Computers have beaten human world champions at chess and, earlier this year, the board game Go. So far, though, they have struggled at the card table. So we challenged one AI to a game.

    Why is poker(扑克) so difficult? Chess and Go are “information complete” games where all players can see all the relevant information. In poker, other players' cards are hidden, making it an “information incomplete” game. Players have to guess opponents' hands from their actions—tricky for computers. Poker has become a new benchmark for AI research. Solving poker could lead to many breakthroughs, from cyber security to driverless cars.

    Scientists believe it is only a matter of time before AI once again vanquishes humans, hence our human-machine match comes up in a game of Texas Hold's Em Limit Poker. The AI was developed by Johannes Heinrich, researcher studying machine learning at UCL. It combines two techniques: neural(神经的) networks and reinforcement learning(强化学习).

    Neural networks, to some degree, copy the structure of human brains: their processors are highly interconnected and work at the same time to solve problems. They are good at spotting patterns in huge amounts of data. Reinforcement learning is when a machine, given a task, carries it out, learning from mistakes it makes. In this case, it means playing poker against itself billions of times to get better.

    Mr Heinrich told Sky News: “Today we are presenting a new procedure that has learned in a different way, more similar to how humans learn. In particular, it is able to learn abstract patterns, represented by its neural network, which allow it to deal with new and unseen situations.”

    After two hours of quite defensive play, from the computer at least, we called it a draw.

    British English may have come first, but around the world, the American way of spelling is now far more popular.

    A recent examination of the English language shows that publications now largely use the American version swapping words like “centre” for “center” after the 1880s. To get data, researchers used Google's Ngram Viewer to analyze the words found in all English-language publications from 1800 to 2000. Entering a word into the viewer will show how frequently it occurs within the massive corpus(语料库)of books around the world.

    According to the data, this shift was further strengthened around World War I. Since then, English-language publications have preferred “gray” and “flavor” instead of “grey” and “flavour”. The American spelling has continued to grow over the years, with “liter” passing “liter” around 1900, and “center” becoming the more common choice over “centre” in 1913. “1913 marked a turning point in British spelling, as the American alternative became more frequently used in literature,” the post explains, in regard to “center”. This was just a year before the beginning of World War I, which many views as a key period in America's rise to superpower status.

    Though this switched again between 1920s and the late 1930s, the American, spelling took over for good around 1940, during which time the spelling “airplane” shifted dramatically over “aeroplane”.

    Ever since the middle of the 19th century, even the British Isles have slowly rejected the old spelling. The future is gray for British English.

    Every country may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming". We should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true.

    Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is an irony that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedback involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplifies the small effect of CO2. The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant and it is a key component of the biosphere ( 生物圈)'s life cycle. Plants get better growth with more of it and part of the increase of agricultural yields in the past century certainly came from additional CO₂ in the atmosphere.

    Although the number of the scientists who are publicly opposed to the claim is growing, many young scientists secretly say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted or worse.

    Why is there so much passion about global warming? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "Cui bono?", or the modern update, "Follow the money". Alarmism (危言耸听) over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research, and thus those people who benefit from this fiercely defended their dogma (信条) and the privileges it brought them.

    Every country should support rational ( 合理 的) measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that turn away resources from real needs and are based on alarming but shaky claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.

    A new study warns that about thirty percent of the world's people may not have enough water by the year 2025.

    A private American organization called Population Action International did the new study. It says more than 335 million people lack enough water now. The people live in 28 countries. Most of the countries are in Africa or the Middle East.

    P-A-I researcher Robert Engelman says by the year 2025, about 3,000 million people may lack water. At least 18 more countries are expected to have severe water problems. The demand for water keeps increasing. Yet the amount of water on the earth stays the same.

    Mr. Engelman says the population in countries that lack water is growing faster than in other parts of the world. He says population growth in these countries will continue to increase.

