If having to make a choice between reading an e-book and a printed book, which would most people choose? Some would go for an e-book while some still prefer the hard-printed book.

Undoubtedly, e-books do have benefits. Firstly, changes to an electronic publication are relatively easy to make. They are quicker to obtain. E-books are more easily updated. The printed books on many subjects can become outdated very quickly. Secondly, e-books can be easily and quickly kept up to date. You usually get far more than just the e-books. Most e-books are sold with bonuses and related information that usually do not come with the purchase of a printed book. Moreover, they take up less space. Instead of a big library, you can fit literally thousands of books on your computer. It also makes it easier to share this information with families and friends.

For nearly twenty years, additionally, futurists have been predicting the development of printed books. The conventional view has been that digital e-books are on the verge of replacing paper books. However, this has not been the case. A printed book has its advantages too. Firstly, it is an object that can be carried and used alone. It needs no electric outlet (插座), no batteries, nothing. Secondly, e-books will always require some forms of support that the printed book does not need.

I believe that the online publishing has not taken off because people want real books. What is being published online more and more are pamphlets (小册子) and things that really do not need to be in print. These are stuff that people throw away afterward. More often, people do not want to read a book on the computer. What could be better than a paper book? It lasts a long time. These books are designed to last a long time without disappearing.

To sum up, there is no denying that the printed book is still very much preferred over its digital cousins. Reading electronic publications is just not the same when it comes to books. People are still very interested in real books and notebooks.

If you're a runner who secretly hates running, here's some good news: settling into a leisurely jog rather than an all-out run may actually be better for your health in the long term.

A team from Denmark followed over 5,000 people taking part in the Copenhagen City Heart Study, and tracked whether they were non-joggers or joggers who kept a slow, moderate, or fast pace. The participants' health was tracked over the next 12 years, and so was their mortality (死亡率): 28 of the joggers and 128 of the non-joggers died.

The connection was this: Joggers of mild and moderate intensity had a lower risk of death than the fast joggers. In fact, the lowest mortality risk was that of the mild intensity joggers. The fast-paced joggers had about the same mortality rate as sedentary (久坐的) people. This suggests that there may be an upper limit to hard exercise, after which the benefits fall off.

"The U-shaped association between jogging and mortality suggests there may be an upper limit for exercise amount that is best for health benefits," said study author Peter Schnohr. "Anything more is not just unnecessary: it may be harmful." From the current study, jogging just three times per week, for less than 2.5 hours/week was associated with the lowest overall mortality risk.

There've been a lot of mixed messages about the "right" amount of exercise and what intensity is best. The World Health Organization has suggested that the current 150 minutes/week recommendations are strenuous for most people to tackle, and that expectations should be lowered, since, after all, anything is better than nothing. Everyone probably has a level of activity that feels best to him or her. But at least the growing consensus seems to be that more-if you're pushing yourself very hard-is not necessarily better. And it may even be worse.

Luis was born in Lima, Peru. He lived there with his parents. But one day his life changed completely. His parents got divorced(离婚). And his mother moved to the United States. So Luis went with her.

This move was a big change for Luis. He tried to fit into his new life. He had to go to a new school, learn a new language and make new friends. But Luis felt different from the other children. He felt that he did not belong. He wanted to return to South America. Some years later he had his chance. He was so happy to return to his original culture! But to his surprise, he did not feel at home.

Luis felt troubled. He did not know which country he was from. Luis is not the only young person to have these feelings. More and more young people are moving around the world with their parents. Their parents' work may cause the move. Families may choose to move. They hope for a better life. Such families have new experiences.They learn about other cultures. They have interesting lives. But there can also be a big problem. A lot of people do not understand how moving will affect their children. Parents may not understand their children's struggles. And they often think it will be easy for their children to return to their home country. They may expect their children to be the same as them, to have the same ideas, and to have the same beliefs.

There is a name for these children who grow up in more than one country-"third culture kids". Third culture kids are not completely part of their parents' culture. They are not completely part of the other culture they live in. Instead, they are a mix of cultures. This mixed culture is their own culture-a third culture.