Many parents have learned the hard way that what sounds like open communication is often the very thing that closes a youngster's ears and month. One common mistake is The Lecture, the long monologue that often starts with “When I was your age….” Eighteen-year-old Kelly calls lectures “long, one-side discussions in which I don't say much.”

    Kids reflexively（条件反射地） shut down in the face of a lecture. Their eyes glaze over(呆滞), and they don't register any incoming information. Listen to 13-year-old Sarah describe her least favorite times with her mom and dad. “First, they scream. Then comes the ‘We're so disappointed' speech. Then the ‘I never did that to my parents' lecture begins. After that, even if they realize how ridiculous they sound, they never take it back.”

    Lines like “When you have children of your own, you'll understand” have been seriously said by parents since time immemorial. But many of our expert parents, like Bobby, a registered nurse and mother of three, feel that by falling back on clichés（陈词滥调） to justify our actions, we weaken our position.

    Since kids are creatures of the here and now, the far-off future has no relevance to them. Therefore, good communicators like Bobby suggest, “Give specific reasons for your actions in present language: ‘I'm not letting you go to the party because I don't think there will be enough adult supervisions（监护）.'”

    Betty, who lives in Missiouri, uses an indirect approach. “I find that warnings are accepted more readily if I discuss a news article on a subject I am concerned about. My husband and I talk about it while our children absorb the information. Then they never think I'm preaching.”

    This really helped when Betty's kids began driving. Instead of constantly repeating “Don't drink; don't speed,” she would talk about articles in the paper and express sympathy for the victims of a car crash. Betty made no special effort to draw her kids into the conversation. She depended on a teen-ager's strong desire to put in his opinions-especially if he thinks he isn't being asked for them.

The Exterminating Angel

Director: Luis Bunuel

Country/Date: Mexico/1962(black and white)

Introduction: A party is organized in a high class society house. Many people are drinking and eating. It's getting late, but nobody is leaving. Even though the door is open, people seem to be locked in the house. They can't leave either the day or on the following days. So a rescue began.

The Net

Director: Irwin Winkler

Country/Date: USA/1995

Introduction: Angela Bennettt is a computer programmer who has devoted her life to computers and the Internet. She spends hours and hours in front of the screen. She does everything over the Internet, and she has some close friends in a chat room, though she has never talked to her neighbors.

Kung Fu Panda

Director: Mark Osborne & John Stevenson

Country/Date: Mexico/2008

Introduction: The leading character is a panda whose name is Po. He is lazy first but he has a great dream--to be a kung fu master. To make his dream come true, he goes to a faraway temple to learn kung fu from a master. However, one of his brothers, Tai Long wants to become the kung fu master, killing many of his brothers even the master. So Po fights against Tai Long and defeats him. The film is good especially for kids.

Life is Beautiful

Director: Roberto Benigni

Country/Date: Italy/1998

Introduction: In 1939, during World War II in Italy, Guido, a hopeful man, the main character fell in love with Dora, and they got married. Five years later, their lives changed. Guido and Joshua were taken by Nazis(纳粹) to a concentration camp and Dora also went there with her husband and son. At that place, Guido tried his best to save his son's life in a special way.

    The number of accidents involving pedestrians (行人) wearing headphones is on the rise, a report suggests, causing fresh warning from road safety groups in Britain.

    A US-based study found a total of 116 reports of death or injury to pedestrians wearing headphones between 2004 and 2011, jumping from 16 in 2005 to 47 in 2011.

    Most victims were men (68%) and under the age of 30 (67%), with around one in ten of all cases (9%) under the age of 18.Some 89% of the cases occurred in urban areas and more than half (55%) of the victims were struck by trains .

Eighty-one of the 116 accidents (70%) resulted in the person's death—even though a warning was sounded in around a third of the cases.

    The study concluded, “The use of headphone may be a safety risk to pedestrians , especially in environments with moving vehicles（cars）. Further research is needed to determine if and how headphone use threatens pedestrian safety.” British road safety groups warned pedestrians to be careful.

    Floor Lieshout, director of Youth For Road Safety, said,“ This study shows once more the importance of using all of our senses while we are near traffic. It is important that we find an attractive way to make youth learn about the risks of wearing headphones in traffic.”

    Andrew Howard, who is the head of road safety at the Automobile Association, added that some pedestrians can be “so focused in their own little world they forget the world going on around them”. That can include headphone wearers, Howard said, but also people talking on phones.

