growing mountain of electronic waste like computers and personal digital assistants. The electronic waste stream is

increasing three times faster than traditional garbage as a whole.

        Electronic devices contain valuable metals such as gold and silver. A Swiss study reported that while the 

weight of electronic goods represented by precious metals was relatively small in comparison to total waste, the 

concentration (含量) of gold and other precious metals was higher in            So-called e-waste than in naturally 

occurring minerals.

         Electronic wastes also contain many poisonous metals. Even when the machines are recycled and the harmful 

metals removed, the recycling process often is carried out in poor countries, in practically uncontrolled ways which 

allow many poisonous substances to escape into the environment.

         Creating products out of raw materials creates much more waste material, up to 100 times more, than the 

material contained in the finished products. Consider again the cell-phone, and imagine the mines that produced 

those metals, the factories needed to make the box and packaging(包装) it came in. Many wastes produced in the

producing process are harmful as well.

        The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency notes that most waste is dangerous in that “the production, 

distribution, and use of products — as well as management of the resulting waste — all result in greenhouse gas 

release.” Individuals can reduce their contribution by creating less waste at the start — for instance, buying 

reusable products and recycling.

        In many countries the concept of extended producer responsibility is being considered or has been put in place 

as an incentive (动机) for reducing waste. If producers are required to take back packaging they use to sell their 

products, would they reduce the packaging in the first place?

Governments' incentive to require producers to take responsibility for the packaging they produce is usually

based on money. Why, they ask, should cities or towns be responsible for paying to deal with the bubble wrap (气

泡垫) that encased your television?

From the governments' point of view, a primary goal of laws requiring extended producer responsibility is to

transfer both the costs and the physical responsibility of waste management from the government and tax-payers 

back to the producers.

    "How are you?" is a nice question. It's a friendly way that people in the United States greet each other. But "How are you?" is also a very unusual question. It's a question that often doesn't need an answer. The person who asks "How are you?" hopes to hear the answer "Fine", even if the person's friend isn't fine. The reason is that "How are you?" isn't really a question and "Fine" isn't really an answer. They are simply other ways of saying "Hello" or "Hi".

    Sometimes, people also don't say exactly what they mean. For example, when someone asks "Do you agree?" the other person might think, "No, I disagree. I think you're wrong…" But it isn't very polite to disagree so strongly, so the other person might say "I'm not sure." It's a nicer way to say that you don't agree with someone.

    People also don't say exactly what they are thinking when they finish talking with other people. For example, many talks over the phone finish when one person says "I have to go now." Often, the person who wants to hang up gives an excuse: "Someone's at the door." "Something is burning on the stove." The excuses might be real, or not. Perhaps the person who wants to hang up simply doesn't want to talk any more, but it isn't polite to say that. The excuse is more polite, and it doesn't hurt the other person.

    Whether they are greeting each other, talking about an idea, or finishing a talk, people don't say exactly what they are thinking. It's an important way that people try to be nice to each other, and it's part of the game of language.

    If you want to convince the boss you deserve a pay rise or promotion, the solution could be simple—eat the same food as they do. Psychologists have discovered managers are much more likely to instantly trust us if we choose the same dishes as them.

    During experiments, discussions over wages and work conditions were much more successful if both sides chose to snack on the same treats. And shoppers were much more likely to buy a product advertised on TV by someone eating a similar food to them at the time.

    The reason is thought to be so-called similarity attraction theory — where people tend to like others who have similar tastes or habits to themselves. But this is believed to be one of the first studies highlighting the role of food in this relationship. Researchers at Chicago University in the US conducted a series of experiments to examine food's role in earning trust.

    In a test, participants were told to watch TV — where someone pretending to be a member of the public praised a certain product. The volunteers were given Kit Kat(巧克力) bars to nibble（轻咬）, while the TV people ate either a Kit Kat or grapes as they talked.

    The results showed viewers were much more likely to express an interest in buying the product if the TV showed the other person eating a Kit Kat too.

    The researchers added, ―Although similarity in food consumption is not a sign of whether two people will get along, we find consumers treat this as such. They feel more trusting of those who consume as they do. It means people can immediately begin to feel friendship and develop a bond, leading to smoother transactions from the start.

    Harley Street psychologist Dr Lucy Atcheson said it was already known that wearing similar clothes could instantly create trust. But this was the first report that food had the same effect. She said, This is really interesting. It makes sense as people feel they have common ground and can trust the other person. That means negotiations are more likely to be successful.

