Most of the people who appear most often and most gloriously in the history books are great conquerors and generals and soldiers, whereas the people who really helped civilization forward are often never mentioned at all. We do not know who first set a broken leg, or launched a seaworthy boat, or calculated the length of the year, or manured(施肥)a field; but we know all about the killers and destroyers. People think a great deal of them, so much so that on all the highest pillars (纪念柱) in the great cities of the world you will find the figure of a conqueror or a general or a soldier. And I think most people believe that the greatest countries are those that have beaten in battle the greatest number of other countries and ruled over them as conquerors. It is just possible they are, but they are not the most civilized.

    Animals fight; so do savages (野蛮人); hence to be good at fighting is to be good in the way in which an animal or a savage is good, but it is not to be civilized. Even being good at getting other people to fight for you and telling them how to do it most efficiently －this, after all, is what conquerors and generals have done －is not being civilized. People fight to settle quarrels. Fighting means killing, and civilized peoples ought to be able to find some way of settling their disputes other than by seeing which side can kill off the greater number of the other side, and then saying that that side which has killed most has won. And it not only has won, but, because it has won, has been in the right. For that is what going to war means; it means saying that might is right.

    That is what the story of mankind has on the whole been like. Even our own age has fought the two greatest wars in history, in which millions of people were killed or disabled. And while today it is true that people do not fight and kill each other in the streets －while, that is to say, we have got to the stage of keeping the rules and behaving properly to each other in daily life － nations and countries have not learnt to do this yet, and still behave like savages.

    While the U.S. is still debating about getting rid of the penny, Sweden is rapidly moving towards abolishing currency altogether. Though this may sound radical(过激的), it is a natural evolution in this digital society.

    Sweden, which was the first European country to introduce banknotes in 1661, has just been working harder to convince its residents that digital payments are a safer alternative to carrying cash.

Over the years, the idea has gained popularity with residents, especially the younger generation that is much more comfortable with technology. Today many banks don't even have ATMs and some have stopped handling cash altogether!

    Tickets to ride public buses in most Swedish cities can only be purchased via cell phones. Numerous businesses are also moving towards accepting only digital payments. Even the homeless that sell street paper to make ends meet have to start accepting this mode of payment!

But despite its growing popularity, some people don't like this radical idea. They include the homeless, elderly people as well as those living in rural areas who are still uncomfortable with mobile phones and computers. But the officials are confident that in the very near future, they will be able to convince everyone to move this safe and more cost-effective payment system.

    Sweden is not the only country trying to abolish paper currency and coins. The movement is rapidly gaining ground in Denmark and Finland as well. In 2014, Israel announced a three-step plan to go cashless and just last week the vendors(小贩)of a popular street in Sydney declared they would stop accepting currency from customers. Whether this phenomenon spreads remains to be seen. But one thing is for sure—With increasingly advanced payment systems being introduced every day, pulling out cash is rapidly becoming “uncool”.

    The first day my new teacher walked into our school in Spanish Harlem, I burst out laughing. Ron Clark was this young white guy from North Carolina who talked with a funny Southern accent(口音). He said he used to be a singing waiter. I thought, who is this guy? He's a complete joke.

    It was 1999 and I was in the fifth grade at New York City's P.S. 83. I guessed I'd spend most of the year in the headmaster's office. I'd always been a troublemaker. I'd get shouted at, and then the teachers would give up on me. I thought that's what would happen with Ron Clark.

    I was wrong. That first week, I kept laughing at him. He pulled me out to the hallway and said I'd better shape up(表现好). "Tamara," he said, "you're a smart kid. You can do better."

    He told me I was a natural leader and that I'd go far in life if I started studying hard. I was mad at first, but then something happened: I began to respect him. There were 29 students in our class, and it didn't take long for us to realize that Ron Clark was no ordinary teacher.

    Like most teachers, he had lots of rules: Treat each other like family. Don't cut in line. But the real difference was how concerned he was. Mr. Clark ate with us in the lunchroom instead of going to the teachers' day-room. At first, my friends and I were thinking. What is he doing?

    He asked us what was going on in our lives. Between classes, he came outside with us, and we taught him how to jump rope. When it snowed, Mr. Clark, who'd never seen snow before, threw us with snowballs, and we threw him back.

    Before coming to P.S. 83, he taught at Snowden Elementary in his hometown, Belhaven, North Carolina. His parents were DJs(流行音乐节目主持人)at dance clubs, so he grew up with music and energy. He wanted a life of adventure, he told me, but his mom encouraged him to ask for a position at Snowden when one of the teachers passed away. Mr. Clark ended up loving it. He came to Harlem because he'd seen a TV show about our troubled schools and the lack of qualified teachers. He wanted a challenge. Boy, did he get one.

