The Queen's English is now sounding less upper-class, a scientific study of the Queen's Christmas broadcasts had found. Researchers have studied each of her messages to the Commonwealth countries since 1952 to find out the change in her pronunciation from the noble Upper Received to the Standard Received.

    Jonathan Harrington, a professor at Germany's University of Munich, wanted to discover whether accent  changes recorded over the past half century would take place within one person. “As far as I know, there just is nobody else for whom there is this sort of broadcast records,” he said.

    He said the noble way of pronouncing vowels (元音) had gradually lost ground as the noble upper-class accent over the past years. “Her accent sounds slightly less noble than it did 50 years ago. But these are very, very small and slow changes that we don't notice from year to year.”

    “We may be able to relate it to changes in the social classes,” he told The Daily Telegraph, a British newspaper. “In 1952 she would have been heard saying ‘thet men in the bleck het'. Now it would be ‘that man in the black hat'. Similarly, she would have spoken of ‘citay ' and  ‘dutay' , rather than ‘citee' and ‘dutee' and ‘hame' rather than ‘home'. In the 1950s she would have been ‘lorst', but by the 1970s ‘lost'.”

    The Queen's broadcast is a personal message to the Commonwealth countries. Each Christmas, the 10-minute broadcast is put on TV at 3 pm in Britain as many families are recovering from their traditional turkey lunch.

    The results were published in the Journal of Phonetics.

    While sweet treats can be hard to resist, the World Health Organization(WHO) has set new guidelines for people around the world. The guidelines, released on Wednesday, advise that both adults and children cut back on their sugar intake(摄取量) to stay healthy.

    In a statement, Francesco Branca, director of the WHO's nutrition department, said there is evidence that reducing daily sugar intake reduces the risk of being overweight and tooth decay(腐烂).

    The guidelines do not apply to the sugars in fresh fruit and vegetables or those that are naturally present in milk. According to the WHO, there is no reported evidence of negative effects of consuming those sugars. Instead, the new guidelines focus on “added” or “free” sugars. These include sugars that are added to processed foods and drinks such as candy and soft drinks.

    Added sugars are sometimes described as “ hidden” sugars because they exist in foods we might not think of as sweets, such as honey and ketchup(番茄酱). Health experts advise that consumers look at ingredients on food packages to help make better-informed decisions.

    The WHO recommends that people in the United States, Europe and other Western societies should cut their average sugar intake by about two-thirds, or down to just 10% of their overall calories. For developing countries, where dental care is less advanced, the WHO recommends that sugar intake be reduced to 5%.

    Scientist Kieran Clarke, of the University of Oxford, notes that for those people who can't shake their love for sweets, getting more exercise is a good solution. “If you get enough exercise, you can eat almost anything,” she said “But it's very hard to avoid large amounts of sugar unless all you're eating is fruit and vegetables.”

    Could the device, smartphone or PC, which you are using affect the moral decisions you make when using it? To test it, researchers presented multiple dilemmas to a sample set of 1,010 people. The participants were assigned a device at random.

    One case of the questions participants were asked is the classic “trolley(有轨电车) problem”: A runaway trolley is headed towards five people tied up on a-set of train tracks. You can do nothing, resulting in the deaths of five people, or push a man off a bridge, which will stop the trolley. The practical response is to kill one man to save five lives, which 33. 5 percent of smartphone users chose, compared to 22.3 percent of PC users.

    “What we round in our study is that when people used a smartphone to view classic moral problems, they were more likely to make more unemotional, reasonable decisions when presented with a highly emotional dilemma, “Dr Albert Barque-Duran, the lead author of the study, told City, University of London. “This could be due to the increased time pressure often present with smartphones and also the increased psychological distance which can occur when we use such devices compared to PCs.”

    As for why the researchers started this study, Dr Barque-Duran noted, “Due to the fact that our social lives, work and even shopping take place online, it is important to think about how the contexts where we typically face moral decisions and are asked to engage in moral behavior have changed, and the impact this could have on the hundreds of millions of people who use such devices daily. “It's clear that we need more research on how our devices affect our moral decision making because we're using screens at an ever increasing rate.

    A person's chances of falling ill from a new strain (菌株) of flu are at least partly determined by the first strain they ever met with, a study suggests.

    Research in Science Journal looked at the 18 strains of influenza A ( 甲型流感) and the hemagglutinin protein (红血球凝集素蛋白) on its surface. They say there are only two types of this protein and people are protected from the one their body meets first, but at risk from the other one. A UK expert said that could explain different patterns in flu pandemics (流行病).The researchers, from University of Arizona in Tucson and the University of California, Los Angeles, suggest their findings could explain why some flu outbreaks cause more deaths and serious illnesses in younger people. The first time a person's immune system meets a flu virus, it makes antibodies targeting hemagglutinin protein that sticks out of the surface of the virus — like a lollipop (棒棒糖).

