Many people write to newspaper and magazines to express their opinions. Letters to the editor must carry the writer's full name, address and telephone number, although the information is not necessary for publication. This requirement to provide personal particulars is a clear indication that writers are held responsible for what they say. When a writer wants his voice heard, he needs to claim ownership of his voice. Responsibility is the name of the game.

    “People today prefer living together to putting their signatures on a marriage certificate because they refuse to accept responsibility for the relationship,” said social worker Ken Yip, “and this is what is causing a lot of family problems.” When we sign a paper, for example, a business contract or a bank document, the signature is a seal of consent, an agreement to take the matter seriously. Most governments and many organizations will not process written complaints if they do not bear the writer's signature. The absence of a signature, they explain, tells us that the writer cannot be too serious and therefore does not deserve a reply.

    There are people who wish to remain anonymous(匿名的) for various reasons. Multi-billionaire Mr. King donates generously to charity several times a year. He gives simply because he wants to help but not for the publicity his donations may bring, and he does not want his good deeds to make news. In other cases, people insist on anonymity because they are afraid of the consequences of revealing their identity. Crime witnesses may be willing to assist the police, but most are unwilling to give their names when reporting a crime.

    Name or no name? The answer is very personal and lies in how much we want to get involved. We all have a name. It is a matter of responsibility to use it when we make a statement, a claim or an accusation. We all want to honor our own name, and it is only by stamping our expression of an opinion with our own name that we honor what we say.

    Two recent studies have found that punishment is not the best way to influence behavior.

    One showed that adults are much more cooperative if they work in a system based on rewards. Researchers at Harvard University in the United States and the Stockholm School of Economics in Sweden did the study.

    They had about two hundred college students play a version of the game known as the Prisoner's Dilemma. The game is based on the tension between the interests of an individual and a group. The students played in groups of four. Each player could win points for the group, so they would all gain equally. But each player could also reward or punish each of the other three players. Harvard researcher David Rand says the most successful behavior proved to be cooperation. The groups that rewarded the most earned about twice as much in the game as the groups that rewarded the least. And the more a group punished itself, the lower its earnings. The study appeared last month in the journal Science.

    The other study involved children. It was presented last month in California at a conference on violence and abuse（虐待）. Researchers used intelligence tests given to two groups. More than eight hundred children were aged two to four the first time they were tested. More than seven hundred children were aged five to nine. The two groups were retested four years later, and the study compared the results with the first test. Both groups contained children whose parents used physical punishment and children whose parents did not.

    The study says the IQs of the younger children who were not spanked were five points higher than those who were. In the older group, the difference was almost three points. The more they are spanked, the slower their mental development.

    Every people uses its own special word to show its ideas and feelings. Some of these expressions（表达，说法） are commonly used for many years. Others are popular for just a short time. One such American expression is “Where's the beef?” It is used when something is not as good as it is said to be. In the early 1980s “Where's the beef?” was one of the most popular expressions in the United States. It seemed as if everyone using it at the time.

    Beef, of course, is the meat from a cow, and food is more popular in America than a hamburger made from beef. In the 1960s a businessman named Ray began building small restaurants that sold hamburgers at a low price. Ray called this “McDonald's”. Ray became one of the richest businessmen at last in America.

    Other business people watched his success. Some of them opened their own hamburger restaurants. One company called “Wendy's” said its hamburgers were bigger than those sold by McDonald's or anyone else. The Wendy's Company began to use the expression “Where's the beef?” to make people know that Wendy's hamburgers were the biggest. The Wendy's television advertisement showed three old women eating hamburgers. The bread that covered the meat was very big, but inside there was only a bit of meat. One of the women said she would not eat a hamburger with such a little piece of beef. “Where's the beef?” she shouted in a funny way. The advertisement for Wendy's hamburger restaurants was success. As we said, it seemed everyone began using the expression “Where's the beef?”.

    A little old couple walked slowly into McDonald's one cold winter evening. They were so old that they looked out of place among the young families and young couples eating there that night.

    Some of the customers looked admiringly at them. You could tell what the admirers were thinking. “Look, there is a couple who has been through a lot together, probably for 60 years or more!”

    The little old man walked right up to the cash register (收银台), placed his order with no hesitation and then paid for their meal. The couple took a table near the back wall and started taking food off the tray (托盘). There was one hamburger, one order of French fries and one drink. The little old man unwrapped the plain hamburger and carefully cut it in half. He placed one half in front of his wife. Then he carefully counted out the French fries, divided them in two piles and neatly placed one pile in front of his wife. He took a sip of the drink, his wife took a sip and then set the cup down between them.

