Here, sleep experts clear up some of the biggest misunderstandings about sleep they see with their patients, which could weaken your ability to have a night of good sleep.

Myth: {#blank#}1{#/blank#}

    The latest research shows that the right amount of sleep may vary from person to person and should leave you feeling energized the next day. I'm a sleep doctor. Take myself for example. {#blank#}2{#/blank#}.

Myth: Don't fall asleep with the TV on.

    I've cured more people suffering from sleep problems than you can imagine by telling  people it's OK to fall asleep with the TV on. {#blank#}3{#/blank#}Control the watching time so it doesn't affect your sleep later in the night.

Myth: You can catch up on lost sleep on the weekend.

    {#blank#}4{#/blank#} A Harvard study found that even if you sleep for an extra 10 hours on the weekend to make up for only sleeping six hours a night for two weeks, those extra hours won't improve  your reaction times or ability to focus. Plus, sleeping late throws off your biological clock, which can lead to obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

Myth: Alcohol can help you rest easy.

    {#blank#}5{#/blank#} Alcohol may relax you so you nod off quicker, but studies show you'll wake up more and get less of deep sleep you need to feel rested.

    The police in Taiwan are unable to judge whether to treat it as an extremely clever act of stealing or an even cleverer cheat. Either way, it could be the perfect crime, because the criminals are birds — homing pigeons!

    The crime begins with a telephone message to the owner of a stolen car: if you want the car back, pay up. Then, the car owner is directed to a park, told where to find a bird cage and how to attach money to the neck of the pigeon inside. Carrying the money in a tiny bag, the pigeon flies off.

    There have been at least four such pigeon pick-ups in Changwa. What at first seemed like the work of a clever stay-at-home car thief, however, may in fact be the work of an even lazier and more inventive criminal mind — one that avoids not only collecting money but going out to steal the car in the first place. Police officer Chen says that the criminal probably has pulled a double trick: he gets money for things he cannot possibly return. Instead of stealing cars, he lets someone else do it and then waits for the car-owner to place an ad in the newspaper asking for help.

    The theory is supported by the fact that, so far, none of the stolen cars have been returned. Also, the amount of money demanded — under 3,000 Taiwanese dollars — seems too little for a car worth many times more.

    Demands for pigeon-delivered money stopped as soon as the press reported the story. And even if they start again, Chen holds little hope of catching the criminal. “We have more important things to do,” he said.

    Last month, the president of the Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, held an underwater meeting. The purpose of the ocean floor conference is to highlight the effects of global warming on his island nation.

    The Maldives, located in the Indian Ocean, is the lowest-lying country on Earth. Melting glaciers and polar ice are causing sea levels to rise, putting the Maldives and other low-lying areas at risk of being swallowed by the sea within the next 100 years.

    What can be done? Scientists and leaders from 190 nations will try to figure that out at the United Nations climate change conference next month. The main goal of the meeting is to come up with a new climate agreement for 2012 and beyond. That is when the existing plan, the Kyoto Protocol will expire. The agreement was created in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997. Since then, it has been ratified(正式批准) by 190 nations. The countries promised to limit the amount of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, which they produced each year.

    The debate over who should cut greenhouse emissions has been going on for years. The US has been hesitant to reduce emissions unless fast-growing nations such as China and India also reduce their use of fossil fuels. In recent months, China has taken steps to be greener. But India has been unwilling to change. It argues that it is unfair for rich nations to ask poorer countries to cut down on emissions.

    While world leaders work on a plan in Copenhagen, there are many things you can do to help the planet. You can save fuel by walking or biking instead of riding in a car. You can start a recycling program in your community. You can plant trees. Trees absorb carbon dioxide from the air and give off oxygen.

    Many people have long dreamed of being able to fly around as simply as riding a bicycle. Yet the safety and strength of a flying bike was always a big problem. Over the past 10 years, developments in technology have moved the dream of personal flying vehicles closer to reality. Now, two groups of inventors say such vehicles may be available soon.

    The British company Malloy Aeronautics has developed a prototype (原型) of its flying bicycle. Grant Stapleton, marketing sales director of Malloy Aeronautics, says the Hoverbike is able to get in and out of small spaces very quickly." It can be moved across continents very quickly because it can be folded and packed," he adds.

    Mr. Stapleton says safety was the company's main concern. He says the designers solved the safety issue by using overlapping rotors to power the vehicle.

    The company is testing a full-size prototype of the Hoverbike, which will most likely be used first by the police and emergency rescue teams.

    In New Zealand, Martin Aircraft Company is also testing a full-size prototype of its personal flying device, called the Jetpack. It can fly for more than 30 minutes, up to 1, 000meters high and reach a speed of 74 kilometers per hour.

    Peter Coker is the CEO of Martin Aircraft Company. He said the Jetpack "is built around safety from the start". In his words, “Reliability is the most important element of it. We have safety built into the actual structure itself, very similar to a Formula One racing car.

    The Jetpack uses a gasoline-powered engine that produces two powerful jet streams. Mr. Coker says it also has a parachute that would be used, if there should be an emergency. "It starts to work at very low altitude and actually saves both the aircraft and the pilot," he adds. Mr. Coker says the Jetpack will be ready for sale soon.

On Monday, a scientist and doctor Robert Winston is to formally ask a question in congress about what assessments the government has made "for requiring adults riding bicycles in city centres to heave a licence and third-party insurance". The letter below is the entirely imagined response I would like the government to make to him.

Dear Robert,

You ask what assessments we've made for your proposal about obliging cyclists to have licences and insurance. The brief answer is: none. Nor do we have any plans to do so.

Why? Again, the short answer is this: it's a silly and pointless thing to suggest, as evidenced by the fact that practically no countries or territories anywhere in the world require cyclists to be licensed, or to have compulsory insurance.

I suppose it's only fair if I explain why I think it is such a non-issue. It's pretty simple: such a plan would achieve pretty much nothing, while causing significant problems. More widely, any sensible governments will do everything in their power to get more people cycling, not to put pointless obstacles in their way.

Let's just take one example. As I'm sure you know as a doctor, one of the problems facing our nation is that the National Health System is likely to collapse under the caring for an increasingly overweight population. Inactive living is central to this. Even a fairly brief daily bike trip can have miraculous benefits for people's health.

Next, how would such rules even work? Would the licensing and insurance be just for adults, or also children? How would the system even be enforced-would it also require all bikes to be registered with number plates?

Finally, what would you hope to achieve by this? If you believe licensing transport users stops wrongdoing, can I point to you the data showing how a third of drivers admit to using handheld phones while driving, despite the law forbidding it.

So, to summarize：your plan would be to introduce a hugely new administrative scheme that would most likely have limited effect on the behaviour of averagely law-abiding (守法的) transport users who rarely harm others, while putting people off from this beneficial type of transport.

I'm afraid I just don't get it.