They can be as huge as a new constitution or as tiny as a medical microchip. In this special report， we explore innovations that are changing the way we work， live， and play.

Monitoring patients usually requires visits to the doctor， invasive tests and bulky1）， expensive devices. But what if getting a checkup were as simple as slapping on a Band-Aid？

Such is the potential of bioelectronics2）， an emerging field whose leaders are developing small， wearable， wi-fi-enabled sensors that can detect all kinds of vital information—heart rate， body temperature， hydration3） levels—and relay them to your doctor or your smartphone in real time. Once patients have the big data about their bodies， the thinking goes， they can be proactive about their health， cut care costs and foster better relationships with their doctors. “We want to change the world，” proclaims David Icke， CEO of bioelectronics firm MC10， which is leading the health-sensor charge.

He’s got a long way to go. Although consumers have embraced attachable devices like Fitbit4）， a digital pedometer5）， bioelectronics is for now a much smaller market. Most of its game-changing6） sensors are in development or just on the cusp of7） commercial availability. Still， researchers at firms around the world are working hard to make them as comfortable and affordable as possible. The price of MC10 sensors is typically $1 to $10， which means the most cost-effective doctor could be one that’s with you all the time.

Millennials8） are vital to an urban economy： they’re young， cheap and willing to work many of the jobs that help cities grow—medicine， tech， service， engineering. But as rents soar， that cohort is being locked out of living in many metropolises， which is bad for business. “We’re concerned about brain drain9），” says Richard Taylor， head of the real estate center at Suffolk University， of possible millennial flight from Boston.

To address this trend， several North American cities have jettisoned10） old zoning laws11）， like ones requiring that new units be at least 400 sq ft （37 sq m）， to allow smaller， cheaper microapartments. A typical studio in a San Francisco microcomplex that opened last year offers high ceilings， a retractable12） bed and foldaway tables—and rent under $1，600 a month. “We’re doing space plus utility plus functionality plus aesthetic inspiration，” says Patrick Kennedy， one of the developers. Projects in New York City， Boston and Seattle are following suit.

Stadiumgoers， prepare to be watched. Technology has already revolutionized the games themselves. Armed with video footage， analytics software and a loyal squad of geeks， pro teams can now know every strength—and weakness—of their players， prospects13） and opponents. “But what if you turn that technology around to the fans？” asks George Williams， a computer scientist at NYU’s Movement Lab. After all， the fans pay the bills， so teams would love to know which players get crowds jumping， which music makes them dance and whether or not the mascot14） entertains them during downtime15）.

Williams has all that information. He’s spent the past three years developing new camera software that scans facial expressions to identify fan behaviors—think cheering， jeering16）， talking on a cell phone—in real time at a stadium. So a company can measure， for example， how many eyeballs are attached to a Jumbotron17） ad （are fans looking？） and how well it’s being received （are they laughing？ Smiling？ Fiddling on their phones and ignoring it？）. Getting that kind of detailed feedback could encourage team owners to improve their ads and promotions—and， heck18）， even their teams—to create a more engaging experience and ultimately sell more tickets.

Keep the water out. For decades， that’s how cities have tried to prevent flood damage. In Venice at least $7 billion is being spent on sea gates. Post-Katrina New Orleans is building levees19） and flood walls. But as sea levels rise and storms get fiercer and more frequent， those costly， superficial barriers will not be enough.

With that in mind， some of the world’s biggest metropolises are starting to embrace “accommodation” architecture： building multipurpose structures to let water in during surges. For some structures， the proposed design tweaks are minimal： moving heat and electrical controls from the basement to the attic， for example， or ensuring that elevators start at the second floor. The more ambitious projects， however， do a lot more than manage floods. In Rotterdam， low-lying playgrounds made with water-resistant materials double20） as storage basins when heavy rainfall hits. In Singapore， new parkland helps funnel water through a purification system. And in New York City， so-called green roofs will absorb rainwater and recycle it to nourish grass， trees and other plants.

Of course， these projects are complicated and expensive and will likely need to supplement—not replace—existing water barriers. We know the water is coming. The sooner we accept that we can’t keep all of it out， the safer we will be.

The robotics revolution is set to bring humans face to face with an old fear—man-made creations as smart and capable as we are but without a moral compass. As robots take on ever more complex roles， the question naturally arises： Who will be responsible when they do something wrong？ Manufacturers？ Users？ Software writers？ The answer depends on the robot.

Robots already save us time， money and energy. But there are bound to be problems. Robot cars will crash. A drone operator will invade someone’s privacy. A robotic lawn mower will run over a neighbor’s cat. Juries sympathetic to the victims of machines will punish entrepreneurs with company-crushing penalties and damages21）. What should governments do to protect people while preserving space for innovation？

Big， complicated systems on which much public safety depends， like driverless cars， should be built， programmed and sold by manufacturers who take responsibility for ensuring safety and are liable for accidents. Governments should set safety requirements and then let insurers price the risk of the robots based on the manufacturer’s driving record， not the passenger’s.

