Every so often, mankind comes up with really good inventions that have changed our daily lives. However, the U.S. Patent Office has issued over 7. 5 million patents, and not all of them are quite so celebrated. Some good, some bad, and some crazy! The following lists some of the more unusual ideas that have come along.

    Snake Leash

    In 2002, a patent was issued for a snake-walking leash. There are at least two major problems with this idea.  1) Dog leashes fit securely between the head and shoulders. A snake does not have shoulders; so it might slither away. 2) Dogs are OK for public places because they are social animals, and people like them. Snakes are not OK for public places because they are not social, and some people are terrified of them.

    Stadium Helmet

    Americans are known for our love of sports. Unfortunately, good tickets to games are expensive, and some fans have to sit in the nosebleed sections. This invention, patented in 2000, is designed for these fans.  Featuring a built-in radio, binoculars(望远镜) , a cooling fan,  and a helmet for falling litter, this design transforms the stadium experience.

    Bacon Alarm Clock

    When you think about it, waking to the dreadful, blaring noise of an alarm clock is a terrible way to start the day. However; this clock could change that. You simply put a piece of frozen bacon in the alarm clock, set the alarm, and go to sleep. The clock gently wakes you up with the mouthwatering smell of bacon the next morning, just like waking up on a Sunday morning to the smell of Mom cooking breakfast. Who said there's no time to eat breakfast?

    Toilet Lock

    In 1969, a patent was issued for a really bad idea – the toilet seat lock. First of all, fishing for your keys when you have to go seems very unpleasant. Then there is the possibility of losing the key altogether. What about guests? Just think that you would have to ask permission for the bathroom. Of course, there is the ultimate question: Why would you lock it in the first place?

    Humana Bird Feeder

    People have always admired the gracefulness and beauty of birds, and bird watching is a popular hobby. Unfortunately, getting up close and personal is a challenge. That is, until now.  In 1999, a patent was issued for a helmet with birdfeeders attached to it. Although there may be a design flaw (缺陷) (turning the head to see the birds would probably frighten them), this invention could change the way of bird watching.

    People are being lured(引诱)onto Facebook with the promise of a fun and free service without realizing they're paying for it by giving up large amounts of personal information. Facebook then attempts to make money by selling their data to advertisers that want to send targeted messages.

    Most Facebook users don't realize this is happening. Even if they know what the company is up to, they still have no idea what they're paying for Facebook, because people don't really know what their personal details are worth.

    The biggest problem, however, is that the company keeps changing the rules. Early on, you could keep everything private. That was the great thing about Facebook—you could create your own little private network. Last year, the company changed its privacy rules so that many things—your city, your photo, your friends' names—were set, by default(默认), to be shared with everyone on the Internet.

    According to Facebook's vice-- president Elliot Schrage, the company is simply making changes to improve its service, and if people don't share information, they have a “less satisfying experience.”

    Some critics think this is more about Facebook looking to make more money. Its original business model, which involved selling ads and putting them at the side of the page, totally failed. Who wants to look at ads when they're online connecting with their friends?

    The privacy issue has already landed Facebook in hot water in Washington. In April, Senator(议员) Charles Schumer called on Facebook to change its privacy policy. He also urged the Commission to set guidelines for social-networking sites. “I think the senators rightly communicated that we had not been clear about what the new products were and how people could choose to use them or not to use them,” Schrage admits.

    I suspect that whatever Facebook has done so far to invade our privacy, it's only the beginning, which is why I'm considering deactivating(撤销)my account. Facebook is a handy site, but I'm upset by the idea that my information is in the hands of people I don't know. That is too high a price to pay.

    Most dog owners believe their dogs experience guilt, but animal behaviorists say the "guilty look" of a dog is simply a reaction to you and that dogs lack the ability to feel shame.

    Alexandra Horowitz, a psychology professor and principal investigator at the Horowitz Dog Cognition Lab at Columbia University once carried out a study on dog "guilt". She videotaped 14 dogs in a series of trials and observed how they reacted when their owners left the room after instructing them not to eat a treat. When the owner was gone, Horowitz gave some of the dogs the forbidden treat. Then she would tell the owners whether their dogs had eaten the treat or had behaved. However, Horowitz wasn't always honest with them.

    Horowitz found that the dogs' "guilty looks" had little to do with whether they'd eaten the treat or not. In fact, dogs that hadn't eaten it but were scolded by misinformed owners tended to exhibit the most elements of the "guilty look".

Horowitz says this shows that the dogs' body language is actually a response to their owner's behavior—not an experience of shame for a misdeed. Why then, do dogs look so ashamed when we scold them?

