Oh my God, the robots are taking over! We're doomed! Doomed! Now that I've gotten that out of my system, it's become clear that while we may or may not be doomed, the robots are taking over. The latest example is the government's new guidelines for self-driving cars.

    Tesla, Google and Uber are already testing driverless cars in cities across America. Uber chief executive Travis Kalanick is among those predicting that by 2021, self-driving cars will play a big part in urban settings.

    Nearly 40,000 people died last year in this nation in automobile-related accidents, and we believes driverless cars can save tens of thousands of lives annually.

    Makes sense. Robot drivers are less likely to get drunk, drive without a license, text while driving or feel agitated at the scene of a pileup. On the other hand, I wonder how these highly sensitive cars will react, with walkers constantly dashing into the street. Will they jam on the brakes every 10 seconds?

    But there's a bigger picture. Not only are robots replacing humans behind the wheel, but behind the work desk, in warehouses, senior homes, you name it. Robots aren't just taking over in the workplace.

    The question is, where can't a robot function better than a human? How about writing songs? A robot can go through every combination of notes in record time and come up with a pleasing melody. The lyrics might be a different story. Is a Grammy-winning song co-written by Hank Human and R-3071 in our future?

    Finally, it's only a matter of time until we have robot politicians and presidential candidates. Why not? They can be programmed to be experts in world and domestic affairs and come up with the best solutions without corruption and bad humors.

     Actually, it's too bad such technology isn't available in 2016. Pretty sure the robot would win in a landslide.

    On Monday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention predicted that 42% of Americans could be overweight by 2030. Our expanding bodies not only lead to a medical problem, but also endanger personal safety in some situations—in an airplane crash, for example, according to a recent article in The New York Times.

The New York Times' Christine Negroni reports that engineers and scientists are questioning whether airplane seats are designed to protect overweight travelers. Government standards(标准) for airplane seat strength—first set more than 60 years ago—require that the seats be made for a passenger weighing 170 pounds. Today, the average American man weighs nearly 194 pounds and the average woman 165 pounds. Negroni reports:

     “If a heavier person completely fills a seat, the seat is not likely to behave as designed during a crash,” Robert Salzar, the leading scientist at the Center for Applied Biomechanics at the University of Virginia. “The energy that is built into the aircraft seat is likely to be overpowered and the passengers will not be protected properly”.

     “Nor would the injury be limited to that passenger only,” Dr. Salzar said. “If a seat or a seat belt fails,”he said, “those people who are seated nearby could not be safe from the uncontrolled movements of the passenger.”

    Most complaints(投诉) about airplane seats focus on their lack of comfort and high ticket price, and whether overweight passengers should be made to buy two seats. But The New York Times' article brings up another reason to feel anxious about flying. Investigators(调查者) got in touch with the airplane seat and seat belt makers, but they refused to talk about the problem. Experts agreed that crash testing should be done. Both airplane seats and seat belts should be tested, they said.

    Fortunately, however, according to Nora Marshall, a senior adviser at the National Transportation Safety Board, the board's investigators have never seen an accident involving a commercial plane in which the weight of a passenger was a problem.

    A sense of humor is something highly valued. A person who has a great sense of humor is often considered to be happy and socially confident. However, humor is a double-edged sword. Sometimes it can damage self-respect and annoy others.

    People who use bonding humor tell jokes and generally lighten the mood. They're thought to be good at reducing the tension in uncomfortable situations. They often make fun of their common experiences, and sometimes they may even laugh off their own misfortunes. The basic message they deliver is: We're all alike, we find the same things funny, and we're all in this together.

    Put-down humor, on the other hand, is an aggressive type of humor used to criticize others through teasing. When it's aimed against politicians, as it often is, it's extremely funny and mostly harmless. But in the real world, it may have a harmful effect. An example of such humor is telling friends an embarrassing story about another friend. When challenged about their teasing, the put-down jokers might claim that they are "just kidding," thus allowing themselves to avoid responsibility. This type of humor, though considered by some people to be socially acceptable, may hurt the feelings of the one being teased and thus have a bad effect on personal relationships.

    Finally, in hate-me humor, the joker is the target of the joke for the amusement of others. This type of humor was used by comedians John Belushi and Chris Farley—both of whom suffered for their success in show business. A small amount of such humor is charming, but routinely offering oneself up to be embarrassed destroys one's self-esteem, and fosters depression and anxiety.

    So it seems that being funny isn't necessarily an indicator of good social skills and well-being. In certain cases, it may actually have a negative effect on interpersonal relationships.

    Inspiring young minds!

    TOKNOW Magazine is a big hit in the world of children's publishing, bringing a unique combination of challenging ideas and good fun to young fans every month.

    Sounds too good to be true?

    Take a look online—evidence shows that thousands of teachers and parents know a good thing when they see it and recommend TOKNOW to their friends.

    Happy Birthday All Year!

    What could be more fun than a gift that keeps coming through the letterbox every month? The first magazine with your gift message will arrive in time for the special day.

    SUBSCRIBE NOW

    Annual Subscription: Europe £55;    Rest of World £65.

    Annual Subscription with Gift Pack: Includes a Mammoth Map, a Passport Puzzle Booklet, and Subscription. Europe £60;    Rest of World £70.

    Refund Policy—the subscription can be cancelled within 28 days and you can get your money back.

    Britain's first zero-carbon homes are being built—and they look like something from a science-fiction movie.

    There are 25 eco-friendly homes currently being built in Southmoor, near Abingdon, Oxon. Buyers are able to have the final say on floor layouts，kitchens and bathrooms. One three-bedroom home is on the market for￡801 ,000,with a custom build available to suit your own specification. These eco-friendly houses are powered entirely by electricity from solar panels around the houses. They also have advanced ventilation (通风) systems, making sure that temperatures inside the building don't go beyond 25℃ for more than 10% of hours annually, as well as mini heat pumps to generate (产生) the heating and hot water on-site. Part of the cooling design includes avoiding east-or west-facing windows, and window shading.

    And they're in high demand. Ian Pritchett, of Ssassy Property, thinks the Government should do more to promote the construction of this type of housing. "Unfortunately, the Government relaxed the proposed 2016 zero-carbon targets after being lobbied(游说)by house builders," Ian explained. "At present, the main house-building corporations control the land and only build at the rate they are sure will sell, keeping the UK's housing shortage so that the normal rules of 'supply and demand' don't apply. When there is a shortage of housing, buyers have to purchase what is available rather than what they might want."

    In any sensible society, we would expect the planning system to actively encourage zero-carbon houses, and he tough on anyone failing to deliver the necessary standard. Instead, we have a planning system that focuses on other aspects such as numbers of bedrooms, garden sizes, and parking places. These are important aspects, but they pale into insignificance compared to the catastrophic consequences of climate change.