    As the man began to eat his few bites of hamburger the crowd began to get restless. Again you could tell what they were thinking, “That poor old couple. All they can afford is one meal for the two of them.”

    As the man began to eat his French fries one young man stood and came over to the old couple's table. He politely offered to buy another meal for the old couple to eat. The old man replied that they were just fine. They were used to sharing everything.

    Then the crowd noticed that the little old lady hadn't eaten a bite. She just sat there watching her husband eat and occasionally taking turns sipping the drink.

    Again the young man came over and begged them to let him buy them something to eat. This time the lady explained that, no, they were used to sharing everything together.

    As the little old man finished eating and was wiping his face neatly with a napkin the young man could stand it no longer. Again he came over to their table and offered to buy some food.

    After being politely refused again, he finally asked a question of the little old lady. “Ma'am, why aren't you eating? You said that you share everything. What is it that you are waiting for?”

    She answered, “The teeth”.

    Most groups of plants and animals are richer in species and more plentiful near the equator. In the ocean, that holds true for cold-blooded predators(掠食者). But warm-blooded predators are more diverse toward the poles and noticeably missing from several warm hot spots. Why?

    John Grady, an ecologist, and his team considered the possibility—warm-blooded animals need a lot to fuel their metabolism(新陈代谢). Perhaps colder waters are just richer in small fish? But they found that at higher, colder places, there isn't actually much more food around. It's more that warm-blooded animals are eating a much bigger share of it than their cold-blooded competitors.

    The real explanation is simple. An animal's speed, swiftness, and intelligence depend on its metabolism, which in turn depends on its temperature. Since birds and mammals can keep heating their bodies in icy conditions, they remain fast and attentive. By contrast, the fish they hunt become slower and duller. At some tipping point of temperature, seals, dolphins, and penguins start out swimming their prey(猎物). They become more likely to come upon targets and outpace the cold-blooded predators of their own.

    In Grady's words, "Warm-bodied predators are favoured where preys are slow, stupid and cold." That's why sharks and other predatory fish dominate near the equator, but colder waters are the kingdom of whales and seals. By keeping food to themselves in the poles, these creatures can then specialize on specific types of prey, which makes them more likely to split into separate species. The killer whales of the North Pacific, for example, include mammal-eating transients and fish-eating, year-round residents.

    But the world is changing. It's likely that the surface of the oceans will warm by 2 to 3℃ within this century. Grady's team estimates that every time the ocean's surface warms by 1℃, populations of sea mammals will fall by 12%, and populations of seals and sea lions will fall by 24%.

    But "predictions are hard," Donna Hauser from the University of Alaska Fairbanks notes. "Polar bears are losers of a warming world, but some populations are still doing well. Some groups of whales have changed the timing of their migrations; others are hunting in deeper, colder waters. These changes might make sea mammals more adaptable to changing climates. Maybe they just need to find the places where fish remain slow, stupid and cold."

    On Sunday, November 3, 2019, most North Americans will mark the end of Daylight Saving Time (DST) by moving their clocks back an hour. This simple action will not only add an extra 60 minutes to their weekend, but also shift (变换，变动) daylight back into the morning hours, making it a little less painful to wake up for school and work during the shorter winter days.

    Operating the clocks was first suggested by Benjamin Franklin in 1784. He mentioned the idea in a letter to the editor of the Journal of Paris and advised it should be a way to save candles, but it was not taken seriously. George Hudson from New Zealand also recommended moving the clocks back two hours in 1895 to get extra daylight time to study insects. Unfortunately, neither he nor British people William Willett, who suggested it in 1907 as a way to save electricity costs, got their wish.

    It was the German Empire that began the clock shifting tradition on April 30, 1916, to save fuel needed to produce weapons and bombs for World War I. Though a few others, including the US and Britain, adopted the tradition shortly after, all the countries returned to Standard Time once the war ended, only to start DST again during World War II. Once the battle ended in 1945, the US government ended DST nationally but allowed states and districts to continue the tradition and even allowed them to establish their own start and stop dates.

    However, though there have been many attempts to persuade lawmakers to end DST, both in the US and Europe, they have not been successful. Therefore, unless you live in places like Hawaii and Arizona, you have little choice but to "Fall Back" and enjoy the extra hour this weekend! Health experts suggest the best way to adjust is going to bed at your regular time, even if the day is an hour longer.