C

        A scientist working at her lab bench and a six-old baby playing with his food might seem to have little in common.After all,the scientist is engaged in serious research to uncover the very nature of the physical world,and the baby is,well, just playing…right? Perhaps,but some developmental psychologistshave argued that this“play”is  more like a scientific investigation than one might think.

Take a closerlookat the baby playing at the table.Each time the bowl of rice is pushed over the table edge,it falls in the ground—and, in the process, it belongs out important evidence about how physical objects interact ; bowls of rice do not flood in mid-sit, but require support to remain stable. It is likely that babies are not born knowing the basic fact of the universe; nor are they ever clearly taught it. Instead, babies may form an understanding of object support through repeated experiments and then build on this knowledge to learn even more about how objects interact. Though their ranges and tools differ, the baby's investigation and the scientist's experiment appear to share the same aim(to learn about the natural world ), overall approach (gathering direct evidence from the world), and logic (are my observations what I expected?).

Some psychologists suggest that young children learn about more than just the physical world in this way—that they investigate human psychology and the rules of language using similar means. For example, it may only be through repeated experiments, evidence gathering, and finally overturning a theory, that a baby will come to accept the idea that other people can have different views and desires from what he or she has. for example, unlike the child , Mommy actually doesn't like Dove chocolate.

Viewingchildhood development as a scientific investigation throws on how children learn ,but it also offers an inspiring look at science and scientists. Why do young children and scientists seem to be so much alike? Psychologists have suggested that science as an effort —the desire to explore, explain, and understand our world—is simply something that comes from our babyhood. Perhaps evolution provided human babies with curiosity and a natural drive to explain their worlds, and adult scientists simply make use of the same drive that served them as children. The same cognitive systems that make young children feel good about feel good about figuring something out may have been adopted by adult scientists. As some psychologists put it, ”It is not that children are little scientists but that scientists are big children.”

    A recent study, while showing a generally positive attitude toward science, also suggests a widespread worry that it may be "running out of control". This idea is dangerous.

    Science can be a force for evil as well as for good. Its applications can be channeled either way, depending on our decisions. The decisions we make, personally or collectively, will determine the outcomes of science. But here is a real danger. Science is advancing so fast and is so strongly influenced by businesses that we are likely to believe whatever decisions we come to will make little difference. And, rather than fighting for the best possible policies, we may step back and do nothing.

    Some people go even further. They say that despite the moral and legal objections, whatever is scientifically possible will be done-somewhere, sometime. They believe that science will get out of control in the end. This belief is dangerous too, because it fuels a sense of hopelessness and discourages then from making efforts to build a safer world.

    In our interconnected world, the lack of agreement in and out of the world of science can lead to the failure to control the use of science. Without a common understanding, the challenges of "controlling" science in this century will be really tough. Take human cloning for example. Despite the general agreement among scientists on its possible huge impact on traditional moral values, some countries still go ahead with the research and development of its related techniques. The outcomes are hard to predict.

    Therefore, discussions on how science is applied should be extended far beyond scientific societies. Only through the untied efforts of people with hope, can we be fully safe against the misuse of science and can science best serve mankind in the future.

    A new web standard is expected to kill passwords, meaning users will no longer have to remember difficult logins(登录) for each and every website or service they use.

    The Web Authentication (WebAuthn网络认证) standard is designed to replace the password with tools that users already own, such as a security key, a smart phone, a fingerprint scanner or webcam. Instead of having to remember long characters, users can authenticate their login with their body or something they have, communicating directly with the website through Bluetooth, USB or NFC.

    "WebAuthn will change the way that people access the Web," said Jeff Jaffe, CEO of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the body that controls web standards. One example of how WebAuthn will work is that when a user visits a site, they put in a user name and then get a message on their smart phone. Tapping on the message on their phone then logs them into the website without the need for a password.

    WebAuthn promises to protect users against phishing attacks(钓鱼攻击) and the use of stolen information as there will be nothing to steal, the authentication sign is produced and used once by their special tool each time the user enters.

    "After years of increasingly serious data and password being stolen, now it is the time for service providers to end their dependency on easily-attacked passwords and use phishing-resistant FIDO Authentication(快速身份认证联盟) for all websites and apps," said Brett McDowell, CEO of the FIDO Alliance, one of the bodies pushing the new standard.

    WebAuthn should also help people use special login details for each and every service they use, instead of using the same login and password for every site, which many people still do, leaving them further attacked if one site is hacked(黑客攻击).

