In this day and age,it may seem that getting two people with different views together to discuss them leads to a disaster.Just think about what would happen if you sat down and had an open and honest conversation with someone with completely opposing views.Could it bring you closer together?

    However,the Human Library Organization is counting on it.At a Human Library,people volunteer to become "books" and make their experiences open and available."Readers" are encouraged to ask them questions freely,and they'll get honest answers in return.There's no judgment,and no questions are off—limits.

    You won't find unpleasant comments,and you won't lose faith in humanity.At the Human Library,you actually feel letter about the world you live in.You might even make a new friend!

    "The human books consist of people who have been discriminated by society."said Ronni Abergel,the Human Library Organization's founder,who has set out to build a space for conversations that can challenge prejudices through dialogue."The most pleasantly surprising thing about it is how close all the human books become to one another."she said.

    Human Libraries help to remind us there really is more that unites us than divides us.And as events now spread throughout 82 countries,with Human Libraries even set to launch soon in Pakistan and Jordan,you can tell that is a shared feeling.

    "We can spend billions and billions in trying to build up homeland security and our safety,but real safety comes from having positive relations to other groups in your community."said Abergel,"Real safety is not going to come from building walls.It's going to come from reaching out and getting to know each other."

    Most of us will be familiar with the traditional talent show set-up: thousands of hopefuls line up outside the audition（试音）room, wait for hours to go in and perform for a group of judges. Then these potential pop stars could be lucky and get through to the next round, or they might hear the command, "Sorry, it's a no from me. But what do the judges actually bring to a talent show?

    Music talent show judges attract millions of viewers each week to their programs. As public figures, they play an important part in advertising campaigns for these programs. They often receive high salaries and can be moody. Are they really worth the expenses and difficulties that they cause? One solution might be to replace them with computers.

    Can computers really match human judges? Scientist Dr Nick Collins and his team at the University of Sussex think they can. Dr Collins has been working on a project that involves programming three computerized judges that he says would be far more consistent in their judgment of musical performances. Employing a special programming language, Dr Collins's digital judges can be trained up by "listening" to particular musical styles. After they have been listening for a while, the programming language allows these judges to spot the specific features of the music, including the voice quality, the rhythm etc. Collins says, “The judges' listening capacity is not yet as good as a human ear, but they won't be as moody as some human reality TV show judges.”

    Maybe that is the problem with this electronic musical innovation. Real human judges on talent shows interest us with their personality, decisions and catchy phrases. Will a computer program be able to do the same?

    Smoking is harmful. But as soon as you quit the habit, everything will be OK, right? Wrong.

    New research has found that even if you give up smoking, the damage it has done to your genes will stay there for a much longer time. In the research, a team of US scientists studied the blood of 16,000 people. Among them, some were smokers, some used to smoke, and the rest were non-smokers. Scientists compared their genes and found that more than 7,000 genes of smokers had changed--a number that is one-third of known human genes.

    According to NBC News, both heart disease and cancer are caused by genetic changes. Some people may have had the changes when they were born, but most people get them in their day-to-day lives while doing things like smoking.

    When you stop smoking, a lot of these genes will return to normal within five years.

This means your body is trying to heal (治愈) itself of the harmful effects of smoking. But the changes in some of the genes stay for longer. They can stay for as long as 30 years, It's almost like leaving a footprint on wet cement (水泥)—-it will always be there, even when you've walked away and when the cement becomes dry.

    Although the study results may make people unhappy, there is a bright side: the findings could help scientists invent medicine to treat genetic damage caused by smoking or find ways to tell which people have heart disease or cancer risks.

    When Kevin Durant gave his tearful MVP speech in 2014, the NBA star made sure to thank one person who had been there with him from the very beginning: his mother. His heartfelt words about the sacrifices she made for Durant and his brother led to a lifetime movie about her journey as a single parent, The Real MVP: The Wanda Durant Story.

    Today, the NBA superstar's mom travels the country as a motivational speaker and philanthropist (慈善家). On Monday, she spoke at Thomson Reuters' in New York about her personal struggles to achieve financial stability and shared the financial advice she gave her son when he entered the league with CNBC.

