If your job requires a lot of sitting,you could be putting your health at danger.

    The American Journal of Epidemiology（流行病学）did a study in 2010 on the connection between sitting and an individual's physical health.In the study,53,440 working men and 69,776 working women were surveyed on their time spent sitting.The subjects were all disease free when employed.The researchers identified 11,307 deaths in men and 7,923 deaths in women during the 14-year follow-up.

    The findings: Women who reported sitting for more than six hours per day had an approximately 40 higher all-cause death rate than those who reported less than three hour a day,and men had an approximately 20 higher death rate.

Well,now is a fine time to get this information.But why didn't they tell me this years ago?I would have planned on taking a more active job instead of the sedentary（坐着的）job of an editor.

    So what can you do if you have to work for a living at a job that requires a lot of sitting?Here are some ideas:

    Take frequent breaks.It is recommended that workers vary activities,change their position,and take short breaks every 20 minutes to rest muscles and increase blood circulation.Get a standing desk.Some studies have shown that working from an upright position may be better for health.The serious fitness people can even purchase a treadmill （跑步机）desk.It only goes about one mile per hour.Have a walking meeting.If your group is kind of small,going for a walk while discussing topics is a good alternative.

    For many of us, talking about money is embarrassing, especially revealing our income and spending habits in public. So it's no wonder that seeking investment advice from computer program is so popular.

    Consultancy firm Accenture found that 68% of global consumers would be happy to use robot-advice to plan for retirement, feeling it would be faster, cheaper, and fairer than human advice. “Many of our customers say they feel awkward in face-to-face meetings, preferring an online experience where they don't feel nervous,” says Lynn Smith, a director of robot-advice firm Wealth Wizards. So how does robot-advice work and is it really any better than traditional financial advice?

    Robot-adviser firms use algorithms (算法) to analyse your financial situation and goals and then work out an investment plan to suit you. Basically, you answer lots of questions online about your income, expenses, family situation, attitude to risk and so on, and then the algorithm allocates (分配) your savings to a series of investments, from index funds that aim to imitate a particular stock market index or sector, to fixed-income bonds.

    Robot-advice is certainly growing in popularity. But are we really happy to give up the human adviser completely? “No” is the short answer. Accenture finds that a significant proportion of us still want human interaction, particularly when our finances are complex. “When a customer needs advice surpassing a number of different regulatory regimes, human advice will be required, says John Perks, managing director of life and pensions at UK insurer LV, which launched its Retirement Wizard robot-advice service two years ago.

    The truth is that only about a quarter of funds managed by clever humans overcome the market as a whole, so when you take into account the much higher management fees you pay for that kind of service, the performance difference is likely to be marginal (微不足道的) for most of us.

    The robots may be coming, but in this case at least, they seem to be on the side of the small investor trying to save for a comfortable retirement.

    Many animals recognize their food because they see it. So do humans. When you see an apple or apiece of chocolate you know that these are things you can eat. You can also use other senses when you choose your food. You may like it because it smells good or because it tastes good. You may dislike some types of food because they do not look, smell or taste very nice. Different animals use different senses to find and choose their food. A few animals depend on only one of their senses, while most animals use more than one sense.

    Although there are many different types of food, some animals spend their lives eating only one type. The giant panda eats only one particular type of bamboo. Other animals eat only one type of food even when given the choice. A land of white butterfly will stay on the leaves of a cabbage, even though there are plenty of other vegetables in the garden. However, most animals have a more varied diet. The bear eats fruits and fish. The fox eats small animals, birds and fruits. The diet of these animals will be different depending on the season.

    Humans have a very varied diet. We often eat food because we like it and not because it is good for us. In countries such as France and Britain, people eat foods with too much sugar. This makes them overweight, which is bad for their health. Eating too much red meat and animal products, such as butter, can also be bad for the health Choosing the right food, therefore, has become an area of study in modern life.

    Although his 1-year-old smart-phone still works perfectly, Li Jijia already feels the need to replace it.

    "There are many better ones available now. It's time to upgrade(更新）my phone."

    Li's impatience is shared by many. Shortly after the season when new products are released（发布，发售）, many consumers feel the urge to upgrade their electronic equipment, even though the ones they have still work just fine.

    As consumers' minds are occupied by Apple's newly released products and debate whether the Google tablet is better than the new Amazon Kindle, it might be time to take a step back and ask: "Do we really need the latest upgrades?"