Maybe that look of guilt is the result of a learned association. When you scold your dog for chewing up a pair of slippers, he quickly learns that if he lowers his head and tucks his tail, the undesirable response—raised voice and angry expression—is more likely to disappear.

    A new study from brain researchers helps explain how the human brain evolved or changed over time, to permit people to speak and write.

    Michael Ullman, the lead researcher, a professor at Georgetown University Medical School in Washington, D.C, has been studying language learning for more than 20 years.

    Ullman says his research shows that the human brain does not have a special area or system for making language. Over time we have simply reused or co-opted (指派) parts of our brain for language. And those parts, he says, are ancient-older even than humans themselves.

    "This study examines the theoretical framework (准则) that language is learned, stored and' processed in two ancient learning and memory systems in the brain."

    Ullman, Hamrick and the rest of the team looked at data from 16 other studies on language. They found that people learn language using two memory systems: declarative and procedural. Memorizing vocabulary, for example, is a declarative memory process. But learning grammar is, mostly, a procedural memory process.

    "Declarative memory, in humans at least, is what we think of as learning memory', such as, 'Oh, remember what you said last night' or things like that. And procedural motor memory is what we often call motor memory' such as how you learn to ride a bicycle." Or, Ullman adds, "These procedural memory skills become so deeply leaned that we are no longer aware that we are doing them."

    However, Ullman explains that the two long-term memory systems can share tasks. And, he adds, the adult brain uses the systems to learn language a bit differently than a child's brain.

    "Adult language learners of a second language may use their declarative memory for using grammar patterns. They think about it purposefully. For a child, the grammar may come more naturally. They don't have to think about the grammar rules before speaking."

    In addition to language learners, Ullman's study could help people who have a brain injury that affects speaking and writing. This knowledge can also help those who have learning disabilities such as dyslexia (阅读障碍). People with dyslexia have difficulty recognizing words and symbols accurately.

    Angus, Doris, Gabriel and Kamil are some of the 21 names that have been chosen to be given to storms in the UK in the 2016/17 season.

    The Met Office, the UK's national weather service, decided to give storms boys' and girls' names in 2015 in the same way as they did in America.

    The Met Office hopes that naming big storms will mean people are more aware (意识到) of them and how dangerous they can be. Derrick Ryall, from the Met Office, said, "We have seen how naming storms elsewhere in the world raises people's awareness of storms before they break."

    In the past, the same UK storm could be given different names by different organisations. "We noticed that many organisations during the last couple of winters, when we have had bad storms, started giving names to them. Think back to the St Jude's Day storm in 2013, and the so­called Hurricane Bawbag in Scotland in 2011. But it led to confusion (混乱)," a Met Office spokeswoman said.

    According to the Met Office, there is a name for each letter of the whole alphabet (字母表), except for Q, U, X, Y and Z. That is the same as the naming tradition used in America. And not all storms will be big enough to get names — only those expected to cause great damage.

    If there are more than 21 storms in a year, the Met Office will start again with another name beginning with "A". However, according to Met Office spokeswoman Lindsay Mears, "It's unlikely we would get through the whole alphabet in one season. We had 14 storms in the very bad winter of 2013/14, and if the naming system had been in operation then we wouldn't have used the whole alphabet."

    A few years ago, my husband Charlie and I had marital problems. Growing family responsibilities and financial worries took a toll on us and we began arguing frequently, often late into the night.

    However, neither of us could take the step that would end our eleven-year marriage and bring heartbreak to our three young children. Deep down we knew we still loved each other, so we determined to work it out. Through countless discussions, we began to close the gulf. The more honest we were, the closer we became.

    When I felt we were reaching solid ground, I asked my husband to give me an "eternity (永恒) ring". It was not so much the ring I wanted; it was the reassurance (保证) I thought it would bring.

    We went shopping on a beautiful summer day. We walked hand in hand along a row of jeweler's shops. Finally I found a ring I liked. While waiting for it to be adjusted, the jeweler took my left hand and glanced at my engagement ring. "May I clean it for you?" he asked. "It really doesn't sparkle like it used to." Charlie said as I slipped the ring off my finger. A few minutes later the jeweler was back. The ring shone like new!

    On the drive home, I didn't take my eyes off it. I forgot all about the eternity ring. I just couldn't believe how this old ring suddenly sparkled the way it had the day Charlie gave it to me. I had taken it for granted these past years, but with a little polish it could still make my heart beat fast.

    And that's the way it is with a marriage. You have to work at keeping it polished and new, or else the grime (污垢) of the passing years will hide the joy. I put my hand on the seat between us and spread my fingers. Charlie covered my hand with his. I felt I was lucky to be able to see the sparkle in something gold when I thought I needed something new.