    “I wanted him to realize he has worked hard," she says, "And it is OK for him to enjoy himself because of his hard work. But it is also imperative that he prepares for his future.” While she advised him to enjoy the rewards of his labor, she also wanted to make sure that her son knew the importance of financial planning.

    She told the audience that when she found herself a single parent to two children at 21, she couldn't follow the financial principles. Rather than planning for the future, she focused only on how her money could make ends meet for that moment.

Recently, Durant has teamed up with Laurene Powell Jobs for a new philanthropic program called College Track which is aimed at helping disadvantaged kids attend college. As part of the program, Durant has committed to donating $10 million to his hometown's public school system.

    Durant's mom says that in addition to his financial decisions, she is proud of his philanthropic work and his desire to help the community. “I thought giving back was always very important, and so we talked about that and he had seen that from us as a family and it's one of the things that I taught him," she says.

    The first organized system for sending messages began in Egypt around 1500 B.C. This system developed because the pharaohs frequently needed to send messages up and down the Nile River in order to keep their empire running smoothly. Later, the Persians developed a more efficient system for sending messages using men and horses. Messages carriers rode along the road system stretching from one end of the Persian Empire to the other. Along these roads, fresh men and horses waited at special stations to take and pass along any messages that needed to be sent. The stations where riders passed messages back and forth were built 23 kilometers apart, so the men and horses were able to travel quickly between them. The Romans later took up his idea and improved it by using a more advanced and extensive road system.

    In China, however, Kublai Khan had built up his own system for delivering messages. This system worked in the same basic way as the Roman system. The difference was that Kublai Khan kept 300,000 horses along the roads of this delivery lines. There were over 10,000 stations where a message would be passed from one rider to another with a fresh horse. In this way, Kublai Khan could receive messages from anywhere in the country in only a few days.

    It was not until the 1500s that a well-organized postal system appeared again in Europe. One family, the von Taxis family, gained the right to deliver mail for the Holy Roman Empire and parts of Spain. This family continued to carry mail, both government and private, throughout Europe for almost 300 years.

    In 1653, a Frenchman, Renouard de Velayer, established a system for delivering post in Paris. Postal charges at that time were paid by the recipient, but de Velayer's system was unique by allowing the sender to pre-pay the charges, in a similar way to the modern stamp. Unfortunately, de Velayer's system came to an end when jealous competitors put live mice in his letter boxes, ruining his business. Eventually, government-controlled postal systems took over from private postal businesses, and by the 1700s government ownership of most postal systems in Europe was an accepted fact of life.

    The thing that all these early systems had in common was that they were quite expensive for public use, and were intended for use by the government and the wealthy. However, in 1840, a British schoolteacher named Roland Hill suggested introducing postage stamps, and a postal rate based on weight. This resulted in lowering postal rates, encouraging more people to use the system to stay in touch with each other, His idea helped the British postal system begin to earn profits as early as 1850. Soon after that many other countries took up Mr. Hill's idea. And letter writing became accessible to anyone who could write. Today, the Roland Hill awards are given each year to "encourage and reward fresh ideas which help promote philately"(stamp collecting).

    Are some people born clever, and others born stupid? Or is intelligence developed by our environment and our experience? Strangely enough, the answer to these questions is yes. To some extent our intelligence is given to us at birth, and no amount of education can make a genius out of a child born with low intelligence. On the other hand, a child who lives in a boring environment will develop his intelligence less than one who lives in rich and varied surroundings. While the limits of a person's intelligence are fixed at birth, whether or not he reaches those limits will depend on his environment. This view, now held by most experts, can be supported in a number of ways.

    It is easy to show that intelligence is to some extent something we are born with. The closer the blood relationship between two people, the closer they are likely to be in intelligence. Thus if we take two unrelated people at random(随机地) from population, it is likely that their degrees of intelligence will be completely different. If, on the other hand, we take two identical twins, they will very likely be as intelligent as each other. Relations like brothers and sisters, parents and children, usually have similar intelligence, and this clearly suggests that intelligence depends on birth.

    Imagine now that we take two identical twins and put them in different environments. We might send one, for example, to a university and the other to a factory where the work is boring. We would soon find differences in intelligence developing, and this indicates that environment as well as birth plays a part. This conclusion is also suggested by the fact that people who live in close contact with each other, but who are not related at all are likely to have similar degrees of intelligence.