Hilversum is a medium-sized city between the major cities of Amsterdam and Utrecht in the Gooi area of North Holland, the Netherlands. Unlike most of the Netherlands, Hilversum is actually in a hilly area with the soil mostly consisting of sand. Once called the Garden of Amsterdam, it still attracts travelers to come over to cycle and walk through the surrounding forests. They visit it for a relaxing day off from the urban madness. For Dutch people, Hilversum is all about textile (纺织) and media industries, and modern architecture.

    In history, Hilversum was largely an agricultural area. Daily life was marked by farming, sheep raising and wool production. A railway link to Amsterdam in 1874 attracted rich traders from Amsterdam to Hilversum. They build themselves large villas (别墅) in the wooded surroundings of the town. One of the families moving in was the Brenninkmeijers, currently the wealthiest family of the Netherlands. They moved in after big success in the textile industry and aided a substantial textile industry in Hilversum. But the textile boom lasted only several decades. The last factory closed in the 1960s.

    The change to a media economy started in 1920, when the Nederlandse Seintoestedllen Fabriek (NSF) established a radio factory in Hiversum. Most radio stations called in the large villas in the leafy areas of the town. Television gave another push to the local economy. Hilversum became the media capital of the Netherlands, and Dutch televison stars moved into the leafy neighborhoods surrounding the town.

    In the early 1900s, modern architcts W.M. Dudok and J. Duiker placed hundreds of remarkable buildings in Hilversum. These modern architectural masterpieces (杰作) are so many that Hilversum almost feels like an open air museum. Dudok alone shaped most 20th century Hilversum and approximately 75 buildings in 1928-1931. It has wide international fame and is included in many architecture textbooks. The building has a remarkable shape and looks like a combination of “blocks”. Actually, one may start his journey of modern architecture by walking or biking the W.M. Dudok Architectural Route in Hilversum.

    Writing it down

    Unlike some other European languages, English is a little tricky when it comes to writing. How a word is pronounced and how it is actually spelt can be very different things.

    Same spelling, different meanings

Imagine, then, a situation where two words are spelt and pronounced exactly the same way, but have completely different meanings. Welcome to the world of homonyms（同形同音异义词）. Take, for example, the word "fair"—it can be a kind of festival, an adjective to describe the colour of your hair or how you should play a game. Or "leg", which can be attached to a person, or a table and can also be a distance you travel, or a part of a competition.

Don't take it literally（字面意思）

So how do you know which meaning someone is referring to? You don't, except by the context. Obviously, if someone asks you to "give them a hand", they don't want you to remove what is at the end of your arm.

What's in a name?

    Sometimes even the context doesn't help much—the result can be amusing. These sentences play with the double meaning of a noun:

    Sentence 1: I used to be a banker, but I lost interest.

Sentence 2: A small boy swallowed some coins and had to go to hospital. When his grandmother phoned to ask how he was, the nurse said: "No change yet".

    More ambiguity（歧义）

    Sentence 3 plays with the different meanings of a verb:

    Sentence 3: I wondered why the ball was getting bigger. Then it hit me.

Double trouble

    And sometimes a word can be a noun and a verb, but have different meanings. Can you work this one out?

    Sentence 4: Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

    If you like these homonyms, you will be pleased to know that English has plenty more!

    It is a cold and dry winter morning. When you wake up, you feel that your throat hurts. You begin to sneeze and later you may cough. You must have a cold! Wait a moment. Could it just be a common cold or the flu that's been going around?

    A cold gives you a runny nose and cough. But it's usually easy to deal with. Some take medicine while others drink herbal tea or chicken soup. Usually you feel better after a week.

    On the other hand, the flu can be much more dangerous. It usually gives you fever.

    Sometimes it can cause death. According to an American magazine, the worst flu killed about 50 million people from 1918 to 1919.

    Don't worry. If you get a flu vaccine（疫苗）, it can stop you from getting the virus. Flu vaccines work by giving the body a small amount of flu viruses. This causes your body to develop antibodies. So next time you get the flu, the antibodies should help you.

    The flu virus changes every few years. Therefore, there are so many types of flu, such as H1N1 and H5N1. The antibodies for one type of flu can't help us against all types of flu. That's why we need to get vaccine every year.

    However, good health habits may also help stop you developing a cold or flu. Washing your hands often helps stop you from getting viruses. It is also important to get regular exercise and eat healthy food. All these can help you strengthen your immune system.

    On Sunday 23 April, most than 30,000 people participated in the 2017 London Marathon, running 26.2 miles (42.2 kilometres)around the city center.

    The London Marathon has taken place every year since 1981. At the first one, just 6, 225 people completed the course, and since then it has grown into one of the biggest sporting events in the world. It is one of the 'World Marathon Majors', which is a competition made up of six global marathon events. The overall male and female winners receive $1 million in prize money between them. There are eleven people who have run every London Marathon since it began—they call themselves the 'Ever Presents.

    This year, the winners of the London Marathon were surprisingly both from Kenya—Daniel Wanjiru, who finished in 2 hours and 5 minutes, and Mary Keitany, whose time was 2 hours and 17 minutes.

    However, most marathon runners are not professional athletes. They are amateurs who have trained for months to raise money for charity or just as a personal challenge. For example, Tom Harrison took three days just to reach the run's halfway point, as he is crawling the course on his hands and knees dressed as a gorilla(大猩猩), trying to raise money and attention for the charity 'The Gorilla Organisation'.

