A new study, which was published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, found that heavy use of platforms such as Facebook and Snapchat was associated with feelings of being separated from society among young adults—basically the opposite of what we are led to believe.

    Study co-author Brian Primack and his team surveyed 1,787 U. S. adults aged 19 to 32 and asked them about their usage of 11 social media platforms. They also asked participants questions related to social isolation, such as how often they felt left out. The participants who reported spending the most time on social media—over two hours a day—had twice the odds of perceived（感知到的）social isolation than those who said they spent a half-hour per day or less on the same sites.

    According to Tom Kersting, psychotherapist and author of Disconnected, the key to understanding these results lies in our understanding of “connections.” “Humans are social —emotional beings, meaning that it is in our DNA to be connected, face-to-face, with other humans,” he told Reader's Digest. “Although people think being on social media all the time makes them 'connected' to others, they are actually 'disconnected,' because the more time one spends behind a screen, the less time one spend face-to-face.”

    “Part of the issue of loneliness is that the majority of people who use social media aren't just posting, they are also viewing,” Kersting continued. “They are spending a lot of time looking at everyone else's posts, where they are and what they are doing. The constant exposure to everyone else's 'perfect' life experiences causes feelings of being left out.”

    So what's the answer? It's simple, says Kersting. “The solution to this is resisting the temptation to look at everyone else's life. Just focus on your own life, where you're going, what you are grateful for, and what you want to accomplish in this world.”

    What's more exciting than having a fresh hot pizza delivered to your door?  How about having it brought to you by a robot?  Thanks to Domino's Robotic Unit or DRU, that just became a reality! On March 8, the three-foot tall robot delivered its first pizza to some lucky residents in Brisbane, Australia.

    The fully autonomous DRU is the result of cooperation between Domino's Pizza Australia and Marathon Robotics. The 450-pound machine that travels at a maximum speed of 12. 4 miles an hour can traverse a distance of up to 12 miles and back, before requiring to recharge the battery. LIDAR, a laser-based sensor technology similar to the one used in self-driving cars, enables DRU to detect and avoid obstacles, while traditional sensors, much like those used in vacuum robots ensure its path is safe as it heads to its destination.

    The robot can fit up to ten pizzas and even has a separate cold area to accommodate drink orders. To access their food, customers have to enter the unique code provided for them by the company. This not only ensures that they pick up the right pizza, but also prevents the pies from getting stolen.

    Scientists expect additional DRU's to be ready for service in their various Queensland locations within the next six months. But don't expect these super cute robots to replace humans anytime soon. According to Domino's the DRU still needs extensive testing, which the company believes could take up to two years.

    And then there is also the issue of regulations. The public use of autonomous vehicles is still banned in most countries. But Don Meij, the CEO and Managing Director of Domino's Pizza Australia New Zealand Ltd, is not worried. He is“confident that one day DRU will become an integral part of the Domino's family. ”

Dream in Heart

    On the first day of school our professor introduced a new classmate—a wrinkled little old lady—to us. Her name was Rose, and she was eighty-seven years old.

    After class Rose and I walked to the Student Union Building and shared a chocolate milk-shake. She told me she always dreamed of having a college education and now she was getting one. We became instant friends. Every day for the following months, we would leave class together and talk nonstop. I was always attracted, listening to this “time machine” as she shared her wisdom and experience with me.

    Rose became famous and easily made friends wherever she went. She tended to be highly motivated, responsible, and deeply involved in class participation. In spare time she had someone hang out or go to bars with. She even participated in some form of athletic activity. She said that extra-curricular activities can form a vital part of her experience, creating unique chances for friendship and learning.

    At the end of the term we invited Rose to speak at our football meal. A little embarrassed, she leaned into the microphone and simply said, “I'm sorry I'm so nervous.” As we laughed, she cleared her throat and began, “We do not stop playing because we are old; we grow old because we stop playing. There is a huge difference between growing older and growing up. If you're nineteen years old and lie in bed for one full year, you will turn twenty. If I'm eighty-seven years old and stay in bed for a year, I will turn eighty-eight. Anybody can grow older. It's non-optional but that doesn't take any talent or ability. The idea is to grow up by always finding the chance in change. In this way the elderly don't have regrets for what they did, but rather for things they did not do.” Rose concluded her speech by courageously singing “The Rose”. She challenged us to study the words of the song and lived them out in daily lives.

    At the year's end Rose finished the college degree she had begun all those years ago. One week after graduation Rose died peacefully in her sleep. Over two thousand college students attended her funeral in honor of the wonderful woman who taught by example that it's never too late to be all you can possibly be.