    Even though there are 18 types of influenza A, there are only two versions of hemagglutinin. The researchers, led by Dr Michael Worobey, classed them as "blue" and "orange" lollipops. They said people born before the late 1960s were exposed to "blue lollipop" flu viruses — H1 or H2 — as children. In later life they rarely fell ill from another "blue lollipop" flu — H5N1 bird flu, but they died from "orange" H7N9. Those born in the late 1960s and exposed to "orange lollipop" flu — H3 — have the opposite pattern.

    His team looked at cases of H5N1 and H7N9 — two kinds of bird flu which have affected hundreds of people, but have not developed into pandemics. The researchers found a 75% protection rate against severe disease and 80% protection rate against death if patients had been exposed to a virus with the same protein version when they were children.

    Dr Worobey said the finding could explain the unusual effect of the 1918 "Spanish flu" pandemic, which was more deadly among young adults. "Those young adults were killed by an H1 virus and from blood analysed many decades later there is a pretty strong indication that those individuals had been exposed to a mismatched H3 as children and were therefore not protected against H1. The fact that we are seeing exactly the  same pattern with current H5N1 and H7N9 cases suggests that the same fundamental processes may govern both the historic 1918 pandemic and today's contenders (斗争者) for the next big flu pandemic."

    Jonathan Ball, professor of University of Nottingham, said, "This is a really neat piece of work and provides a reason why human populations have been sensitive to different strains of bird influenza over the past 100 years or so. The findings are based on analysis of patient records and they certainly need further proof in the laboratory, but nonetheless the results are pretty amazing and inspiring."

    You can't always predict a heavy rain or remember your umbrella. But designer Mikhail Belvacv doesn't think that forgetting to check the weather forecast before heading out should result in you getting wet.

    That's why he created Lampbrella, a lamp post with its own rain sensing umbrella.

    The designer says he came up with the idea after watching people get wet on streets in Russia. "Once, I was driving on a central Saint Petersburg street and saw the street lamps lighting up people trying to hide from the rain. I thought it would be appropriate to have a canopy(伞蓬) built into a street lamp," he said.

    The Lampbrella is a standard-looking street lamp fitted with an umbrella canopy. It has a built-in electric motor which can open or close the umbrella on demand. Sensors (传感器)then ensure that the umbrella offers pedestrians shelter whenever it starts raining.

    In addition to the rain sensor, there's also a 360 motion sensor on the fiberglass street lamp which detects whether anyone's using the Lampbrella. After three minutes of not being used the canopy is closed.

    According to the designer, the Lampbrella would move at a relatively low speed, so as not to cause harm to the pedestrians. Besides, it would be grounded to protect from possible lighting strike. Each Lampbrella would offer enough shelter for several people. Being installed at 2 meters off the ground it would only be a danger for the tallest of pedestrians.

    While there are no plans to take Lampbrella into production, Belyaev says he recently introduced his creation to one Moscow Department and insists this creation should be installed on the street where a lot of people walk but there are no canopies to provide shelter.

    The belief that new technologies are causing the death of work is the idea that never goes away. Despite evidence to the contrary, we still view technological change today as being more rapid and dramatic in its consequences for work than ever before. But this is nothing new. People have always viewed the technological changes that take place during their lives as the most dramatic and dangerous that ever happened in history.

    In the 1930s, the British economist(经济学家) John Maynard Keynes predicted the widespread use of electricity would produce a world where people spend most of their time doing nothing. In the United States during the 1960s, the government repeatedly investigates fears that automatic machines would permanently reduce the amount of work available. In 1988, one Australian historian claimed that at least a quarter of the workforce would be without jobs within 10 years because of computers.

    Of course, none of these disasters came to pass in the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia, or anywhere else.

    Yet today, we are seeing the return of these predictions, with some experts claiming the world of work is once more undergoing radical(激进的)and unprecedented(前所未有的) change. They argue that robots and other workplace technologies are causing a reduction in the total amount of work available, or are bringing a more rapid pace of substitution of machines for humans than has been seen previously.

    But there is a little evidence to support such beliefs. Statistics show that the percentage of people in work, the number of hours they work, and how frequently they change jobs have remained remarkably constant over the past 20 years.

    This stability should not come as a surprise. There are good reasons why we should not expect new technologies to cause the death of work. New technologies always cause job losses, but that is only part of the story. What also needs to be understood is how they increase the amount of work available.

    One way this happens is through the increases in incomes that accompany the use of new technologies. With the introduction of these technologies, goods and services can be produced faster, which results in higher real incomes for workers. Higher incomes then increase demand for other products and consequently more workers are needed to make them. Additionally, while new technologies are likely to substitute for some types of workers, they will also increase demand for other types of workers, especially those with higher level skills and expertise.

    So, the end of work is no closer today than at any time in the past. But there is still a need to keep disproving the prediction, to reduce people's fears.