    According to Donald Norman, an American author, "planned obsolescence (淘汰）" is the trick behind the upgrading culture of today's consumer electronics industry.

    Electronics producers strategically release new upgrades periodically, both for hardware and software, so that customers on every level feel the need to buy the newest version.

"This is an old-time trick—they're not inventing anything new," Norman said. "This is a wasteful system through which companies--many of them producing personal electronics—— release poor-quality products simply because they know that, in six months or a year, they'll put out a new one."

    But the new psychology of consumers is part of this system, as Norman admitted, "We now want something new, something pretty, the next shiny thing." In its most recent year, Apple's profit margin(利润) was more than 21 percent. At Hewlett-Packard, the world's biggest PC maker, it was only 7 percent.

    Apple's annual upgrades of its products create sales of millions of units as owners of one year's MacBook or iPhone line up to buy the newest version, even when the changes are slight.

    As to Li Jijia, the need for upgrading his smart-phone comes mainly from friends and classmates. When they are switching to the latest equipment, he worries about feeling left out.

    "Some games require better hardware to run," said Li. "If you don't join in, you lose part of the connection to your friends."

    A group of scientists is gathering today in the U. K. to discuss a thick piece of ice that's cracking in Antarctica, which is of the size of Delaware.

    The ice shelf is called Larsen C, and it now has a 90-mile crack running through it. The big rift (裂缝) is slicing the ice shelf from top to bottom. But this is not just another sad climate change story. It's more complicated. "A lot of things are going on deep inside the ice," says Adrian Luckman, a glaciologist.

    Luckman says climate change is certainly influencing this region. Larsen C used to have two neighbors to the north, Larsen A and Larsen B. As the air and water warmed, those ice shelves started melting and then disappeared in 1995 and 2002. But the crack in Larsen C seems to have happened on its own, for different reasons.

    Larsen C has many cracks. All ice shelves do. This particular crack has been around since at least the 1960s. The unusual part is that in 2014, this crack — and only this crack — started growing quickly. Why?

    "Well, that is a little bit of a mystery and that's why it drew itself to our attention," says Luckman. One puzzling aspect is how it managed to cut through areas of softer ice that bind (连接) the ice from neighboring glaciers into one giant sheet. Starting in 2014, that soft ice did very little to slow down this rift.

    Scientists are split on how important this crack is for the stability of the whole ice shelf. Some say if this giant section breaks off, it won't make a difference. Others disagree.

    "Ice shelves are the gates of Antarctica in a way, and the gatekeepers of Antarctica. The ice shelves are already floating, so if they fall apart it does not immediately affect sea levels. It's what they hold back -water from all the inland glaciers — that could be problematic. If all the water packed in those glaciers made their way to the sea, it could significantly raise global sea levels," says Ala Khazendar, a geophysicist.

    In a recent series of experiments at the University of California, researchers studied toddlers' thinking about winners and losers, bullies (欺凌) and victims.

    In the first experiment, toddlers (学步儿童) watched a scene in which two puppets (木偶) had conflicting goals: One was crossing a stage from right to left, and the other from left to right. The puppets met in the middle and stopped. Eventually one puppet bowed down and moved aside, letting the other one pass by. Then researchers asked the toddlers which puppet they liked. The result: 20 out of 23 toddlers picked the higher-status puppet—the one that did not bow or move aside. It seems that individuals can gain status for being dominant (占优势的) and toddlers like winners better than losers.

    But then researchers had another question: Do toddlers like winners no matter how they win? So researchers did another experiment very similar to the one described above. But this time, the conflict ended because one puppet knocked the other down and out of the way. Now when the toddlers were asked who they liked, the results were different: Only 4 out of 23 children liked the winner.

    These data suggest that children already love a winner by the age of 21-31 months. This does not necessarily mean that the preference is inborn: 21 months is enough time to learn a lot of things. But if a preference for winners is something we learn, we appear to learn it quite early.

    Even more interesting, the preference for winners is not absolute. Children in our study did not like a winner who knocked a competitor down. This suggests that already by the age of 21-31 months, children's liking for winners is balanced with other social concerns, including perhaps a general preference for nice or helpful people over aggressive ones.

    In a time when the news is full of stories of public figures who celebrate winning at all costs, these results give us much confidence. Humans understand dominance, but we also expect strong individuals to guide, protect and help others. This feels like good news.