Because the law says so, not just mom

A law that requires children to help with household chores and respect their parents? In Spain, it could become reality.

A draft law set before Parliament last month would mandate just that. Extreme? Perhaps. But it’s doubtful many parents complaining — and it might not be so far-fetched. After all, Spain’s husbands already have legal obligations to do chores and help with childcare.

Spain certainly isn’t the only country to adopt or consider such unusual measures.

Here’s a closer look at the Spanish law as well as some other surprising work–related rules and norms that have come into force around the globe in the last few years, including cutting off after-hour email and measuring employee waistlines. Click through the images above to read about the others.

The measure in Spain that would require kids to help out around the house is currently just a draft law, but it lists the responsibilities and obligations of children to include “participating in family life, respecting their parents and siblings” and “co-responsibility in caring for the home and performing household chores according to their age and regardless of their gender."

No punishments or penalties are listed for failing to comply, though.

Montse Reguera, a teacher in Madrid and parent, said the section of the draft law regarding chores and respect made her laugh when she read about it and that she thinks it’s unnecessary. “As any other families in the world, Spanish families have their own rules, unwritten moral rules and private rules that children learn as they grow up,” she said.

Husbands in Spain already have legal language holding them accountable for housework. A 2005 addendum to the marriage contract used in Spanish civil ceremonies stipulates men are required to shoulder household duties, as well as help care for children and elderly family members.

Talking about the future

Click on the following link : you will find lessons and exercices about the future.

http://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/english-grammar/verbs/talking-about-future

The secret link between money and happiness

Can money buy happiness? Should salaries stay secret?

You’ve heard the saying, “money can’t buy happiness,” but what if a certain amount of money actually does make you happier? And don’t people feel unhappy when they learn a colleague is earning more money for doing the same amount of work?

At the very least, money, or lack of it, can bring some level of joy or despair.

Several LinkedIn Influencers weighed in this week on why salaries shouldn’t be secret and just how much money brings happiness. Here’s what two of them had to say.

Felix Salmon, senior editor at Fusion

“Very few people like to talk about how much money they make — especially not people who earn a lot of money,” wrote Salmon in his postWhy Salaries Shouldn’t Be Secret, in the wake of news that recently-departed New York Times editor Jill Abramson had started asking questions about the pay discrepancy between her and her predecessor.  “Since companies tend to be run by people who earn a lot of money, the result is a culture of silence and secrecy when it comes to pay.”

There are several surprising reasons “secrecy surrounding pay is generally a bad idea for any organisation,” Salmon wrote.

 “For one thing, secrecy about pay is bad for women, who are worse at asking for raises than men are. If men secretly ask for raises and secretly get them, while women don’t, then that helps to explain, at least in part, why men end up earning more than women,” Salmon wrote. “Secrecy around pay is also a great way to allow managers to — consciously or unconsciously — play favorites with their staff.”

“We’ve all worked in companies, I’m sure, where the only way to get a substantial raise is to confront management with a job offer from somewhere else,” he added. “That’s clearly a dreadful way to run a company, since it gives all employees a huge incentive to spend a lot of time looking for work elsewhere, even if they’re very happy where they are.”

“If you work for a company where everybody knows what everybody else is earning, then it’s going to be very easy to see what’s going on. You’ll see who the stars are, you’ll see what kind of skills and talent the company rewards,” he wrote. “You’ll also see whether men get paid more than women, whether managers are generally overpaid, and whether behaviour like threatening to quit is rewarded with big raises. What’s more, because management knows that everybody else will see such things, they’ll be much less likely to do the kind of secret deals which are all too common in most companies today.”

Bruce Kasanoff, ghostwriter and speaker

Maybe money does buy happiness. Or some money, that is. At least that’s the case according to recent research from Princeton, yielded from a survey of 450,000 people.

The research found that emotional well-being is fully realised at an annual income of about $75,000. But not more.

“In other words, when it comes to money, there is a glass ceiling for its ability to bring you happiness,” wrote Kasanoff in his post $75,000 Buys Happiness; More Money Does Not. “This makes intuitive sense; if you can't afford a decent place to live or enough food to feed your family, more money substantively improves your situation. But few would agree with the statement that the happiest moments of their life was/were when they had the most money.”

