People with an impulsive personality refer to those who tend to do things without considering the possible dangers or problems first. According to a new study by researchers at the University of Georgia, such people may be more likely to have food addiction. The study found that people exhibiting impulsive behavior weren't necessarily overweight, but impulsiveness was related to a direct relationship with food, and therefore, less healthy weight.

    Food addiction has been compared to addictive drug use. Studies have linked the dopamine (多巴胺) release that occurs after tasting delicious food to the dopamine release that happens when people consume other addictive substances.

    Impulsive behavior involves several personality traits (特点). Two of these traits, known as negative urgency and lack of perseverance, were particularly associated with food addiction and high BMI (身体质量指数) during the study.

    Negative urgency is characterized by the tendency to behave impulsively when experiencing negative emotions. Some people might drink alcohol or take drugs. For others, it could mean eating to feel better. Lack of perseverance is when a person has a hard time finishing hard or boring tasks. People with a lack of perseverance might have difficulty attempting to change addictive eating behavior, which could also cause obesity.

    “Impulsiveness might be one reason why some people eat in an addictive way despite motivation to lose weight,” said Dr. Ashley Gearhardt, a clinical psychologist. He was involved in developing the Yale Food Addiction Scale in aid of those people. “We are theorizing that if food addiction is really a thing, then our measure, the Yale Food Addiction Scale, should be related to helping control impulsive action,” said Gearhardt.

    Clinical psychologist Dr. James MacKillop, whose lab was conducting the study, believes that therapies used to treat addictive drug behavior could help people who suffer from addictive eating habits.

    “Most of the programs for weight loss at this point focus on the most obvious things, which are clearly diet and exercise,” MacKillop said. “It seems that managing strong desires to eat would naturally fit in with the skills a person would need to eat healthily.”

    Eating spicy foods frequently may be tied to a slightly lower risk of an earlier death, according to a new study. However, more research is needed to confirm the link, experts say.

    The researchers found that the people in the study who ate spicy foods one or two days a week were 10 percent less likely to die during the study, compared with those who ate spicy foods less than once a week, according to the study published today(Aug. 4) in the journal The BMJ. Moreover, the people in the study who ate spicy foods three or more days a week were 14 percent less likely to die during the study, compared with those who ate spicy foods less than once a week.

    However, the study was observational, and so it is too early to tell whether there is a causal relationship between eating spicy food and lower mortality, said study author Lu Qi, an associate professor at Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts. "We definitely need more data from other populations," Qi told Live Science. “The researchers don't know why exactly the consumption of spicy food may be linked to lower mortality, but previous research on cells and animals has suggested several possible mechanisms,” Qi said.

    “It is unclear whether the observed associations are the direct result of spicy food intake, or whether spicy foods are simply a marker for other beneficial but unmeasured dietary components(成分),” said Nita Forouhi, a nutritional expect. At this point, researchers don't know for sure whether eating spicy foods can have a beneficial effect on human health and mortality, Forouhi wrote. "Future research is needed to make sure whether spicy food consumption has the potential to improve health and reduce mortality directly, or if it is merely a marker of other dietary and lifestyle factors," she said.

    Moscow Sheremetyevo International Airport

    If You've Lost Personal Belongings

    On Board     —Contact the airline's representatives

    At the Airport     —Contact:

    —Sheremetyevo Police Department ……+7(495)578-22-55

    —Unclaimed luggage storage room in Terminal C    ……+7(495)578-23-26

    —Unclaimed luggage storage room in Terminal D ……+7(499)500-65-52(domestic flights) ……+7(495)753-86-41(international flights)

    When collecting Lost and Found items, you shall have an identification document, a boarding pass or a ticket, and also indicate the place where the items were lost and prove they are yours.

    If Your Luggage Is Lost or Damaged

    Before leaving the arrival area, please turn to the Lost and Found counter to file a report. The written claim shall be submitted to the airline company not later than seven days from the time when the luggage was to be collected.

    If your luggage is not found within twenty-one days of the time when the claim was filed, you have the right to claim damages in the amount of not more than 600 rubles per kilogram. Amount refunded(退款) for the hand luggage lost through the fault of an airline is not more than 11, 000 rubles regardless of its weight. Amount refunded for damaged luggage is calculated based on the same tariffs(关税).

    Keep your flight documents (a ticket, boarding pass, luggage tag, and delayed luggage report filed at the airport) until the end of the procedure for searching for your luggage.

    Current information on luggage-tracing results ……+7(495)578-76-65

    Lost and Found service of Aeroflot Russian Airlines……+7(495)544-33-25(from 9:00- 20:00) +7(495)753-86-41(24 hours)

    For further information please contact the airline.

    Like many other people, I love my smart phone, which keeps me connected with the larger world that can go anywhere with me. I also love my laptop, because it holds all of my writing and thoughts. In spite of this love of technology, I know that there are times when I need to move away from these devices and truly communicate with others.

On occasion, I teach a course called History Matters for a group of higher education managers. My goals for the class include a full discussion of historical themes and ideas. Because I want students to thoroughly study the materials and exchange their ideas with each other in the classroom, I have a rule —no laptop, iPads, phones, etc. When students were told my rule in advance of the class, some of them were not happy.

    Most students assume that my reasons for this rule include unpleasant experiences in the past with students misusing technology. There's a bit of truth to that. Some students assume that I am anti-technology. There's no truth in that at all. I love technology and try to keep up with it, so I create to my students.

    The real reason why I ask students to leave technology at the door is that I think there are very few places in which we can have deep conversions and truly engage complex ideas. Interruptions by technology often break concentration and allow for too much dependence on outside information for ideas. I want students to dig deep within themselves for inspiration and ideas. I want them to push each other to think differently and make connections between the course materials and the class discussion.

    I've been teaching my history class in this way for many years and the evaluations reflect students' satisfaction with the environment that I create. Students realize that with deep conversation and challenge, they learn at a level that helps them keep the course materials beyond the classroom.

    I'm not saying that I won't ever change my mind about technology use in my history class, but until I hear a really good reason for the change, I'm sticking to my plan. A few hours of technology-free dialogue is just too sweet to give up.

    Sweat (汗水)rail its way down my cheek. It was hot, but the air was still and wet. One final play and the State Softball Championship was ours.

    I looked towards people who were watching the game. Sure enough, I found my mom. I always wished my dad were here. The farm needed his full attention, but I did not care.

    Finally, we won! State Champs! I let out a scream of happiness, fall of tears. My mom made a “V” to celebrate my success and smiled. I smiled back at her.

    We all received medals (奖牌), but I cannot remember any of it. I concentrated my thoughts on my dad, I ran to my mom, asking for her cell phone. I had to tell my dad about the happiest day of my life, and complained (抱怨）about how he did not care.

    The phone rang twice, and no one answered. My heart sank with sadness, but I tried again anyway.

    “Hello?” My dad answered.

    “Dad!” I cried. “We won State!” Silence.

    “Dad?” I could hear something on the other end. “Are you crying?”

    “I'm just really happy for you, Meggie,” he said. “And I'm sorry I couldn't be there.”

    An apology（抱歉）was all I needed. I hung up the phone feeling relaxed, and I began to understand how it must feel to be a father. I forgave him for never being there. He worked so I could play. My father loved me enough to let me experience life^ happiest moments without him.

    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.