【推荐1】Academic dishonesty is nothing new. As long as there have been homework assignments and tests, there have been cheaters. The way that cheating looks has changed over time, though, particularly now that technology has made it easier than ever. A study by the Josephson Institute of Ethics interviewed 23,000 high school students and asked them a variety of questions about academic ethics. Of the teens surveyed, 51 percent said that they had knowingly cheated at some point on an exam but that they did not feel uneasy about the behaviour. A Common Sense Media survey found that 35 percent of students had cheated via smartphone, though the parents surveyed in that particular study did not believe their kids had ever cheated. In many cases, students did not realize that strategies like looking up answers on a smartphone were actually cheating at all.

In today’s classrooms, students who cheat are rarely caught. There are no formulas written on the insides of hands or students looking across the aisle, or whispering answers to their classmates. Today’s students use smartphones, tablets or even in-class computers to aid their cheating attempts and leave no trace of their crimes. Since cheating through technology is not listed specifically as being against the rules in many school policies, students do not view the actions unethical (不合道德的).

The technology is being adopted so quickly that school districts cannot adequately keep up with cheating policies, or even awareness campaigns that alert students to the problem with using technology to find answers in a certain way. From a young age, students learn that answers exist conveniently at their fingertips through search engines and expert websites.

Schools must develop anti-cheating policies that include technology and these policies must be updated consistently. Teachers must stay on guard when it comes to what their students are doing in classrooms and how technology could be playing a negative role in the learning process. Parents must also talk to their kids about the appropriate ways to find academic answers and alert them to unethical behaviours that may seem innocent in their own eyes.

【推荐2】Many cities in the United States could grow their own food locally, raising enough crops and cattle to meet the needs of all residents. This is the finding of an interesting new modeling study from Tufts University, which analyzed the potential for local food production in 378 areas across the US and expected food production.

The researchers found that cities in the Northwest in the United States had the greatest potential to raise their own food. Cities along the Eastern seaside and in the Southwest had the least potential and would not be able to meet all their own needs of diet, even if every acre of agricultural land was used for food production. This makes sense, as many of the cities are coastal and lack room for agricultural spreading.

The study revealed that the United States have a surplus (多余的) of agricultural land for feeding the domestic (国内的) population. Currently, some land is used to raise export crops, but a focus on local food production would start a conversation about how that land gets used. In the words of Peters, lead author and associate professor at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts, “It would be important to make sure policies for supporting local or regional food production benefit conservation and create opportunities for farmers to adopt more sustainable (可持续的) practices. Policies should also recognize the ability of the natural resources in a given local or region and consider the supply chain, including ability for food processing and storage.”

Although it’s a far cry from the current reality, it is a nice thought to imagine cities surrounded by food production operations that transport freshly harvested food to nearby homes, and then make use of the leftover food to fertilize fields and generate heat for greenhouses.

【推荐3】It is natural for young people to admire an cool model — looking young “idols”. We spend a lot of time caring about them — even more time than we spend on our studies or work. We often wonder what makes them so popular? What could I do to be cool like them?

Well, guess what? Many of your idols are only made to “look”cool. If you could see into their private lives, you would find these stars aren’t so bright. Their beauty is only skin-deep. Some of them might not be as honest, kind or hard-working, as you are! They don’t deserve (值得) the popularity that they enjoy at all!

When I was a teenager, I, along with most of my classmates, had worshiped pop idols, too. Then, one day, I discovered Leonard Cohen and Neil Young. They were ordinary-looking people who played the guitar while sitting on a stool (凳子). They wore no flashy clothes, and they had no screaming fans. They didn’t need to be flashy because their songs were great and meaningful. They told the truth: Life is hard and the road you take might sometimes be lonely. Most of all, they taught me that it was okay if I was not popular and cool all of the time. I still listen to them today.

Modern “idol culture” often sends the wrong message that life is always easy and fun. But the best actors, the top-ranking sports stars and the most creative scientists all have scars from the stress of dealing with many life difficulties. Many of the successful “outgoing” people we admire today were shy when they were teenagers.

Idols can serve as important role models in our lives, so it’s very important to choose the right ones. We should praise people who teach us important values that can help to guide us on the road ahead. The next time you see some pretty, popular “stars”, ask yourself: Do I really need these people in my life?

【推荐2】On January 15^th, the Guardian showed off its new, smaller look, shifting from its distinctive “Berliner” format to a tabloid(娱乐小报) shape with a redesigned logo in black type. But the more dramatic makeover is of the financial books of Guardian Media Group (GMG), publisher of the Sunday Observer and the daily Guardian, which may find its new operation in the black next financial year. A newspaper business that two years ago was threatened with existentially worrying losses appears on the edge of breaking even.

The turnaround is partly due to steep cost-cutting, which is a dog-bites-man story in journalism. But the Guardian would manage the achievement while still giving away news free online, and that is a story worth telling.

In January 2016 David Pemsel, the new chief executive of GMG, and Katharine Viner, the new editor-in-chief of the Guardian, informed staff that GMG’s endowment fund, meant to ensure the financial security of the paper in the long run, had lost £100m ($140m) in just half a year, taking it to £740m. Mr Pemsel was advised by industry peers to cut costs and put online news behind a paywall. He and Ms Viner cut costs by 20%, or more than £50m. Alan Rusbridger, Ms Viner’s predecessor(前任), had led the newspaper to global relevance with a large online readership. But he spent without thinking of the consequences. In two years GMG has reduced its employees by 400, to about 1,500.

Yet unlike a growing number of newspapers, the Guardian has not put up a paywall. Instead it has pursued a membership model, asking online readers to contribute whatever they like. About 600,000 now do, with annual payments or one-off amounts. American readers tend to choose the latter option, Ms Viner says. GMG says the total figure amounts to tens of millions of pounds per year. Ms Viner says revenue from readers (including 200,000 print subscribers) is now greater than revenue from advertisers.

The result is steadily declining operating losses: from £69m two years ago to £45m last financial year and, Mr Pemsel says, less than £25m in the year that ends on April 1^st. He predicts breaking even next year. Giving up its own printing presses and going tabloid will help, saving several million pounds a year. The Guardian may now physically look more like its peers, but its turnaround story remains distinctive.