A thief who dropped a winning lottery ticket at the scene of his crime has been given a 

lesson in honesty. His victim, who picked up the ticket, then claimed the $25,000 prize, managed to trace him, and handed over the cash. 

The robbery happened when maths professor VinicioSabbatucci, 58, was changing a tire on an Italian motorway. Another motorist,

 who stopped “to help”, stole a suitcase from his car and drove off. The professor found the dropped ticket and put  it in his pocket before driving home to Ascoli in eastern Italy. 

Next day, he saw the lottery results on TV and, taking out the ticket, realized it was a winner.He claimed the 60 million lire(里拉)prize. Then he began a battle with his conscience. Finally, he 

decided he could not keep the money despite having been robbed. He advertised in newspapers 

and on the radio, saying, “I’m trying to find the man who robbed me. I have 60 million lire for him—a lottery win. Please meet me. Anonymity(匿名)guaranteed.” 

 Professor Sabbatucci received hundreds of calls from people hoping to trick him into 

handing them the cash. But there was one voice he recognized and he arranged to meet the man 

In a park.The robber, a 35‐year-old unemployed father of two, gave back the suitcase and burst 

into tears. He could not believe what was happening. “Why didn’t you keep the money?” he 

asked. The professor replied, “I couldn’t because it’s not mine.” Then he walked off, spurning the thief’s offer of a reward. 

 In 1800, only three percent of the world's population lived in cities. Only one city—Beijing—had a population of over a million. Most people lived in rural areas, and never saw a city in their lives. In 1900, just a hundred years later, roughly 150 million people lived in cities, and the world's ten largest cities all had populations exceeding one million. By 2000, the number of city dwellers exceeded three billion; and in 2008, the world's population crossed a tipping point—more than half of the people on Earth lived in cities. By 2050, that could increase to over two—thirds. Clearly, humans have become an urban species.

   In the 19th and early 20th centuries, many people viewed cities negatively—crowded, dirty environments full of disease and crime. They feared that as cities got bigger, living conditions would worsen. In recent decades, however, attitudes have changed. Many experts now think urbanization(城市化) is good news, offering solutions to the problems of Earth's growing population.

   Harvard economist Edward Glaeser, author of The Victory of the City, is one such person. Glaeser argues that cities are very productive because "the absence of space between people" reduces the cost of transporting goods, people, and ideas. While the flow of goods has always been important to cities, what is most important today is the flow of ideas. Successful cities enable people to learn from each other easily, and attract and reward smart people with higher wages.

   Another urbanization supporter is environmentalist Stewart Brand. Brand believes cities help the environment because they allow half of the world's population to live on about four percent of the land. This leaves more space for open country, such as farmland. City dwellers also have less impact per person on the environment than people in the countryside. Their roads, sewers, and power lines need fewer resources to build and operate. City apartments require less energy to heat, cool, and light. Most importantly, people in cities drive less so they produce fewer greenhouse gases per person.

   So it's a mistake to see urbanization as evil; it's a natural part of development. The challenge is how to manage the growth.

The newspaper must provide for the reader the facts, pure, unprejudiced, objectively selected facts. But in these days of complex news it must provide more; it must supply interpretation, the meaning of the facts. This is the most important assignment facing American journalists—to make clear to the reader the problems of the day, to make international news understandable as community news, to recognize that there is no longer any such thing as“local”news, because any event in the international area has a local reaction in the financial market, political circles, in terms, indeed, of our very way of life.

There is in journalism a widespread view that when you start an interpretation, you are entering dangerous waters, the rushing tides of opinion. This is nonsense.

The opponents of interpretation insist that the writer and the editor shall limit himself to the “facts”. This insistence raises two questions. What are the facts? And: Are the bare facts enough?

As for the first question, consider how a so­called“factual”story comes about. The reporter collects, say, fifty facts; out of these fifty, his space being necessarily restricted, he selects the ten which he considers most important. This is Judgment Number One. Then he or his editor decides which of these ten facts shall hold the lead of the piece. This is Judgment Number Two. Then the night editor determines whether the article shall be presented on page one, where it has a large influence, or on page twenty­four, where it has little. Judgment Number Three.

Thus in the presentation of a so­called“factual”or“objective” story, at least three judgments are involved. And they are judgments not at all unlike those involved in interpretation, in which reporter and editor, calling upon their research resources, their general background, and their“news neutralism(中立)”，arrive at a conclusion as to the significance of the news.

The two areas of judgment, presentation of the news and its interpretation, are both objective rather than subjective processes—as objective, that is, as any human being can be. If an editor is determined to give a prejudiced view of the news, he can do it in other ways and more effectively than by interpretation. He can do it by the selection of those facts that support his particular viewpoint. Or he can do it by the place he gives a story—promoting it to page one or dragging it to page thirty.