    Sitting has been called the new smoking for its supposed Public health risks, especially for people with sitting down office jobs. Over the past 15 years or so sitting has been connected with heart disease and diabetes (糖尿病). But is sitting really that risky?

    In our latest study we examined if not only the total amount of sitting, but different types of sitting, were connected with developing type 2 diabetes. We wanted to see if there was any difference among sitting watching TV, sitting at work, or sitting at home but not watching TV.

    We studied sitting habits of 4. 811 middle-aged people, who didn't have diabetes or heart problems at the start of the study. Over the next 13 years, 402 people developed diabetes. Once we considered obesity (AE RF), Physical activity, and other things that may develop type 2 diabetes, neither total sitting time, sitting at work nor sitting at home but not watching TV were connected with developing diabetes. We found only a weak connection with the time spent sitting watching TV and an increased risk of developing diabetes.

    This is different from the results of five older TV studies that showed a stronger connection. But hardly any of the included studies mentioned obesity, a major cause of diabetes.

    For people who are physically inactive, though, the story's different. Two recent studies show the total time spent sitting a day is connected with developing diabetes, but only in people who are physically inactive or both physically inactive and obese.

    That's not the whole story. At least two things determine if sitting is a risk factor in its own right: the type and situation of sitting.

    For example, sitting down at work isn't strongly connected with long-term health risks, Perhaps that's because higher position jobs needs more sitting, and higher socioeconomic (社会经济) position is connected with a lower risk of disease. It's a different case for sitting watching TV, the type of sitting most possibly connected with long-term health risks. People who watch a lot of TV tend to (a) be of lower socioeconomic positions, unemployed, have poorer mental (精神上的) health, eat unhealthy foods and face more unhealthy food advertising.

    Did you know that Albert Einstein could not speak until he was four years old, and could not read until he was seven? His parents and teachers worried about his mental ability.

    Beethoven's music teacher said about him, "As a composer (作曲家) he is hopeless." What if this young boy had believed it?

    When Thomas Edison was a young boy, his teachers said he was so stupid that he could never learn anything. He once said, "I remember I used to never be able to get along at school. I was always at the foot of my class ... My father thought I was stupid, and I almost decided that I was a stupid person." What if young Thomas had believed what they said about him?

    When the sculptor (雕刻家) Auguste Rodin was young, he had difficulty learning to read and write. Today, we may say he had a learning disability. His father said of him, "I have an idiot (白痴) for a son." His uncle agreed. "He's uneducable," he said. What if Rodin had doubted his ability?

    Walt Disney was once fired by a newspaper editor because he was thought to have no "good ideas". Enrico Caruso was told by one music teacher, "You can't sing. You have no voice at all." And an editor told Louisa May Alcott that she was unable to write anything that would have popular appeal.

    What if these people had listened and become discouraged? Where would our world be without the music of Beethoven, the art of Rodin or the ideas of Albert Einstein and Walt Disney? As Oscar Levant once said, "It's not what you are but what you don't become that hurts."

    You have great potential. When you believe in all you can be, rather than all you cannot become, you will find your place on earth.

    Choose Your One-Day-Tours!

Tour A - Bath &Stonehenge including entrance fees to the ancient Roman bathrooms and Stonehenge -￡37 until 26 March and ￡39 thereafter. Visit the city with over 2,000 years of history and Bath Abbey, the Royal Crescent and the Costume Museum, Stonehenge is one of the world's most famous prehistoric monuments dating back over 5,000 years.

Tour B - Oxford & Stratford including entrance fees to the University St Mary's Church Tower and Anne Hathaway's -￡32 until 12 March and ￡36 thereafter. Oxford: Includes a guided tour of England's oldest university city and colleges. Look over the "city of dreaming spires(尖顶）" from St Mary's Church Tower. Stratford: Includes a guided tour exploring much of the Shakespeare wonder.

Tour C - Windsor Castle &Hampton Court: including entrance fees to Hampton Court Palace -￡34 until 11 March and ￡37 thereafter. Includes a guided tour of Windsor and Hampton Court, Henry VILL's favorite palace. Free time to visit Windsor Castle(entrance fees not included).With 500 years of history, Hampton Court was once the home of four Kings and one Queen. Now this former royal palace is open to the public as a major tourist attraction. Visit the palace and its various historic gardens, which include the famous maze(迷宫) where it is easy to get lost!

Tour D –Cambridge including entrance fees to the Tower of Saint Mary the Great -￡33 until 18 March and ￡37 thereafter. Includes a guided tour of Cambridge, the famous university town, and the gardens of the 18th century.