    The report says lack of water in the future may result in several problems. It may increase health problems. Lack of water often means drinking water is not safe. Mr Engelman says there are problems all over the world because of diseases, such as cholera, which are carried in water. Lack of water may also result in more international conflict. Countries may have to compete for water in the future. Some countries now get sixty percent of their fresh water from other countries. This is true of Egypt, the Netherlands, Cambodia, Syria, Sudan, and Iraq. And the report says lack of water would affect the ability of developing to improve their economies. This is because new industries often need a large amount of water when they are beginning.

    The Population Action International study gives several solutions to the water problem. One way, it says, is to find ways to use water for more than one purpose. Another way is to teach people to be careful not to waste water. A third way is to use less water of agriculture.

    The report also says long-term solutions to the water problem must include controls on population growth. It says countries cannot provide clean water unless they slow population growth by limiting the number of children people have.

    With the explosion of consumer choices in recent history, the latest must-haves would surely need to be upgraded more often than every 10 years. In 2002 a computer and basic mobile phone would have been enough for most people, but now? The public need a trendy notebook computer and a smart phone with WiFi connection to feel they are up-to-date. So when will we have enough things? When will we finally be happy? Well, it looks like the things we buy today will barely keep us satisfied for a few months.

    In the eyes of some psychologists, far from making us happy, greater consumer choice creates many serious psychological problems. A fundamental principle of the society is that more freedom is better and more choice in the marketplace means more freedom. Therefore more choice leads to more happiness. This is not the case, however.

    Imagine you go to a café offering chocolate and vanilla ice cream. You choose the chocolate and eat it happily. But what if the café serves 50 kinds of ice cream? You choose chocolate and then start to worry, "maybe blueberry would have been better, perhaps the half-fat ice cream would have been healthier. Stupid me, all these choices and I didn't make the best one! "

    In China's major cities we have now passed the point where more consumer choice is making us happier. We are annoyed by all the options we have, disappointed because our expectations are so high and angered at ourselves when we don't make a perfect choice every time.

    A newspaper reporter tells a story about traveling on a plane with high-speed Internet access. He thought this was amazing—the newest piece of technology he had heard of. Then the service went down. The man next to him was angry and swore. The reporter thought, "How quickly the world owes him something he knew existed only 10 seconds ago!"

    The love story between John F. Kennedy and his wife, Jackie, was far from perfect and was tragically cut short in 1963 by a sniper's(狙击手) bullet.

    On November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was seated beside his smartly dressed wife, who was wearing a pink Chanel-like suit and matching pillbox hat and holding an armful of red roses that had been presented to her by fans. They were seated in the back seat of a dark blue 1961 Lincoln with John Connally, the Governor of Texas and his wife, Nellie.

    And then came the dark moment. As the motorcade(车队) passed the Texas School Book Depository on Elm Street, a loud noise—like the sound of a firecracker—cracked the air. President Kennedy slumped(耷拉) forward, Jackie putting her arms around him.

    The look on her husband's face after he was shot would haunt Jackie for the rest of her life. The last words she ever got to say to him were, "I love you, Jack. I love you," according to Anderson, although Jackie herself recalled it slightly differently in a 1963 interview. All the way to Parkland Hospital, where President Kennedy would eventually be pronounced dead, as she recalled it, she was bent over him, asking "Jack, Jack, can you hear me? I love you."

    Jack Kennedy's final words to his wife of 10 years were far more mundane, of course. He had no way of knowing what was about to happen. It's been reported that Jack's final words were, "My God, I've been hit," but physicians have said this was impossible given Jack's injuries. Well, historians have now clarified that the last words Jack spoke before the fatal shot were, "No, you certainly can't."

    No, you certainly can't?

    He was making small talk in the car. "You certainly can't say that the people of Dallas haven't given you a nice welcome," the Texas Governor's wife had just remarked to Jack, referring to the huge, adoring crowd. "No, you certainly can't," Jack replied, milliseconds before the bullet from Lee Harvey Oswald gun struck.

    John F. Kennedy never spoke another word after that fateful day, but many things he said during his lifetime are incredibly inspiring.