    Matthew Rees was another runner to encourage people, as he stopped just before the finish line to help David Wyeth run the last 200m.They did not know each other before, but Matthew saw that David was exhausted and possibly close to collapsing, and wanted to help him finish.

    Every year there are lots of touching stories like this from the London Marathon, and it is a huge achievement even to run the 26.2 miles!

    Have you ever fallen for a novel and been amazed not to find it on lists of great books? Or walked around a sculpture known as a classic, struggling to see why it is famous? If so, you've probably thought about the question a psychologist, James Cutting, asked himself: How does a work of art come to be considered great?

    The direct answer is that some works of art are just great: of inner superior quality. The paintings that win prime spots in galleries, get taught in classes are the ones that have proved their artistic value over time. If you can't see they're superior, that's your problem. But some social scientists have been asking questions of it, raising the possibility that artistic canons(名作目录)are little more than old historical accidents.

    Cutting, a professor at Cornell University, wondered if a psychological pattern known as the "mere­exposure effect" played a role in deciding which paintings rise to the top of the cultural league. Cutting designed an experiment to test his hunch(直觉). Over a lecture course he regularly showed undergraduates works of impressionism for two seconds at a time. Some of the paintings canonical, included in art­history books. Others were lesser known but of comparable quality were exposed four times as often. Afterwards, the students preferred them to the canonical works, while a control group liked the canonical ones best. Cuttings students had grown to like those paintings more simply because they had seen them more.

    Cutting believes his experiment casts light on how canons are formed. He reproduced works of impressionism today bought by five or six wealthy and influential collectors in the late 19th century. Their preferences given to certain works made them more likely to be hung in galleries and printed in collections. And the fame passed down the years. The more people were exposed to, the more they liked it, and the more they liked it, the more it appeared in books, on posters and in big exhibitions. Meanwhile, academics and critics added to their popularity. After all, it's not just the masses who tend to rate what they see more often more highly. Critics' praise is deeply mixed with publicity. "Scholars", Cutting argues, "are no different from the public in the effects of mere exposure."

    The process described by Cutting show a principle that the sociologist Duncan Watts calls "cumulative advantage": once a thing becomes popular, it will tend to become more popular still. A few years ago, Watts had a similar experience to Cutting's in another Paris museum. After queuing to see the "Mona Lisa" at the Louvre, he came away puzzled: why was it considered so superior to the three other Leonardos, to which nobody seemed to be paying the slightest attention?

    When Watts looked into the history of "the greatest painting of all time", he discovered that, for most of its life, the "Mona Lisa" remained in relative obscurity. In the 1850s, Leonardo da Vinci was considered no match for giants of Renaissance art like Titian and Raphael, whose works were worth almost ten times as much as the "Mona Lisa" It was only in the 20th century that "Mona Lisa rocketed to the number­one spot. What brought it there wasn't a scholarly re­evaluation, but a theft. In 1911 a worker at the Louvre walked out of the museum with the "Mona Lisa" hidden under his coat. Parisians were shocked at the theft of a painting to which, until then, they had paid little attention. When the museum reopened, people queued to see it. From then on, the "Mona Lisa "came to represent Western culture itself.

    The intrinsic (本质的) quality of a work of art is starting to seem like its least important attribute. But perhaps it's more significant than our social scientists admit. Firstly, a work needs a certain quality to reach the top of the pile. The "Mona Lisa" may not be a worthy world champion but it was in the Louvre in the first place, and not by accident. Secondly, some objects are simply better than others. Read "Hamlet" after reading even the greatest of Shakespeare's contemporaries, and the difference may strike you as unarguable.

    A study suggests that the exposure effect doesn't work the same way on everything, and points to a different conclusion about how canons are formed. Great art and mediocrity (平庸)can get confused, even by experts. But that's why we need to see, and read, as much as we can. The more were exposed to the good and the bad, the better we are at telling the difference.

Beethoven is a giant of classical music. And the most influential, too—at least, when it comes to piano compositions. That's according to a study in the journal EP J Data Science.

If you're wondering how data analysis could determine something as abstract as cultural influence, it's worth remembering this: Music is the most mathematical of the art form, a lot of which is symbolic. The music is written in symbols that are connected in time.

Juyong Park is a theoretical physicist in South Korea. Park and his colleagues collected 900 piano compositions by 19 composers from 1700 to 1910. Then they used that mathematical quality to their advantage by dividing each composition into what they called "code words", in other words, a chord. They then compared each chord to the chord or note that came after it, which allowed them to determine how creative composers were at coming up with novel transitions.

The composer with top marks for novelty was Rachmaninoff. But when the researchers looked at those chord transitions across all 19 composers, it was Beethoven who was most heavily borrowed from—meaning at least among the composers in this analysis, his influence was the largest.

Their study comes with some drawbacks. For example, the researchers only considered piano compositions in this work, and by only studying chord transitions, so their conclusions wouldn't relate to artists who were influential in other ways like Bach or Mozart. Park explained, "It's well understood that Mozart's contribution to music comes from the musical forms that he designed. That was not very well reflected by our mathematical modeling."

As for Park, the results convinced him he has some listening to do. "Of course I listen to music. I like Rachmaninoff's music, but I have to say I have listened to Beethoven way more than Rachmaninoff. So after this work came out, I ended up buying his whole complete collection.