Albert Hofmann was a Swiss Scientist who was fascinated by nature. This led him to a career in chemistry in which he sought answers to his uncertainties. He worked at Sandoz Laboratories where he nurtured his research work, and there he made a lot of success by working with various plants and changing them into something useful. He became famous when he became the first person to produce lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) (迷幻药). In addition, he was also the first person to taste it and learn about its hallucinogenic (勾起幻觉的) effects. He was deeply connected to the nature and argued that LSD, besides being useful for psychiatry(精神病学), could also be used to promote awareness of mankind's place in nature. However, he was disappointed that his discovery was being carelessly used as a drug for entertainment. Because of his discovery, LSD fans have fondly called him “The father of LSD”. Besides carrying out his scientific experiments, he also authored numerous books and more than 100 scientific articles. In 2007, he featured in a list of the 100 greatest living geniuses(天才), published by The Telegraph Newspaper.

Childhood & Early Life

    Albert Hofmann was born in Baden, Switzerland, on January 11, 1906. He was the eldest of four children. His father was a poor toolmaker in a factory and they lived in a rented apartment. He spent much of his childhood outdoors, and grew up with a very deep connection with nature.

    He had mind-blowing experiences in childhood, wherein nature was changed in magical ways that he didn't understand. These experiences caused questions in his mind, and chemistry was the scientific field which allowed him to understand them.

    He studied chemistry at Zurich University, and his main interest is the chemistry of plants and animals. At 23, he earned his Ph. D with honors.

    Researchers at the University of Kansas say that people can accurately judge 90 percent of a stranger's personality simply by looking at the person's shoes. “Shoes convey useful information about their wearers”, the authors wrote in the new study published in the Journal of Research in Personality．

    Lead researcher Omri Gillath said the judgments were based on the style, cost, color and condition of someone's shoes. In the study, 63 University of Kansas researchers looked at pictures showing 208 different pairs of shoes worn by the study's participants. Volunteers in the study were photographed in their most commonly worn shoes, and then filled out a personality questionnaire.

    Some of the results were expected: People with higher incomes most commonly wore expensive shoes, and flashier shoes were typically worn by outgoing people. However，some of the more specific results are strange enough. For example, “practical and functional ''shoes were generally worn by more “pleasant" people, while ankle boots were more linked with “aggressive” personalities. The strangest of all may be that those who wore “uncomfortable looking” shoes tend to have “calm” personalities. And if you have several pairs of new shoes or take extreme care of them, you may suffer from “attachment anxiety", spending lots of time worrying about what other people think of your appearance. There was even a political calculation in the mix with more liberal (主张变革的) types wearing “shabbier and less expensive” shoes.

    The researchers noted that some people will choose shoe styles to mask their actual personalities, but researchers noted that volunteers were also likely to be unaware that their footwear choices were showing the deep side of their personalities.

    Are you nervous about climbing because you think it's too dangerous?Do you feel you're not fit enough to climb?Do you know how to start climbing?

    Let's consider the idea that climbing is dangerous.Being afraid is natural,but if you use suitable ropes and other climbing equipments you will feel completely safe.Climbers are usually very careful because they know what they are doing is dangerous.Accidents may happen,but when they do,they tend to attract a lot of publicity.As a result, people think there are many more accidents than there are in reality.

    You cannot expect to start climbing straight away.Climbing is a challenge and challenges take time.It is necessary first of all that you achieve a good level of fitness.Begin as soon as you become interested in climbing—go to the gym,go swimming,take up jogging and continue to do so throughout your training period.

    Discover as much as you can about climbing.Visit the library and find books especially for beginners or buy climbing magazines and look for articles which describe your situation.Look up information on the Internet.Find out about equipment,methods and places to go.

    Next,take a course on a climbing wall.There are plenty of climbing walls all over the country which have trained and qualified people as instructors.Call your local leisure centre to find out if there is one in your area.These training sessions are a quick way to get experience and you are likely to meet other beginners.After this,you can do an outside course or join a club where you can meet climbers of all abilities and eventually join in group-climbing events.

    At first you may not understand the importance of a good training period,but after you have completed your first climb and you are standing safely at the top of a rock feeling thrilled,then you will know it was the right thing to do.

    Only two countries in the advanced world provide no guarantee for paid leave from work to care for a newborn child. Last spring one of the two, Australia, gave up the bad distinction by setting up paid family leave starting in 2011. I wasn't surprised when this didn't make the news here in the United States — we're now the only wealthy country without such a policy.

    The United States does have one explicit family policy, the Family and Medical Leave Act, passed in 1993. It entitles workers to as much as 12 weeks' unpaid leave for care of a newborn or dealing with a family medical problem. Despite the modesty of the benefit, the Chamber of Commerce and other business groups fought it bitterly, describing it as “government-run personnel management” and a “dangerous precedent (先例).” In fact, every step of the way, as (usually) Democratic leaders have tried to introduce work-family balance measures into the law, business groups have been strongly opposed.

    As Yale law professor Anne Alstott argues, justifying parental support depends on defining(定义) the family as a social good that, in some sense, society must pay for. Parents are burdened in many ways in their lives: there is “no exit” when it comes to children. Society expects — and needs — parents to provide their children with continuity of care. And society expects — and needs — parents to persist in their roles for 18 years, or longer if needed.

    While most parents do this out of love, there are public punishments for not providing care. What parents do, in other words, is of deep concern to the state, for the obvious reason that caring for children is not only morally urgent but important to the future of society. To classify parenting as a personal choice for which there is no collective responsibility is not merely to ignore the social benefits of good parenting; really, it is to steal those benefits because they accrue (累积) to the whole of society as today's children become tomorrow's citizens. In fact, by some estimates, the value of parental investments in children, investments of time and money, is equal to 20-30% of GDP. If these investments bring huge social benefits — as they clearly do — the benefits of providing more social support for the family should be that much clearer.

    A recent documentary produced by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has caused a stir in China and in the UK.

    The documentary, titled Are Our Kids Tough Enough? focuses on five Chinese teachers who are sent to teach 50 UK teens at a school in Hampshire.

    The teachers instruct the students for a month. The pupils are then tested, and the results are compared to the ones of those who have continued in the regular UK education system. The idea is to see if the Chinese method improves academic performance.

    The Chinese teachers use their own teaching methods but receive strong resistance from the students. A clip from the documentary online shows some problems, with Chinese teachers calling their students lazy and lacking in discipline, while the students say the high pressure and harsh teachers are driving them crazy.

    This has aroused a new debate in both China and the UK, with some arguing the teenagers need more regulation and discipline. Others say Chinese methods encourage rote learning (死记硬背) instead of independent thinking. For instance, Chinese language teachers should do more than pass on knowledge about words and characters. They should inspire students, helping them feel the sentiment from Chinese literature. This is a higher level of teaching.

    Yang Dongping, dean of the 21st Century Education Research Institute, says, "The Chinese teaching methods are designed to strictly train the majority. Foreign teaching methods, however, are more natural and relaxing, and designed to inspire students' interest in learning. Education methods are based on culture. That is why a successful education method in one place may not work that well when simply 'transplanted' into another place."

    Yang Dongping says, "The documentary does reflect some problems rooted in traditional Chinese teaching methods. Nobel prize winner, Yang Zhenning, gave a very fair comment on this issue. He said the Chinese-style education method works for most ordinary qualified students effectively, helping them reach high standards. However, it may weaken the training for high-potential outstanding students."