When important events are happening around the world, most people turn to traditional media sources, such as CNN and BBC for the news. However, during the war in Iraq in 2003, many people followed the war from the point of view of an unknown Iraqi citizen who called himself "Salam Pax" (Salam Pax means peace).

    Salam Pax wrote a diary about everyday life in Baghdad during the war, and posted it on his website. Pax's online diary was a kind of website known as a "blog". Blogs are online diaries, usually kept by individuals, but sometimes by companies and other groups of people. They are the fastest growing types of website on the Internet.

    A blog differs from a traditional website in several ways. Most importantly, it is updated much more regularly. Many blogs are updated every day, and some are updated several times a day. Also, most blogs use special software or websites, which can help ordinary people easily set up and start writing their own blogs.

    There are many different kinds of blogs. The most popular type is an online diary of links where the blog writer surfs the Internet and then posts links to sites or news articles that they find interesting, with a few comments about each one. Other types are personal diaries, where the writer talks about their life and feelings. Sometimes these blogs can be very personal.

    There is another kind of blogging, called "moblogging", short for "mobile blogging".

    Mobloggers use mobile phones with cameras to take photos, which are posted instantly to the Internet. The use of mobile phones in this way made the headlines in Singapore when a high school student posted a movie he had taken of a teacher shouting at another student on the Internet. Many people were shocked by what the student did, and wanted phones with cameras to be banned from schools.

    Many people think that as blogs become common, news reporting will rely less on big media companies, and more on ordinary people posting news to the Internet. They think that then the news will be less like a lecture, and more like a conversation, where anyone can join in.

Dear Li Hua,

    On behalf of the admissions committee, it is my honor and privilege to share with you that you have been admitted to the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development at New York University (NYU).

    Albert Gallatin, Treasury Secretary to U.S. Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, rounded NYU in 1831. NYU has since grown to become the largest independent research university in America. I now have the pleasure of welcoming you to one of the most influential universities in the world. Congratulations!

    What Next?

    View your financial aid award (if applicable) and confirm your enrollment (注册) by January 8. Visit our website for very important instructions on how to view your financial aid estimate and confirm your enrollment.

    Withdraw (撤回) applications from other colleges or universities by January 8. As an Early Decision candidate, we expect that you will enroll at NYU if you are I financially able to do so. Once you confirm your enrollment, it is your duty to withdraw any applications you may have made to other colleges or universities. If finances prevent you from attending NYU, we will give up your space in our class on January 9.

    Keep performing. Your admission is contingent (取决于) on the successful completion of your existing academic program at the same performance level as the one presented in your application. Visit our website to review our expectations for admitted students.

    Connect with your classmates. Join the NYU Class of 2022 Facebook page to start connecting and communicating with your fellow NYU classmates.

    Your application was considered for any and all NYU programs and campuses for which you asked for consideration and it is our policy to only make a single offer of admission per student.

    Li Hua, you should be extremely proud of your achievements and I encourage you to celebrate with your family and friends who have supported you on your intellectual journey so far. We look forward to welcoming you to the NYU community.

Sincerely,

Shawn Abbott

Dean of Admissions

    Ever wondered whether punishment actually makes people cooperate (合作)? A team of scientists created an experiment to figure it out and the results were pretty unexpected.

    To understand what they found, you have to know why these scientists were studying punishment. They were trying to figure out why people cooperate when it's often so easy to profit at others expense. Why don't friends steal from each other? Why do parents bother to feed their children? If the answer to these questions is obvious to you, congratulations, you are ahead of scientists. They're still trying to figure it out.

    In this experiment, researchers had 225 Chinese students play a game, where if the students cooperated, they'd all get a number of points. But if one defected (变节) and everyone else cooperated, the defector would get a lot of points, and the cooperators would lose out. This game represents a lot of real life situations where you struggle with a decision: work together and do OK, or run off with the rewards, ruining everybody else's day.

    This is actually a pretty ordinary economic experiment. But the researchers added two changes to see if they could mimic(糢拟)the real world better. Change one: some students played many rounds together, so they'd learn who they could trust. Change two: people could punish each other, sacrificing a point or two to destroy another player's score.

    In the end, the researchers found that playing multiple rounds made people cooperate more, which definitely mimics human society. But the whole punishment thing led to a surprise: punishing didn't actually make people cooperate more. In fact, it made them cooperate less.

    So the scientists still don't know why people cooperate, though it looks like it has more to do with groups sticking together than it does with punishment.

    Cosmo Books Ltd.,                         14, Woodman Road,

    Hertford Estate,                            Two Bridges,

    Rickmansworth,                            West Sussex.