    The W3C has moved WebAuthn to what's called the "candidate recommendation" stage – the last-but-one step before it becomes an approved web standard – inviting sites and services to begin using it. The web standards body announced that Google, Microsoft and Mozilla had been devoted to supporting WebAuthn, meaning that all major web explorers except Apple's Safari will use the new standard.

    "While there are many web security problems and we can't fix them all, relying on passwords is one of the weakest links. With WebAuthn's solutions we are removing this weak link," said Jaffe.

    Several sites and services already use similar methods to enter, including Google and Facebook, which can both be entered using a USB security key. But a single cross-platform, cross-service standard approved by the W3C will mean that many more sites and services will be able to kill the password as the login method.

    WebAuthn is the top of many years of work and the change will not happen overnight. But as it increasingly seems unavoidably that our email or other online services will get hacked into, removing the password is an important step in improving online security and making using sites and services easier.

    A man, who sometimes takes my bus, is in rags. His life seems different from that of the others. He looks exhausted and carries nothing. He appears along a downtown street, seemingly out of nowhere. We sometimes want to know where he sleeps at night.

    A few weeks ago he boarded the bus. A few stops later, a young woman boarded. She swiped (刷) her bus-card, only to find the machine would not accept it. The driver told her to pay the $2.25 fare. “I just bought this card,” she said. “I paid the money...”

    The driver said she could take the card back to the sales office and explain the problem. In the meantime she would have to pay the fare for that day. The woman became confused and distressed. The rest of us just watched, wondering how the problem would be solved. Suddenly the man rose from his seat, dropped a few coins into the fare box.

    “You're lucky,” the bus driver said quietly. “He paid for you.” Silence fell over the bus. The rest of us had watched the woman's discomfort, but he felt it. We lawyers, journalists and business people headed downtown to help fix the world. He fixed her world.

    I haven't seen him since that day. Some people believe angels occasionally drop down and move among us. All I know is that I have a new respect for the simple act of kindness. It speeds us along on our way.

    Making employees feel happy and healthy at work is good for many businesses. But it isn't always an easy thing. A study suggests that only 33% of the U. S. employees consider themselves fully engaged （投身于）in work, while 16% are greatly disengaged, and 51% are just showing up.

    But there is an exception. When it comes to employee engagement, it seems that employees in small companies are doing better. According to the same research, the largest U. S. companies are at the lowest levels of engagement, while companies with fewer than 25 employees are at the highest. And in one recent report, 75% of small business workers surveyed said they were "very" or "extremely" satisfied with their role as a small company employee.

    Unlike big companies, small companies are often short of resources but the employees can get more surprises there. Small companies offer excellent career opportunities to their employees. The bosses often know their staff very well and understand their personal needs. Employees of small companies are more likely to receive free meals, paid leave, and they can even bring their pets to work.

    But of course, there are many other draws in small businesses. One of the top draws is flexible scheduling (弹性工时). Another is being able to really see the fruits of one's labor. Besides, non-cash award is also a big draw. This could be something small that reflects employees' interests and lifestyles.

    While a parental leave might lead to some financial problems, small companies may do something to improve it. "It may be impossible for a five-person team to be reduced to four for six months," writes Camillia Velasquez, head of HR management platform, Justworks. "But it could be possible to allow new parents to take on reduced hours in a work-from-home environment." This kind of method has been realized in some small companies.

    The world's oceans will likely lose about one-sixth of their fish and other creatures within 100 years if climate change continues on its current path. Every degree Celsius that the world's oceans warm, their biomass is expected to drop five percent, a study found.

    The study predicts that if there is no change in the rate of worldwide greenhouse gas production, there will be a 17-percent loss of biomass by the year 2100. But, if the world reduces carbon pollution, biomass losses could be limited to only about 5 percent.

    Warming temperatures are the biggest issue. But climate change also produces oceans that are more acidic and have less oxygen. This also harms sea life. Much of the world depends on the oceans for food or work.

    The findings make sense and the possible effects of the predicted losses of animal life are huge. "Climate change has the potential to cause serious new conflicts over ocean resource use as the human population continues to grow," said scientists.

    Marine biologist Boris Worm, who helped run the study, added that the "building blocks of marine life—plankton and bacteria—may decline less heavily."

    "Those marine animals that we use directly, and care about most deeply, are predicted to suffer the most," said Worm. He works at Canada's Dalehousie University.

    Scientists had already believed climate change would likely reduce future ocean life. But past computer-based studies looked at only part of the picture or used only one model. The latest study used six different computer models to give the best picture look yet, William Cheung said.

    University of Georgia marine biologist Samantha Joye was not part of the research. But she praised the study as well researched and extremely detailed, and called it "an urgent call for action".