I was never very neat, while my roommate Kate was extremely organized. Each of her objects had its place, but mine always hid somewhere. She even labeled (贴标签 ) everything. I always, looked for everything. Over time, Kate got neater and I got messier. She would push my dirty clothing over, and I would lay my books on her tidy desk. We both got tired of each other.

    War broke out one evening. Kate came into the room. ,Soon, I heard her screaming, "Take your shoes away! Why under my bed!" Deafened, I saw my shoes flying at me. I jumped to my feet and started yelling. She yelled back louder.

    The room was filled with anger. We could not have stayed together for a single minute but for a phone call. Kate answered it. From her end of the conversation, I could tell right away her grandma was seriously ill. When she hung up, she quickly crawled (爬 ) under her covers, sobbing.

    Obviously, that was something she should not go through phone. All of a sudden ,a warm feeling of sympathy rose up in my heart,

    Slowly, I collected the pencils, took back the books, made my bed, cleaned the socks and swept the floor, even on her side. I got so into my work that I even didn't noticed Kate had sat up.

    She was watching, her tears dried and her expression one of disbelief. Then, she reached out her  hands to grasp mine. I looked up into her eyes. She smiled at me. "Thanks."

    Kate and I stayed roommates for the rest of the year. We didn't always agree, but we learned the key to living together: giving in, cleaning up and holding on.

    In June 2014, two leading media in America reported that three-year-old Victoria Wilcher, who suffered facial scarring, was kicked out of a KFC because she was a frightening customer. Later, KFC announced that no evidence had been found to support the story. This phenomenon is largely a product of the increasing pressure in newsrooms that care more about traffic figures.

    Brooke Binkowski, an editor, says that she has seen a shift towards less responsibility in newsrooms. “Clickbait is king, so newsrooms will uncritically print something unreal. Not all newsrooms are like this, but a lot of them are.”

    Asked what the driving factor was, a journalist said, “You've a strict editor and you've to meet your targets. And some young journalists are inexperienced and will not do those checks. So much news reported online happens online. There is no need to get out and knock on someone's door. You just sit at your desk and do it.”

    Another journalist says, “More clicks equal more money. At my former employer in particular, the pressure was due to the limited resources. That made the environment quite horrible to work in.”

    In a Feb. 2015 report for Digital Journalism, Craig Silverman wrote, “Today the bar for what is worth giving attention to seems to be much lower. Within minutes or hours, a badly sourced report can be changed into a story that is repeated by dozens of news websites, resulting in tens of thousands of shares. The rumor becomes true for readers simply by virtue of its ubiquity.”

    And, despite the direction that some newsrooms seem to be heading in, a critical eye is becoming more, not less important, according to the New York Times' public editor, Margaret Sullivan. “Reporters and editors have to be more careful than ever before. It's extremely important to question and to prove before publication.” Yet those working in newsrooms talk of doubtful stories being tolerated. In the words of some senior editors, “a click is a click, regardless of the advantage of a story”. And, “if the story does turn out to be false, it's simply a chance for another bite at the cherry.”

    Going to university is supposed to be a mind-broadening experience.

    That assumption is possibly made in contrast to training for work straight after school. But is it actually true? Jessika Golle of the University of Tubingen, Germany, thought she would try to find out.

    Her result, however, is not quite what might be expected. It shows that those who have been to university do indeed seem to leave with broader and more inquiring minds than those who have spent their immediate post-school years in vocational training for work. However, it is not the case that university broadens minds. Rather, work seems to narrow them.

    After studying the early career of 2095 German youngsters, Dr. Golle reached the conclusion.

    During the period under investigation, Germany had three tracks in its schools: a low one for pupils who would most probably leave school early and enter vocational training; a high one for those almost certain to enter university; and an intermediate one, from which there was a choice between the academic and vocational routes.

    The team used two standardized tests to assess their volunteers. One was of personality traits and the other of attitudes. They administered both tests twice once towards the end of each volunteer's time at school, and then again six years later.

    Of the original group, 382 were on the intermediate track, and it was on these that the researchers focused. Of them, 212 went to university and the remaining 170 chosen for vocational training and a job.

    When it came to the second round of tests, Dr Golle found that the personalities of those who had gone to university had not apparently changed. Those who had undergone vocational training and then got jobs were not that much changed in personality, either except in one crucial respect they had become more responsible.

    That sounds like a good thing, compared with the common public image of undergraduates as a bunch of pampered layabouts(娇生惯养的闲人). But changes in attitude the researchers recorded were more worrying. In the university group, again, none were detectable. But those who had chosen the vocational route showed marked drops in interest in tasks that are investigative and enterprising in nature.