    Middx.                                  25^th February

Dear Sir,

    Just over six months ago, I saw an advertisement in the Morning Mail for a set of the complete works of William Shakespeare. Your company, Cosmo books Ltd., offered this set (eight books of plays and two books of poetry) at what was claimed to be a 'remarkable' price: fifteen pounds and fifty pence, including postage and packing. I had wanted a set of Shakespeare's plays and poems for some time, and these books, in red imitation leather, looked particularly attractive; so I sent for them.

    Two weeks later, the books arrived, together with a set of the complete works of Charles Dickens which I had not ordered. So I returned the Dickens books to you, with a cheque for fifteen pounds and fifty pence for the works of Shakespeare. Two more weeks passed. Then there arrived on my door step a second set of the works of Shakespeare, the same set of novels by Dickens and a six book set of the plays of Moliere, in French. Since I do not read French, these were of no use to me at all. However, I could not afford to post all these books back to you, so I wrote to you at the end of August of last year, instructing you to come and collect all the books that I did not want, and asking you not to send any other books until further notice.

    You did not reply to that letter. Instead you sent me a bill for forty two pounds, and a set of the plays of Schiller, in German. Since then, a new set of books has arrived every two weeks, the works of Goethe, the poems of Milton, the plays of Strindberg; I hardly know what I have. The books are still all in their boxes, in the garage, and my car has to stand in the rain outside.

    I have no room for any more books, and even if I read from now until the Last Judgment, I should not finish reading all the books that you have sent me.

    Please send no more books, send no more bills, send no more angry letters demanding payment. Just send one large lorry and take all the books away, leaving me only with the one set of the complete works of Shakespeare for which I have paid.

Yours faithfully,

SIMON WALKER

    Not all of George H.W. Bush's extended family members were invited to his Washington D.C. memorial service.

    Nearly a week after many paid their respects at the Washington National Cathedral, Sharon Bush, who was married to the 41st president's son Neil from 1980 to 2003, told Page Six that she was allegedly unable to attend the funeral after she was told by her ex-husband's secretary that there were not enough seats.

    "I was going to take the train down. I wanted to pay my respects. But I paid my respects by raising three wonderful children during a 23-year marriage," Sharon told the Outlet.

    Neil and Sharon share three children: son Pierce and daughters Ashley and Lauren Bush Lauren, who gave a reading at the funeral, where the father of three attended with his second wife Maria Andrews, whom he wed in 2004.

    While the D.C. memorial service was taking place, Sharon recalled having lunch with Lady Gaga's mother Cynthia Germanotta and publishing heiress Anne Hearst.

    Though she was snubbed from the funeral, Sharon shared photos on Instagram to honor her former father-in-law. "My girls Lauren and Ashley read scriptures at their grandfather's funeral. I feel so proud of them. May he RIP." The mother of three captioned a photo of Lauren and Ashley.

    "May he RIP," Sharon also posted on Instagram, speaking of their children's upbringing. Sharon credited herself for raising them to be charitable and public servants. "I taught them everything they know about 'points of light' by taking them to soup kitchens and homeless shelters from the time they were 4 years old. I didn't want them spoiled," she said, referencing the public service nonprofit — Points of Light, for which her ex-husband serves as chairman of the board of directors. "I did this. Neil was never around. He was always traveling," Sharon added.

    When my father married my mother in 1943 he gave my mother a 1937 crown coin and told her to keep it in the back of her purse and not spend it. This would mean that she always felt that she was protected and would always have money if she really needed it.

    When I was married in 1970 my husband who had heard this story obtained a 1937 crown for me and I have always kept it in my wallet and I have always had enough for my needs.

    A friend recently fell on hard times partly through external (外部的) circumstances and partly through poor planning. Friends and I have loaned her money, paid her bills, even given her food and tried to teach her budget techniques, but none of them has been a solution. She has just slipped deeper and deeper into financial trouble and depression.

    Last week she looked pale and unwell, very depressed and hopeless. I then thought about how the crown, a reminder of another's care and love, had protected me so I went to the bank for a $100 dollar bill. I told my friend the story and asked her to keep the $100 in the back of her wallet. It turned out that she didn't have a wallet so she put the money in a little pencil case where she kept her coins. She immediately felt better. "I feel rich and thank you for being a good friend" she said and we were both a bit teary.

    The reason for passing this on is not to praise any generosity on my part but to show the power of "random acts of kindness". I went home and remembered a little wallet I had that I'd never used and thought "I'll give that to my friend." I opened it and inside found $100. The universe is very just and if your heart is open the reward always comes.