    However, Howard said that more researches needed to be done.

    Earlier studies have shown that people wearing headphones or talking on phones can suffer “inattentional blindness” which makes them isolated (孤立) from the world around them .

    Ian Harvey, at the charity Civic Voice, said that “ to defeat isolation and to help build a civic(文明的) society, people need to interact(交往) with each other .

    He said,“ A basis for any civilized society is communication—Surfing the web, listening to MP3s, reading blogs or sending e-mail is not interacting with a person; it's interacting with a machine.

    “If people feel socially isolated, they need to have more face-to-face interactions with other human beings and in time, will begin to feel happier and more connected to the world and place they live in.”

    Are some people born clever, and others born stupid? Or is intelligence developed by our environment and our experience? Strangely enough, the answer to these questions is yes. To some degree our intelligence is given to us at birth, and no amount of education can make a genius out of a child born with low intelligence. On the other hand, a child who lives in a boring environment will develop his intelligence less than one who lives in rich and varied surroundings. Thus the limits of person's intelligence are fixed at birth, whether or not he reaches those limits will depend on his environment. This view, now held by most experts, can be supported in a number of ways.

    It is easy to show that intelligence is to some degree something we are born with. The closer the blood relationship between two people, the closer they are likely to be intelligent. Thus if we take two unrelated people at random from population, it is likely that their degree of intelligence will be completely different. If, on the other hand, we take two identical twins, they will very likely be as intelligent as each other. Relations like brothers and sisters, parents and children, usually have similar intelligence, and this clearly suggests that intelligence depends on birth. Imagine now that we take two identical twins and put them in different environments. We might send one, for example, to a university and the other to a factory where the work is boring. We would soon find differences in intelligence developing, and this indicates that environment as well as birth plays a part. This conclusion is also suggested by the fact that people who live in close contact with each other, but who are not related at all are likely to have similar degree of intelligence.

    Nowadays women appear to have a positive image of themselves as safer drivers than men.

    In a survey done for insurer MetLife, 51% of women said they drive more safely. The evidence is on their side: Men are 3.4 times more likely than women to get a ticket for careless driving and 3.1 times as likely to be punished for drunk driving. "Women are on average less aggressive and more law abiding (守法的) drivers, which leads to fewer accidents," the report says. However, not all male drivers share the same opinion. Of the men surveyed by MetLife, 39% claimed male drivers were safer. The findings did back them up on one point: automotive knowledge. The report showed that more men are familiar with current safety equipment such as electronic stability control, which helps prevent rollover accidents.

    Auto safety unavoidably matters to money. Insurance companies focus on what classes of drivers have the lowest dollar amounts of claims, and for now, that mainly includes women. In general, women pay about 9% less for auto insurance than men. A study by the website Insweb also showed that auto insurance rates are lower for women in most states. Among individual states, women get the greatest advantage in Wyoming (where they pay 20% less), South Dakota and Washington, D. C. where their insurance costs are 16% lower.

    "More than 11, 900 male drivers died in U. S. traffic accidents in 2009, compared with just under 4, 900 women drivers," according to the study. "Based on miles traveled, men died at a rate of 2.5 deaths per 100 million miles traveled, VS 1.7 deaths for women."

In the story of "The crow and the Pitcher" from Aesop's Fables, a thisty crow (乌鸦)drops stones into a narrow jar to raise the low level of water inside so he can take a drink.

Now scientists have evidence to back up that story. Crows actually do understand how to make water displacement (移位) work to their advantage, experiments show. The results suggest that the birds are, at least in some aspects, as smart as first-graders.

Researchers, led by Sarah Jelbert at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, presented six crows with tubes filled with water. Inside the tubes, a worm or piece of meat on a piece of wood was floating, just out of reach of the crow. In front of the tubes, the researchers arranged several rubber erasers that would sink, and some plastic objects that would float. The crows found out that they could drop the erasers into the tubes in order to raise the water level and get their snack.

However, the birds handled awkwardly in experiments in which they could choose to drop objects in either a wide tube or a narrow one to get a snack, the researchers said. Dropping objects into narrow tube would lift the water level by a greater amount and put the treat within reach after just two drops; while it took around seven drops to raise the snack to the same level in the wide tube. The crows obviously didn't realize this, and most of them went for the wide tube first.

Previous studies showed that chimps and human children can solve similar tasks. In a 2011 study, chimps and kids found out that they could put water into a tube to reach a peanut that was floating in a small amount of water at the bottom.