

    Psychologists think there may be many reasons why violent games are more harmful to children than violent movies. Firstly, players are actively involved in violence, and may begin to use weapons as second nature. Secondly, violent games provide repetitive aggressive experiences that are rewarded by more killing.

    Many studies have shown that people who play violent games regularly are more likely to show high levels of aggression. For instance, in 2000, Craig Anderson of Iowa State University in Ames and his colleague Karen Dill found that people who played violent games were more likely to admit to aggressive behaviour, including attacks or robberies.

    Earlier this year, Krahe and her colleague Ingrid Miller reported a study of 13 to 14-year-old children. More than half had played games recommended only for over-18s. The more violent the games they played, the more they considered physical aggression to be acceptable. Other authors in the same edition report that children who play violent games more likely to argue with teachers and fight with others.

    Experimental studies have also pointed out a possible link. In one, Anderson and Dill asked a group of students to play a violent game, Wolfenstein 3D, while another group played the non-violent Myst. Those who played the violent game were faster to react to aggressive words flashed on screen and appeared more aggressive.

    The issue is controversial, however. Jeffrey Goldstein, a psychologist at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands and a consultant to some video games publishers, agrees that there is good evidence that children, who are exposed to violent media, including video games, are more aggressive. But he warns it might not be a simple case of cause and effect: aggressive kids might be most attracted to violent games.

    In the first year or so of Web business, most of the action has revolved around efforts to tap the consumer market. More recently, as the Web proved to be more than a fashion, companies have started to buy and sell products and services with one another. Such business-to-business sales make sense because business people typically know what product they are looking for.

    However, many companies still hesitate to use the Web because of doubts about its reliability. "Businesses need to feel they can trust the pathway between them and the suppliers," says senior analyst Blane Erwin of Forrester Research. Some companies are limiting the risk by conducting online transactions only with established business partners who are given access to the company's private Internet.

    Another major shift in the model for Internet commerce concerns the technology available for marketing. Until recently, Internet marketing activities have focused on strategies to "pull" customers to sites. In the past year, however, software companies have developed tools that allow companies to "push" information directly onto consumers. Companies such as Virtual Vineyards are already starting to use similar technologies to push messages to customers about special sales, product offerings, or other events. But push technology has earned the contempt of many Web users. Online culture thinks highly of the notion that the information flowing onto the screen comes there by specific request. Once commercial promotion begins to fill the screen uninvited, the distinction between the Web and television fades. That's a prospect that horrifies Net purists.

    But it is nearly inevitable that companies on the Web will need to resort to past strategies to make money. A Web site selling the right kind of products with the right mix of interactivity, hospitality, and security will attract online customers. And the cost of computing power continues to free fall, which is a good sign for any enterprises setting up shop in silicon. People looking back 5 or 10 years from now may well wonder why so few companies took the online plunge.