Gone are the days when being a celebrity（名人）meant reaching the top of the social ladder. With the Internet as their springboard, people no longer need to be actors, sports stars or politicians to be celebrities.

  You may still remember the time when Furong Jiejie, or Fengjie, appeared online. All of a sudden they were the talk of the town because of their crazy clothes and abnormal values. And let’s not forget the 14-year-old South Korean boy who got famous by simply broadcasting himself having dinner every day.

  But when the word Wanghong, or “Internet celebrity”, was named one of Yaowen Jiaozi magazine’s “popular cyber words” in 2015, its meaning had changed. Those who are popular in the world of Wanghong are largely famous for their heavily Photoshopped selfies（自拍）and the special lifestyles they advertise on social media.

  The same thing is happening overseas as well. There are many women addicted to posting photos. This has led to the rise of “Instagram Husbands”, men who are willing–or most likely forced–to take photos of their wives or girlfriends for their Instagram accounts.

  But what Wanghong offer their fans is much more than a bunch of pretty pictures. “There is a longing for the effortless way of life,” commented China Youth Daily.

  Though their lifestyle may seem “effortless”, some Wanghong take great pains to run their Taobao stores, communicate with their fans and think of ways to keep their viewership, for example.

  Zhang Dayi, a famous Wanghong with over 4 million followers on Sina Weibo, revealed some of her secrets for attracting fans. “Usually people look up to celebrities at a 45-degree angle. But I reduced that angle to 15 degrees, because no one likes to strain their necks too much,” she said. Her social media strategies include being more interactive with fans. “As soon as you let down your guard, people will start to approach,” she said. 

 Feeling good and having humor in our lives can do wonders for our position and productivity, which means that there is definitely a place for some humor on the job. Having a smiling face will help your coworkers and supervisors feel better being around you, and you may well end up reaping（收获） the rewards by laughing more in the workplace. But you need to know how to apply humor in your work environment.

 One of the main rules with humor in the workplace is to avoid argument when you are joking. Stay well away from joking about political affairs, race and religion. Never make fun of other people within your organization, as you are trying to win friends with the people you work with, and not set against them. If you can't help yourself, please be extremely careful.

 Making jokes about the ups and downs of your trade is a safe way to add wit(机智风趣) to the place of work. You will have the benefit of knowing exactly what your coworkers have to face each and every day, and it's much better as it helps to let go of tensions and lower stress levels by getting them to chuckle(轻声地笑) about the situations they come across frequently.

 The very best time for some humor is when you are not working, but still in the region of the people you work with, such as a coffee or lunch break. You can also make an effort to be funny on the job, but when you are working, it's a good idea to use jokes much more discreetly than you would normally do.

 In general, humor in the workplace can flex your creative muscles and be a great help to your job.

Despite the anxiety that Jones’ Host—said by some to be the first digital novel—caused in 1993, publishers weren’t too concerned that e-books would one day replace printed books. However, that attitude was changed suddenly in 2007 when Amazon’s Kindle came onto the market, which led to e-book sales jumping up to 1,260%. Since then, e-books’ popularity has continued to rise steadily. The publishing industry seemed to have lost all possible ability to regain its position. Will printed books eventually become a thing of the past?

   According to Mike Shatzkin, founder and CEO of the Idea Logical Company, printed books just for plain old reading will, in 10 years from now, be unusual. “Not so unusual that a kid will say, ‘Mommy, what’s that?’ but unusual enough that on the train you’ll see one or two people reading something printed, while everyone else is reading off of a tablet.” And Shatzkin believes that thedemiseof print is sure to happen, though such a day won’t arrive for perhaps 50 to 100 or more years.

   Robert Stein, founder of the Institute for the Future of the Book, however, believes that books won’t disappear entirely, at least not anytime soon. “Print will exist, but it will be in a different field and will appeal to a very limited audience, as poetry does today. Like woodblock printing, hand-processed film and folk weaving (编织), printed pages may assume an artistic value,” he says. He imagines that future forms of books might be developed not by traditional publishers but by the gaming industry. He also predicts that the distinction between writer and reader will be made less obvious by a social reading experience in which authors and consumers can digitally interact with each other to discuss any passage, sentence or line.

   Is there anything we risk sacrificing, should print really disappear entirely? According to Maryanne Wolf, director of the Center for Reading and Language Research at Tufts University, electronic reading can negatively affect the way the brain responds to text, including reading comprehension, focus and the ability to maintain attention to details like plot and order of events. “My worry is that we’ll have a short-circuited reading brain, excellent for gathering information but not necessarily for forming critical, analytical deep reading skills,” Wolf says.

