That children are the hopes of our tomorrow is a statement that is repeated time and again. And it is an axiom (格言); they are our pillars of the coming time. But then do we train them into becoming healthy human beings?

    Healthy human beings here are not meant the physical well being, but the good human king, that is, one with virtues and values keeps them in the state of working towards the benefit of humanity.

    How can children absorb within themselves the virtues and values? Well, this is the primary responsibility of parents and other immediate family members, followed by school authorities. The values and virtues of an individual is sown in their childhood and nurtured as they grow up.

    Depending on the way we bring up our children, we decide our own future. It is vital that in the formative years we give them quality time and attention. We teach them to discriminate the good, bad and the ugly. We have to teach them use positive emotions like love and compassion and teach them actions of kindness and generosity. At the same time we have to help them do away with the negatives of hatred, anger, jealousy, selfishness, etc.

    Your child is like a plant. You sow the seeds and also reap the benefits of its growth and development. First and foremost you as a paren. have to realize your responsibility in nurturing a child to grow into a good human being. And it is just not up to anyone of the parents, but both together to inculcate (谆谆教海) the values and virtues into your child.

    Danielle Steel, America's sweetheart, is one of the hardest working women in the book business. Unlike other productive authors who write one book at a time, she can work on up to five. Her research before writing takes at least three years. Once she has fully studied her subjects, ready to dive into the book, she can spend twenty hours nonstop at her desk.

    Danielle Steel comes from New York and was sent to France for her education. After graduation, she worked in the public relations and advertising industries. Later she started a job as a writer which she was best fit for. Her achievements are unbelievable: 390 million copies of books in print, nearly fifty New York Times best-selling novels, and a series of “Max and Martha” picture books for children to help them deal with the real-life problems of death, new babies and new schools. Her 1998 book about the death of her work shot to the top of the New York Times best-selling list as soon as it came out. Twenty-eight of her books had been made into films. She is listed in the Guinness Book of World Records for one of her books being the Times best-seller for 381 weeks straight.

    Not satisfied with a big house, a loving family, and a view of the Golden GateBridge, Danielle Steel considers her readers to be the most important resource and has kept in touch with them by e-mail. While she is often compared to the heroines of her own invention, her life is undoubtedly much quieter. But, if she does have anything in common with them, it is her strength of will and her inimitable (独特的) style. There is only one Danielle Steel.

    Obama, Lady Gaga and Steve Jobs—what do they have in common? They are, of course, all Americans. And according to a survey by social networking site baidu. com, they all best illustrate(举例说明) the word “cool”.

    But just what does it mean to say someone is “cool”? Most would answer that it is something to do with being independent-minded and not following the crowd.

    Yale University art professor Robert Farris Thompson says that the term “cool” goes back to 15th century West African philosophy. “Cool” relates to ideas of grace under pressure.

    “In Africa,” he writes, “coolness is a positive quality which combines calmness, silence, and life.”

    The modern idea of “cool” developed largely in the US in the period after World War II. “Post-war 'cool' was in part an expression of war-weariness (厌战情绪), . . . it went against the strict social rules of the time,” write sociologists Dick Pountain and David Robins in Cool Rules: Anatomy of an Attitude.

    But it was the American actor James Dean who became the symbol for “cool” in the hugely successful 1955 movie Rebel without a Cause. Dean plays a tough guy who disobeys his parents and the authorities. He always gets the girl, smokes cigarettes, wears a leather jacket and beats up bullies. In the movie, Dean showed what “cool” would mean to American young people for the next 60 years.

    Today the focus of “cool” has changed to athletics (体育运动) stars. Often in movies about schools, students gain popularity on the athletics field more than in the classroom. This can be seen quite clearly in movies like Varsity Blues and John Tucker Must Die.

    But many teenagers also think being smart is cool. Chess and other thinking games have been becoming more popular in schools.

    “Call it the Harry Potterization of America—a time when being smart is the new cool,” writes journalist Joe Sunnen.

What brings a nation together? Of the four choices — shared values, language, history, and religion, it's shared values. In our latest poll (民意调査), seven out of 16 countries chose values as the greatest factor (因素）bringing a nation together, and six preferred language. Both choices scored high in the poll, suggesting that our values and how we express them are closely linked Still, history was not forgotten in some countries, particularly in Mexico and Russia. Even Canada and the United States chose national histories as the second-most important factor uniting their people. The biggest surprise? Not one country picked religion as its top choice.

C

    Languages have been coming and going for thousands of years, but in recent times there has been less coming and a lot more going. When the world was still populated by hunter-gatherers, small, tightly knit(联系) groups developed their own patterns of speech independent of each other. Some language experts believe that 10,000 years ago, when the world had just five to ten million people, they spoke perhaps 12,000 languages between them.   

    Soon afterwards, many of those people started settling down to become farmers, and their languages too became more settled and fewer in number. In recent centuries, trade, industrialisation, the development of the nation-state and the spread of universal compulsory education, especially globalisation and better communications in the past few decades, all have caused many languages to disappear, and dominant languages such as English, Spanish and Chinese are increasingly taking over.

    At present, the world has about 6,800 languages. The distribution of these languages is hugely uneven. The general rule is that mild zones have relatively few languages, often spoken by many people, while hot, wet zones have lots, often spoken by small numbers. Europe has only around 200 languages; the Americas about 1,000; Africa 2,400; and Asia and the Pacific perhaps 3,200, of which Papua New Guinea alone accounts for well over 800. The median number （中位数）of speakers is a mere 6,000, which means that half the world's languages are spoken by fewer people than that.

   Already well over 400 of the total of 6,800 languages are close to extinction (消亡), with only a few elderly speakers left. Pick, at random, Busuu in Cameroon (eight remaining speakers), Chiapaneco in Mexico (150), Lipan Apache in the United States (two or three) or Wadjigu in Australia (one, with a question-mark): none of these seems to have much chance of survival.

    Many leading AI researchers think that in a matter of decades, artificial intelligence will be able to do not merely some of our jobs, but all of our jobs, forever transforming life on Earth.

    The reason why many regard this as science fiction is that we've traditionally thought of intelligence as something mysterious that can only exist in biological organisms, especially humans. But such an idea is unscientific.

    From my point of view as a physicist and AI researcher, intelligence is simply a certain kind of information-processing performed by elementary particles (基本粒子) moving around, and there is no law of physics that says one can't build machines more intelligent than us in all ways. This suggests that we've only seen the tip of the intelligence iceberg and that there is an amazing potential to unlock the full intelligence that is potential in nature and use it to help humanity.

    If we get it right, the upside is huge. Since everything we love about civilization is the product of intelligence, amplifying (扩大) our own intelligence with AI has the potential to solve tomorrow's toughest problems. For example, why risk our loved ones dying in traffic accidents that self-driving cars could prevent or dying of cancers that AI might help us find cures for? Why not increase productivity through automation (自动化) and use AI to accelerate our research and development of affordable sustainable (可持续的) energy?

    I'm optimistic that we can develop rapidly with advanced AI as long as we win the race between the growing power of our technology and the knowledge with which we manage it. But this requires giving up our outdated concept of learning form mistakes. That helped us win the race with less powerful technology: We messed up with fire and then invented fire extinguishers (灭火器), and we messed up with cars and then invented seat belts. However, it's an awful idea for more powerful technologies, such as nuclear weapons or superintelligent AI—where even a single mistake is unacceptable and we need to get things right the first time.