The researchers examined emotional well-being, rather thanlife evaluation, wrote Kasanoff. “Emotional well-being is what they equate with happiness. It involves the emotional experiences you have on a day-to-day basis... being delighted, sad, frustrated, excited, lonely or fascinated,” he wrote.

What does all of this mean, then, in terms of money and happiness?

“If you double your salary, say to $150,000, you will probably increase your intellectual assessment of your life,” Kasanoff wrote. “But doubling your salary won't necessarily give you more joy, day-to-day. It won't make you more excited by your work or help you feel closer to your friends and family.”

Alzheimer's research 'needs new strategy'

Brain cells in a dish may eventually replace animal research

A shift in medical research priorities is needed to meet the challenge of fighting dementia, say animal welfare campaigners.

Animal research into new therapies has failed to deliver after years of experiments, they say.

Instead, labs should focus on human-based models such as brain scanning or studies of cells grown from patients.

Alzheimer's Research UK said no single approach could provide answers to such a complex disease.

Dr Gillian Langley, a scientist and consultant for the animal welfare charity, Humane Society International, is among a growing body of scientists who believe current research relies too much on animal models.

"Medical research is at a tipping point," she told BBC News.

"There is a growing realisation that animal studies are not producing the breakthroughs we're hoping for."

Writing in the journal Drug Discovery Today, she said it was time to consider a new paradigm in medical research for Alzheimer's disease.

Research was "lagging behind" areas such as toxicology, which is using research based on molecular disease pathways within cells and new tools such as genomics, she said.

"We need this overarching view - a new framework so we can use these 21st Century tools."

Model of complexity

Other scientists say human-based methods of research - once regarded as experimental - are already yielding results.

Professor Paul Lawrence Furlong of Aston University carries out brain imaging to try to develop methods for early diagnosis of dementia in patients.

"We're supportive of initiatives to move forward the human model for good scientific reasons," he said.

"In Alzheimer's, at the cellular level, many animal models are valuable. When we move up the model of complexity, there's a point at which the animal model becomes less valid."

Brain cells in a dish

He said researchers such as Dr Eric Hill at Aston University are working on stem cells (the master cells of the human body) to model Alzheimer's disease, which may eventually provide more robust ways of testing treatments.

"These cells were once skin cells that have been reprogrammed to become stem cells again," said Dr Hill.

"They were then differentiated to become neurons and astrocytes.

"The exciting thing about this technology is that you can take cells from patients with a disease and then try to create a model of this disease in a dish. "

However, the charity, Alzheimer's Research UK, said no single approach could address such a complex disease, with animal models, brain studies and new approaches involving stem cells all playing a role.

"Alzheimer's is a complex disease and the brain is a complex organ," said head of research Simon Ridley.

"I think modelling that in a cell culture or in a dish, it's a huge challenge.

"So I think it's very important that we keep a broad perspective on the different types of research, really to try to answer specific questions."

Dr Laurie Butler, of the University of Reading, added: "With the number of those affected by dementia set to triple over the next 30 years it's vital we examine all research approaches if the UK is going to fulfil Jeremy Hunt's promise of transforming the country into a 'global leader' in fighting dementia. "

Use of "For"

We can sometimes use for + ing to talk about the purpose of a thing. When we do, it means the same as to + infinitive.

• What is that for? It is for opening envelopes
• This bell is for calling the waiter.
• This bell is to call the waiter.

When we talk about the purpose of somebody's actions, we cannot use for + ing.

• I went there to ask for help.
• You will have to queue a long time. to get tickets.

However, it is sometimes possible to use for + noun for this.

• I went there for help.
• You will have to queue a long timefor tickets.

We can also use for + object + infinitive to talk about a purpose.

• I gave her a notebook for her to write down new English words she found.
• They sent a form for me to sign.

We also use the pattern for + object + infinitive in sentences after is or was.

• The plan is for us to get to Barcelona by lunchtime.
• The objective was for them to get the work finished by the end of last month.

We can add details to a noun by using the pattern for + object + infinitive

• That is an expensive place for them to stay.
• There is a lot of work for us to do.
• There is no need for you to be so aggressive.

We also use the pattern for + object + infinitive after certain verbs and adjectives.

• I am waiting for him to make the first move.
• I have arranged for you to see the bank manager tomorrow morning.
• We are keen for you to take the job.
• I think it would be good for you to take a break now.