For years I struggled and fought with the bird’s nest that sat on top of my head—my Medusa (神话中的蛇发女妖) hair, a composition of frizz (鬈发) and giant ringlets (垂下的长鬈发) that in no way could be tamed.

Growing up in a Russian-Jewish home with parents who thought North American styling products were similar to illegal substances such as heroin, I was never allowed to put them in my hair.

“Why buy gel (凝胶)? Your hair is so beautiful naturally, ” my mother would say. However, from boys not wanting to kiss me when we played spin the bottle in Grade 7 to being called “the mop”, I suffered for my hair.

When I got to university, I believed my frizzy hair was something that stood between me and everything—finding an internship (实习期), getting a boyfriend.

Then, in my second year, a miracle happened. I was asked to be a hair model for Japanese hair straightening, a process by which the molecules (分子) of my curls would be broken and reset in a straight position. I was the perfect candidate, the hairdresser told me. Although there are rumours about how hair relaxing can damage the scalp (头皮), for the next five years I didn’t find them to be true.

However, there was extreme damage done to my wallet. To keep up the straightening cost $700 every six months, and that was considered cheap. While some people thought I was crazy, I was willing to do anything to never again feel like that bored, frizzy-headed girl in Grade 7. But when I moved out of my parents’ house at age 26 and rented an apartment, the upkeep of my image became too costly. I couldn’t hide from my inner Medusa any longer. It was time to hug her and let her fly.

Seeking an alternative to my high-end habit, I turned to Google. After hours of searching, I hit upon a “curly haired” salon, a place designed for girls like me who were at their wits’ end. Although I bought the service called the “Curly-Doo”, I suspected I’d have the same mop at the end of the appointment.

I dragged my feet so hard getting there that I arrived 45 minutes late. I secretly hoped they would turn me away and give me the excuse I needed to justify the expense of relaxing again. Instead, my stylist simply said: “You are very late. Flip your head over.”

As my head was dipped in a tub full of freezing-cold water, then generously slathered with a jelly-like substance, I wondered what I had got myself into.

“Do you really think this will work?” I asked the stylist, Jacquai. “My curls are a lost cause.”

“No curly hair is hopeless,” she replied. “They just haven’t found a way to work with it, that’s all.”

After the hour was over, Jacquai had completed her work. She had styled my hair using only her hands, water and a mixture of organic potions.

I couldn’t believe what I was seeing in the mirror: a naturally curly, Medusa-free me.

According to Jacquai, 75 percent of the population have a wave or curl in their hair and don’t know what to do with it. Men cut theirs short. Women flat-iron theirs to death.

When I browse through a beauty magazine or take the subway to work, it makes me sad to see so many people repressing their natural beauty.

Since I tamed my locks (头发), my world has changed. I have always been outgoing, but these days I seem to be more outspoken and confident than ever.

On top of that, friends and co-workers tell me I am looking better than ever, but they can’t tell the source of the change. I don’t need to tell them. My Medusa hair sways and speaks for herself.

New York Cityis preparing to end its ban on cell phones in schools, dooming an industry that appeared near dozens of schools where teens could park their phones in a van for a dollar a day.

The out-of-sight, out-of-mind rule is already applied at most New York City high schools. Even with the phone ban still on the books, students at those schools are told, “If we don’t see it. we don’t know about it.”

But at the 88 city school buildings where metal detectors have been equipped to keep weapons out, the ban is strictly introduced because the detectors catch phones, too.

Students at schools with metal detectors must either leave their phones at home or shell out for storage. For those students, many of whom have spent hundreds of dollars storing phones and other things over their high school periods, the ban can’t end soon enough.

“This costs a dollar every day, and it’s a pain to get in that line just so I can get my phone back so I can go home,” 16-year-old Adam Scully said after getting back his phone from the storage van parked outside his school.

Adam said leaving his phone at home is impossible, adding, “It’s not because I’m overly attached to my phone. It’ because my mom might need to reach me.”

Parents of teens who attend schools with metal detectors say they too would welcome an end to the phone ban.

Walter McIntyre, who has two children atClara Barton High SchoolinBrooklyn, said he now drives his children to school and holds onto their phones during the school day — even though many of their classmates leave their phones in a van.

“They don’t trust them in those places.” McIntyre said. “They don’t want to lose their phones because they know they’re not getting another one.”

The security problem came out when a Pure Loyalty van was robbed in theBronxin June of 2012 and hundreds of students lost their phones.