    And that might restrict their choice of careers. Some investigative and enterprising jobs, such as scientific research, are, indeed off limits to the degreeless.

    But many, particularly in Germany, with its tradition of vocational training, are not. The researchers mention, for example, computer programmers, finance-sector workers and entrepreneurs as careers requiring these attributes.

    If Dr Golle is correct, and changes in attitude brought about by the very training Germany prides itself on are narrowing people's choices, that is indeed a matter of concern.

    American high school students are terrible writers, and one education reform group thinks it has an answer: robots. Or, more accurately, robot-readers—computers programmed to scan students' essays and spit out a grade.

    Mark Shermis, professor of the College of Education at the University of Akron, is helping to hold a contest, set up by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (WFHF), which promises $ 100,000 in prize money to programmers who write the best automated grading software. "If you're a high school teacher and you give a writing task, you're walking home with 150 essays," Shermis said. "You're going to need some help."

    Automated essay grading was first proposed in the 1960s, but computers back then were not up to the task. In the late 1990s, as technology improved, several textbooks and testing companies jumped into the field. Today, computers are used to grade essays on South Dakota's student writing assessments and a handful of other exams, including the TOEFL test of English fluency, taken by foreign students.

    The Hewlett contest aims to show that computers can grade as well as English teachers—only much more quickly and without all that depressing red ink. "Automated essay scoring is objective," Shermis said. "And it can be done immediately. If students finish an essay at 10 pm, they will get a result at 10: 01 pm."

    Take, for instance, the Intelligent Essay Assessor, a web-based tool marketed by Pearson Education, Inc. Within seconds, it can analyze an essay for spelling, grammar, organization, and help students to make revisions. The program scans for key words and analyzes semantic (语义的) patterns, and Pearson claims that it can understand the meaning of text much the same as a human reader.

    You probably know who Marie Curie was, but you may not have heard of Rachel Carson. Of the outstanding ladies listed below, who do you think was the most important woman of the past 100 years?

    Jane Addams(1860-1935)

    Anyone who has ever been helped by a social worker has Jane Addams to thank. Addans helped the poor and worked for peace. She encouraged a sense of community(社区)by creating shelters and promoting education and services for people in need . In 1931, Addams became the first American woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Rachel Carson(1907-1964)

    If it weren't for Rachel Carson, the environmental movement might not exist today. Her popular 1962 book Silent Spring raised awareness of the dangers of pollution and the harmful effects of chemicals on humans and on the world's lakes and oceans.

    Sandra Day O'Connor(1930-present)

    When Sandra Day O'Connor finished third in her class at Stanford Law School, in 1952, she could not find work at a law firm because she was a woman. She became an Arizona state senator(参议员) and ,in 1981, the first woman to join the U.S. Supreme Court. O'Connor gave the deciding vote in many important cases during her 24 years on the top court.

    Rosa Parks(1913-2005)

    On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Rasa Parks would not give up her seat on a bus to a passenger. Her simple act landed Parks in prison. But it also set off the Montgomery bus boycott. It lasted for more than a year, and kicked off the civil-rights movement. "The only tired I was, was tired of giving in," said Parks.

    Are you interested in hi-tech products? Here are some that you might find at the market pretty soon.

    CX-1

    Tired of dragging your bag through busy airports? Then you might want to consider CX-1. The smart suitcase uses facial recognizing software to follow its owner as he / she is checking in or heading to the gate. Though CX-1 can only move at a speed of up to seven miles per hour, a tiny tool enables owners to keep track of the suitcase's location. It is expected to be sold on the market by late 2018.

    Aibo

    Sony's latest version of the Aibo robotic dog is almost as fun as the real thing—but much less work. The pet dog can recognize its owner, obey several commands, and even recall the behavior that pleases its master the most. Aibo can also learn new tricks, take photographs, and over time, develop its own unique personality.

    Forpheus

    Forpheus, an "athletic" robot developed by Japanese technology company Omron. It teaches users how to play ping-pong. The 10-feet-tall machine uses a camera and artificial intelligence to track the ball's speed and can predict the ball's direction correctly. The smart Forpheus can also quickly test its player's abilities and adjust the playing level, making the game fun.

    Black Box VR

    Though many people determine to go to the gym once a week, few reach their goal. Black Box VR wants to change that by turning hard exercise into fun video games. Using it, gym users will find themselves fighting enemies, including big creatures—all while getting exercise.