George Gershwin, born in 1998, was one of America's greatest composers. He published his first song when he was eighteen years old. During the next twenty years he wrote more than five hundred songs.

Many of Gershwin's songs were first written for musical plays performed in theatres in New York City. These plays were a popular form of entertainment in the 1920s and 1930s. Many of his songs have remained popular as ever. Over the years they have been sung and played in every possible way — from jazz to country.

    In the 1920s there was a debate in the United States about jazz music. Could jazz, some people asked, be considered serious music? In 1924 jazz musician and orchestra leader Paul Whiteman decided to organize a special concert to show that jazz was serious music. Gershwin agreed to compose something for the concert before he realized he had just a few weeks to do it. And in that short time, he composed a piece for piano and orchestra which he called Rhapsody in Blue. Gershwin himself played the piano at the concert. The audience were thrilled when they heard his music. It made him world-famous and showed that jazz music could be both serious and popular.

    In 1928, Gershwin went to Paris. He applied to study composition (作曲)with the well-known musician Nadia Boulanger, but she rejected him. She was afraid that classical study would ruin his jazz-influenced style. While there, Gershwin wrote An American in Paris. When it was first performed, critics (评论家)were divided over the music. Some called it happy and full of life, to others it was silly and boring. But it quickly became popular in Europe and the United States. It still remains one of his most famous works.

    George Gershwin died in 1937, just days after doctors learned he had brain cancer. He was only thirty-nine years old. Newspapers all over the world reported his death on their front pages. People mourned the loss of the man and all the music he might have still written.

    A Harvard study of their graduates over thirty years found that there were only a small percentage (3%) of them who actually wrote down their goals-and these were the most successful! You can be certain that every one of those students had repeatedly heard the value of goal setting. Yet only 3% actually wrote down their goals consistently. Imagine what you can do if you both write down your goals and, then, focus on them consistently, until they are accomplished!

    What is it that causes the "New Year's Resolution Syndrome"? People make resolutions, work hard at them for a few weeks, maybe even a few months, and then forget them. Next year, they make the same New Year's resolutions. That is the syndrome. So why do so many people do it?

    They may be making goals that are too global, and too unrealistic. The elephant analogy (比喻) is still the best one I know of to illustrate good goal setting. "How do you eat an elephant? One spoonful at a time." So it is with goals. Make spoon size goals and accomplish them easily. Once you've mastered this, get a bigger spoon!

    You may have too many people in your life who consciously or subconsciously are unwilling or unable to support you to reach your goals. Surround yourself with people who want you to have what you want for yourself. Support each other and you'll all achieve your highest goals.

    We must be careful not to confuse busyness with progress. Be selective about how you use your time and what you focus on. Success often comes when you know what to leave out, rather than what to include in your life.

    Goal setting is like the pig and chicken who were out for a walk in town early one morning. The chicken became really excited when she saw a sign that said "Ham & Eggs, $2. 99". She said to the pig, "Look, we've got double billing again." The pig grunted and said, "That's all right for you to say. For you, it's all in a day's work. For me, it's total commitment." Goal setting is all in a day's work. Goal achievement is total commitment.

    Robots are increasingly being developed to think and act like humans. But it is difficult for engineers to create humor (幽默) in machines. Computer scientists have hoped to help them understand humor. But they failed again and again. Why is it so difficult?

    Kiki, a computer language expert (专家), studies humor at a university. "Most robots are powered by artificial intelligence (人工智能AI). But AI will never understand jokes like humans do." He said, "The main problem is that AI system doesn't have the sense of humor."

    Other experts agree that context (语境) is very important to understand humor, both for humans and robots. In one project, Tristan Miller, a computer scientist, studied more than 10, 000 puns. Puns are a kind of joke that uses a word with two meanings. For example, you could say, "Balloons (气球) do not like pop music." The word "pop" can be a way of saying popular music, or "pop" can be the sound a balloon makes when it explodes(爆炸). "A robot might not understand the joke because it doesn't know the meaning of the puns." Miller said.

    Although it's difficult, some scientists say there are good reasons to keep trying to teach humor to robots. It can make machines understand humans better and serve humans better. And it can also help them to think more like humans.

    But other scientists don't think it's a good idea to teach humor to robots. They may find humor, but they may use it in a wrong way. Maybe bad Al will start killing people because it thinks it is funny. Besides, it may make some people feel not safe. The comedians(喜剧演员) may lose their jobs when the robots can understand humor.