Thirty years ago I worked in a company. My job was to sell the cars. I was young and strong and I had been to most parts of the world and I spent one fifth of my time in the trains or planes. I liked such a life and sometimes I called myself “traveler”.

   But one day I got into trouble. It was a cold morning. It blew heavily and the ground was covered with thick snow outside. I was still in bed though it was nine. I finished a long journey the day before and decided to have a good rest. Suddenly the telephone rang and my manager told me to fly to New York to take part in an important meeting. I had to get up and after a quick breakfast I hurried to the airport. The taxi went slowly and I missed the first flight. I had to take the next one. It meant I would wait for nearly five hours in the waiting-room. But five hours later a passenger said the information showed there was a bomb in our plane and the policemen were looking for it. And another five hours passed and most passengers lost their patience before we were allowed to get on the plane. At the entrance each passenger and their baggage had to be examined. A young man who seemed a soldier shouted at the policemen at the entrance, “If I had a gun in my baggage, I would shoot you two hours ago!”

From the health point of view we are living in a wonderful age. A large number of once fatal illnesses can now be cured by modern drugs and surgery. But though the possibility of living a long and happy life is greater than ever before，every day we witness the incredible killing of people on the roads. Man is opposite to the motor car！It is a never­ending battle which man is losing. Thousands of people are killed each year and we are quietly sitting back and letting it happen.

It has been rightly said that when a man is sitting behind a steering wheel(方向盘)，his car becomes the extension of his personality. There is no doubt that the motor car often brings out a man's worst qualities. People who are normally quiet and pleasant may become unrecognizable when they are behind a steering wheel. They are rude，ill­mannered and aggressive. All their hidden frustrations and disappointments seem to be brought to the surface by the act of driving.

The surprising thing is that society smiles on the motorist and seems to forgive the behaviour. Everything is done for his convenience. Cities and towns are made ugly by huge car parks.

It is high time a world law were created to reduce this senseless waste of human life. With regard to driving，the laws of some countries are not strict and even the strictest are not strict enough. A law which was universally accepted could only have a beneficial effect on the accident rate. Here are a few examples of some things that might be done. The driving test should be made to a fixed standard and far more difficult than it is；all the drivers should be made to take a test every three years or so；the age at which young people are allowed to drive any vehicle should be raised to at least 21；all vehicles should be put through strict annual tests for safety. Present drinking and driving laws(where they exist)should be made much stricter. Driving speed should be limited on all roads. These measures may sound extremely severe. But surely nothing should be considered difficult if it results in reducing the annual toll of human life. After all，the world is for human beings，not motor cars.

Mr. Jackson was tired of living in his old house in the countryside and wanted to sell it and buy a better one. He tried to sell it for a long time, but was not successful, so at last he decided to go to an estate agent(房产经纪人）.

The agent advertised the house straight away, and a few days later, the owner saw a very beautiful photograph of his house, with a wonderful description of his garden in an expensive magazine.

Having read the advertisement through, the house owner hurried to phone the estate agent, saying, “I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, but I've decided not to sell my house after all.” “Why?” the agent asked in a surprised voice. “Because from the advertisement in that magazine I can see it's just the kind of house I've wanted to live in all my life.”

D

     For starters, I was surprised when during our first conversational Hindi (印度语) lesson we learned the word for "thank you" doesn't really exist in Hindi. Okay, so there technically is a word, but it's really only recognized and used in the cities, where there is more of a Western influence.  In the mountains, it is seldom used, and what's more, people often seemed annoyed when we would try to thank them.  They would either turn their heads, or shake their hands at us as if to say, "Don't, it's not necessary."

     When we asked our Indian instructors why this is, they explained that giving and generosity are such complete aspects of their culture. In fact, it is part of the culture to view possession as a very unsteady thing. Giving is more of a matter of "changing hands" than an act of generosity. In their eyes, the cucumbers and other food they would give us were never really "theirs". They see them as having passed along to them and now they are simply passing them along to us.

     I believe there is a great sense of generosity in Western culture, but it seems to be more of a secondary thought. In other words, the viewpoint seems to be, "If I have enough, I will happily donate my surplus (盈余)."Whereas in the Himalayas, the villagers were eager to give away their best cucumbers to a passing stranger, and they would have happily given more even when it means less for them. In contrast, people in the U. S. tend to donate old, used, or unwanted items rather than their prized ones.

     Interestingly, during a coffee chat a couple of months ago, one of my friends, Josh Millburn, was telling me about how he donated his favorite clothes and shoes - just for the experience of giving up the possessions he likes most as well as to practice detaching (分派) for material things. So, this is something we as Westerners can certainly do, but it doesn't come wholly into our culture. It's something we have to make ourselves consciously aware of and push ourselves outside of our comfort zones to achieve.