    When Gitanjali Rao shared how she likes "finding solutions to real problems”, it was hard to imagine this dynamic 11-year-old girl could settle a problem that has escaped scientists for years.

    In just three months, Rao came up with a device（装置）that can replace the costly and lengthy tests currently used to reliably determine lead levels in our fresh water. Inspired by the current litigation （诉讼）in Flint, Michigan, a case of water pollution from 2014 to 2015, Rao designed a new testing system that resulted in her being named America's Top Young Scientist for 2017.

    Rao had been following the water problem for about two years. She was amazed by the number of people affected by lead pollution in water and wanted to do something to change this. Gitanjali spent months trying to convince local high schools and colleges to give her lab time to continue her experiment. At home, Gitanjali worked on her project in the "science room” she asked her parents to create for her. Rao has created a device that uses three parts: a cartridge, a Bluetooth reader and an app. To put it simply, the cartridge contains carbon nanotubes（纳米管） that react to lead. This reaction is then registered by the Bluetooth reader, which sends a signal to a mobile app that can tell you immediately if your water is safe to drink.

    Rao appropriately named the device Tethys after the Greek goddess of fresh water, and is hoping to make a little improvement to get the device on the market. While we may not be aware of any lead pollution present in our aging pipelines, lead poisoning can cause delays in physical and mental development. With Rao believing that the "purpose of science is to make a difference”, her incredible invention could make a difference to millions of people in the United States.

Reading a book and watching a film are two very different experiences, but expectations can be high when a film of a favourite book is made. There are very many times I have been disappointed by a film of a book I love. So maybe highly regarded books do not always make good films. It is safe to say that great movies may be made from not particularly good books.

The source material may be anything from classic novels, short stones, comic books and stage plays, as well as non­fiction such as biography and autobiography, even those written by ghostwriters. All can work well, but why do many adaptations and indeed remakes fail with both cinema audiences and critics?

A key question is obviously how close to the original the film is. Since a typical film is only around two hours long, it becomes a question of what to leave out, and how to script the dialogue. Sometimes there may be changes to the plot, additions and even different endings to please producers, directors and test audiences. I, like many people, have often left the cinema feeling "the film is not like the book".

Another problem area is the cast. Whether suitable actors are found or not can mean the difference between success and failure. Readers of the book use their imaginations to visualize characters and have very definite ideas about how characters look and sound. This is where I think many film adaptations fall down.

Some books are just too difficult to film for technical reasons, although movies like The Life of Pi are changing this perception. The impact of CGI technology has had a huge impact on the movie industry and allowed the previously unfilmable to become a reality.

 Sometimes authors are very involved in the process and many may even be the screenwriters. This can actually be a bad thing because they may be too close to the material and find it difficult to adapt. At other times they are not the screenwriters, and there are instances where writers have been very unhappy with the film versions of their work. Roald Dahl and Stephen King are examples of this. Even more extreme was novelist J. D. Salinger who made sure no film versions of his popular novels could ever be made. In this situation, it is clear viewers will not be disappointed.

Erin Alexander, who was suffering from the loss of her relative, was having a hard day. However, her day took an unexpected turn when she picked up her order and noticed a message on the cup: "Madam," the waitress had written next to a heart, "your heart is golden." The small and unexpected act moved her deeply, brightening the rest of her day.

New research confirms the great influence of experiences like Ms. Alexander's. Researchers found people who perform an unplanned act of kindness tend to undervalue how much the receiver will appreciate it. This could hold many of us back from doing nice things for others more often.

In a recent experiment, 84 participants (参与者) were given a hot chocolate on two cold weekends at a park and were told they could keep it or give it to a stranger. The 75 participants who gave away their drink were asked to guess how "big" their kind act would feel to the receiver on a scale (等级) from 0 to 10, and how the receiver would rate their feelings upon receiving it. The receivers were then asked to report how they actually felt using the same scale.

It turned out that the people doing the kind thing always undervalued the importance of their actions. While they thought they were offering something small, the receivers considered it more meaningful because someone had done something nice for them.

Despite longing for kindness, many people feel awkward at the thought of being kind. The "little inner voice" often leads them to question whether their behavior might be misunderstood or whether it will make the receiver feel pressured to pay it back.

But an act of kindness is unlikely to have unintended results; it can lead to even more kindness. If you are not already in the habit of performing unplanned kind acts, start by thinking about what you are interested in and how you can turn that into an offering for others.