Did you liked this moment during tv show How I Met Your Mother ?

Austria's Conchita Wurst wins Eurovision amid Russia, Ukraine tensions

Russia and Ukraine faced off again Saturday, far from their volatile border region, on the glitzy stage of the Eurovision Song Contest.

Tensions between the neighbors gave an added piquancy to the competition's grand final in Copenhagen, Denmark, in which both nations were fielding entries. Moscow annexed Ukraine's Crimea region in March and eastern Ukraine is currently roiled by pro-Russian separatist protests.

On the night, however, it was a much talked about 25-year-old from Austria who stole the show. Conchita Wurst, the onstage drag persona of Thomas Neuwirth, was the runaway winner for a performance of the ballad "Rise Like A Phoenix."

Wurst also refers to himself as "the bearded lady," he says on his website. In his private life, he calls himself "Tom" and refers to himself as "he."

In the role of Conchita Wurst, who Neuwirth calls an "art figure," the artist refers to "herself" as "she."

Neuwirth created Wurst -- which in German means sausage but can also mean 'who cares?' -- in his teen years to cope with feeling discriminated against.

Performing in a skintight dress with long hair and a full beard, Wurst scored 290 points to become Austria's first Eurovision winner since 1966.

"For me, my dream came true," Wurst told reporters after the contest. "But for society it showed me that people want to move on, to look to the future. We said something, we made a statement."

Wurst's presence in the competition had proved controversial in some countries. In Armenia, Belarus and Russia -- where a law against "gay propaganda" was passed last year -- petitions were circulated calling for the singer to be removed from the competition or edited out of the broadcast.

In Russia, Wurst's win drew boos in some places where audiences had gathered to watch the contest.

Wurst's manager, Rene Berto, described the win as a victory for tolerance, one of the main themes emphasized by the contest's organizers.

"Let's change the world and make it a little bit better," Berto said. "Conchita always says: 'Wish for the moon and you'll reach at least the stars,' but now we just landed on the moon. Let's change our way of thinking -- Conchita is just a woman with a beard."

Non-political event?

Created in the aftermath of World War II to encourage good relations between neighbors, Eurovision has been held every year since 1956, and today draws a television audience of about 180 million people in 45 countries.

Contestants are often eccentric, colorful, unusual -- on the fringes of mainstream music in their home countries.

The organizers describe the event -- known for its combination of over-the-top costumes, kitsch pop songs and sometimes questionable talent -- as non-political.

But in reality, politics inevitably colors both the voting and the performances.

This was demonstrated to an unusual degree Tuesday, when Russia's entrants -- 17-year-old twins Anastasia and Maria Tolmachevy -- were booed by the audience during their semi-final performance.

William Lee Adams, a Eurovision expert and the editor-in-chief of Wiwibloggs.com, the popular Eurovision website, told CNN that the contest is about national identity as well as music.

"Months of frustration over Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and Putin's anti-LGBT laws have left Europeans angry," Adams said.

"The booing was a release, a statement of solidarity with Ukraine and Russia's sexual minorities."

It doesn't help that Russia's love song features lyrics that some see as hinting at a border incursion. It goes, "...living on the edge, closer to the crime, cross the line, one step at a time ... maybe there's a day you'll be mine."

Ukrainian singer Mariya Yaremchuk, who performed a song titled "Tick-Tock," said Tuesday that she was proud to be representing her country.

"Actually, my main position is that I'm proud that I'm Ukrainian and everything I do here is for the Ukrainian people," the 21-year-old said.

"I'm not standing alone on the stage, there are 46 million Ukrainians behind me on the stage."

The countries involved in the contest award a set of points from one to eight, then 10 and finally 12 for their favorite songs. They can't vote for themselves and they must announce the score in both English and French.

Television viewers can cast votes in their respective countries through telephone hotlines, which count for half the final tally. The remainder of the vote is cast by national expert juries.

The country with the highest points total wins -- and has the rather expensive honor of hosting the following year's event.

In the end, Ukraine's Yaremchuk scored slightly higher than her Russian rivals, finishing in sixth place with 113 points, while Russia's Tolmachevy twins took 89 points to finish seventh.

A duo from the Netherlands finished in second place, with a Swedish entry coming in third.