   The field, however, is in an early stage, and findings about the negative effects of e-reading are far from certain. In light of this, Wolf hopes that we continue to maintain a “bi-literate” society—one that values both the digital and printed word．“A full reading brain circuit is a huge contribution to the intellectual development of our species. Anything that threatens it deserves our attention.”

A serious problem for today’s society is who should be responsible for our elderly and how to improve their lives. It is not only a financial problem but also a question of the system we want for our society. I would like to suggest several possible solutions to this problem.

First, employers should take the responsibility for their retired employees. To make this possible, a percentage of profits should be set aside for this purpose. But when a company must take life­long responsibility for its employees, it may suffer from a commercial disadvantage due to higher employee costs.

Another way of solving the problem is to return the responsibility to the individual. This means each person must save during his working years to pay for his years of retirement. This does not seem a very fair model since some people have enough trouble paying for their daily life without trying to earn extra to cover their retirement years. This means the government might have to step in to care for the poor.

In addition, the government could take responsibility for the care of the elderly. This could be financed through government taxes to increase the level of pensions(养老金). Furthermore, some institutions should be created for senior citizens, which can help provide a comfortable life for them. Unfortunately, as the present situation in our country shows, this is not a truly viable answer. The government can seldom afford to care for the elderly, particularly when it is busy trying to care for the young.

One further solution is that the government or social organizations establish some working places especially for the elderly where they are independent.

To sum up, all these options have advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that some combination of these options may be needed to provide the care we hope to give to our elderly generations.

A funny thing happened on the way to the communication revolution(革命): we stopped talking to one another.

   I was walking in the park with a friend recently, and his cell phone rang, interrupting our conversation. There we were, walking and talking on a beautiful sunny day and suddenly, I became invisible(看不见的), absent from the conversation.

   The telephone used to connect you to the absent. Now it makes people sitting next to you feel absent. Why is it that the more connected we get, the more disconnected I feel? Every advance in communication technology is a tragedy(悲剧) to the closeness of human interaction. With email and instant messaging over the Internet, we can now communicate without seeing or talking to one another. With voice-mail, you can conduct entire conversations without ever reaching anyone. If my mom has a question, I just leave the answer on her machine.

   As almost every contact we can imagine between human beings gets automated(自动化), the emotional distance index goes up. You can’t even call a person to get the phone number of another person any more. Directory assistance is almost always fully automated.

   I am not against modern technology. I own a cell phone, an ATM card, a voice-mail system, and an email account. Giving them up isn’t wise. They’re a great help to us. Itˈs some of their possible consequences that make me feel uneasy.

   More and more, I find myself hiding behind e­mail to do a job meant for conversations or being relieved with voice-mail picked up because I donˈt really have time to talk. The industry devoted to helping me keep in touch is making me lonelier.

   So I’ve put myself on the technology restriction: no instant messaging with people who live near me, no cell phoning in the presence of friends.

Never Talk to Strangers?

   "Never talk to strangers." Many children are taught this simple rule as a precaution (预防) against abduction (诱拐). In June, 2005, an 11 -year- old boy was lost in the Utah wilderness for four days. During that time, he stayed on the path. He saw people searching for him but hid from them on purpose, afraid someone might "steal" him. Finally, the unfortunate game of hide -and- seek ended and he was found. According to the Canada Safety Council, this alarming incident shows how unwise it is to instill (灌输) a fear of strangers in children. The "stranger danger" message can prevent children from developing the social skills and judgment needed to deal effectively with real - life situations. In a difficult situation, a stranger could be their lifeline to safety.

   To have a child go missing is a parent's worst nightmare. The threat of abduction by a stranger is minimal when compared with other possible reasons for a disappearance. In 2004, there were 67,266 missing- children cases in Canada. Only 31 involved abduction; in most of those cases the abductor was a relative, friend, or person known to the family. There were 671 cases of children wandering off, and 332 cases of abductions by a parent. Almost 80 percent of all cases were runaways. These statistics cast doubt on the idea that children should never talk to strangers. Wandering off is more common - but a lost children may have to call upon a stranger for help, and must develop the ability to judge what kind of people to approach. The "never talk to strangers" rule does not protect children in the situations they are most likely to face. On top of this, it can be confusing. Adults do not model the behavior; they often talk to strangers. A child may not know how to tell who is a stranger, and who is not.

   For young children, nothing replaces close supervision (监管). Pre - schoolers do not understand risk and tend to act without thinking. Children need to develop habits and attitudes that will protect them from the real threats and dangers they may face. The Canada Safety Council encourages parents to give their children age -appropriate positive messages about safety, bearing in mind how children may understand their world.

Close your eyes for a minute and imagine what it would be like spending the rest of your life with your eyes closed. Imagine having to read this page, not with your eyes but with your fingertips.With existing medical knowledge and skills, two thirds of the world's 42 million blind should not have to suffer. Unfortunately, rich countries possess most of this knowledge, while developing countries do not. 
ORBIS is an international non-profit organization which operates the world's only flying teaching eye hospital. ORBIS intends to help fight blindness worldwide. Inside a DC-8 aircraft, there is a fully-equipped teaching hospital with television studio and classroom. Doctors are taught the latest techniques of bringing sight back to people there.

ORBIS tries to help developing countries by providing training during three-week medical programs. ORBIS has taught sight-saving techniques to over 35，000 doctors and nurses, who continue to cure tens of thousands of blind people every year. ORBIS has conducted 17 plane programs in China so far. For the seven to ten million blind in China. At the moment an ORBIS team is working on a long-term plan to develop a training center and to provide eye care services to Shanxi Province. ORBIS needs your help to continue their work and free people from blindness.
For just US$38, you can help one person see; for $380 you can bring sight to 10 people; $1，300 helps teach a doctor new skills; and for $13，000 you can provide a training program for a group of doctors who can make thousands of blind people see again. Your money can open their eyes to the world. Please help ORBIS improve the quality of life for so many people less fortunate than ourselves.

Ours is a big world, and full of many different people. People with many varying (不同的) points of view are often running up against others who have different opinions. Those of us who smoke are just one group of many. Recently, the activism (采取行动) of non-smokers has reminded us of the need to be considerate (体谅的) of others when we smoke in public.

    But, please! Enough is enough! We should like to remind non-smokers that being polite is a two-way street. If you politely request that someone not smoke you are more likely to receive an agreeable response than if you give an ugly look and say something unkind. If you speak directly to someone, you are more likely to get what you want than if you complain to the management.

    Many of us have been smoking for so long that we sometimes forget that others are not used to the smell of burning tobacco. Weˈ re human, and like everyone else, we occasionally offend unknowingly. But most of us are open to friendly suggestions and comments, and quite willing to change our behavior to accommodate others.

    Smokers are people, too. We laugh and cry. We have hopes, dreams, and aspirations. We have children, mothers, and pets. We eat our hamburgers (汉堡包) with everything on them and give respect to the flag at Fourth of July picnics. We hope youˈll remember that the next time a smoker light up in public.

Bad news sells. If it bleeds, it leads. No news is good news, and good news is no news. Those are the classic rules for the evening broadcasts and the morning papers. But now that information is being spread and monitored(监控) in different ways, researchers are discovering new rules. By tracking people’s e-mails and online posts, scientists have found that good news can spread faster and farther than disasters and sob stories.

   “The ‘if it bleeds’ rule works for mass media,” says Jonah Berger, a scholar at the University of Pennsylvania. “They want your eyeballs and don’t care how you’re feeling. But when you share a story with your friends, you care a lot more how they react. You don’t want them to think of you as a Debbie Downer.”

   Researchers analyzing word-of-mouth communication—e-mails, Web posts and reviews, face-to-face conversations——found that it tended to be more positive than negative(消极的), but that didn’t necessarily mean people preferred positive news. Was positive news shared more often simply because people experienced more good things than bad things? To test for that possibility, Dr. Berger looked at how people spread a particular set of news stories: thousands of articles on The New York Times’ website. He and a Penn colleague analyzed the “most e-mailed” list for six months. One of his first findings was that articles in the science section were much more likely to make the list than non-science articles. He found that science amazed Times’ readers and made them want to share this positive feeling with others.

   Readers also tended to share articles that were exciting or funny, or that inspired negative feelings like anger or anxiety, but not articles that left them merely sad. They needed to be aroused(激发) one way or the other, and they preferred good news to bad. The more positive an article, the more likely it was to be shared, as Dr. Berger explains in his new book, “Contagious: Why Things Catch On.”