But not every kind of robotmaker should be responsible for its creations. Ryan Calo of University of Washington Law School argues that to foster innovation in home and service robots， the platforms have to be open， meaning that any app developer can write a program that teaches your floor-mopping robot to clean windows too. The fault for some hiccups would be with the app developer or the user.

None of that means there won’t be accidents as we look to robots to improve life. But at least we’ll know who to blame.

In the days of the Arab Spring22）， we were all intoxicated by the sight of millions gathered in public squares to protest dictatorial governments. We hoped this would culminate23） in liberal democracy in the Arab world. Two years later， it’s clear the prospects in the region are mixed. It turns out the key is not people power but paper power； the focus should be less on elections and more on constitutions.

There is a vigorous academic debate about the conditions that allow democracy to flourish. The most powerful single correlation remains one first made by the social scientist Seymour Martin Lipset， who pointed out in 1959 that “the more well-to-do a nation， the greater the chances that it will sustain democracy.” But there are other intriguing correlations. Countries in Europe， even relatively poor ones， have done better than others.

Along with several others， I have argued that countries with strong traditions of the rule of law tend to develop a democratic culture that also protects individual rights. In the West， for example， legal protections for life， liberty and property developed in the 17th and 18th centuries. Only much later came universal adult suffrage. Liberty preceded democracy， not the other way around.

Poor developing countries should place an even greater weight on the rule of law. It’s crucial that before the first elections， before politicians gain enormous legitimacy through the polls， a system be put in place that limits governmental power and protects individual liberty and the rights of minorities.

這六大創(chuàng)意大到制定一部新憲法，小到發(fā)明一款微型醫(yī)療芯片。通過這篇特別報(bào)道，我們帶你探索那些改變我們工作、生活與娛樂方式的新創(chuàng)意。

要監(jiān)控病人的情況，通常需要看醫(yī)生，進(jìn)行侵入性檢查，使用昂貴的大型醫(yī)療器械。然而，如果檢查身體變得如貼邦迪創(chuàng)可貼般簡單，那會(huì)是什么樣子呢？

這就是生物電子學(xué)的發(fā)展前景。生物電子學(xué)是一個(gè)新興領(lǐng)域，該領(lǐng)域的帶頭人正致力于研發(fā)體積小、可佩戴、能使用wi-fi的傳感器，它可以檢測到各種重要的生命體征，包括心率、體溫和水合作用水平，并且能將這些信息實(shí)時(shí)反饋給你的主治醫(yī)生或者發(fā)送到你的智能手機(jī)上。人們一般認(rèn)為，患者一旦掌握了有關(guān)自己身體的各項(xiàng)數(shù)據(jù)，就會(huì)積極對待自身的健康問題，降低醫(yī)療支出，并建立更好的醫(yī)患關(guān)系。生物電子技術(shù)公司MC10公司是健康傳感器領(lǐng)域的翹楚，其首席執(zhí)行官戴維·伊克公開表示：“我們想要改變世界！”

戴維要實(shí)現(xiàn)這一目標(biāo)可謂任重而道遠(yuǎn)。盡管消費(fèi)者已欣然接受了類似于Fitbit數(shù)碼計(jì)步器這樣的便攜式設(shè)備，但目前生物電子領(lǐng)域的市場還是小得多。大多數(shù)具有革命性的傳感器尚處于研發(fā)階段，或者只是剛剛投入商業(yè)使用。然而，世界各地公司的研究者正不斷努力使傳感器盡可能地讓人感覺舒適，價(jià)格也盡可能讓人負(fù)擔(dān)得起。MC10公司推出的傳感器價(jià)格基本上在1～10美元之間。這意味著你可以請到一位一天24小時(shí)圍著你轉(zhuǎn)的最經(jīng)濟(jì)劃算的醫(yī)生。

千禧一代對于城市經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展極為重要：他們年輕，對薪資要求不高，并且愿意從事多種對城市發(fā)展有益的工作，如醫(yī)藥、科技、服務(wù)、工程行業(yè)。但是，隨著房租飛漲，年輕一族卻被許多大城市拒之門外。這對商業(yè)發(fā)展而言可不是什么好事?！拔覀兒軗?dān)心這樣會(huì)造成人才流失。”薩?？舜髮W(xué)房地產(chǎn)中心主任理查德·泰勒在談及千禧一代可能會(huì)選擇“逃離”波士頓時(shí)說道。

為了應(yīng)對這種趨勢，北美的幾個(gè)城市已經(jīng)廢除了舊的區(qū)劃法中的一些規(guī)定，比如廢除新建公寓單套面積至少要達(dá)到400平方英尺（37平方米）這樣的規(guī)定，以允許新建面積更小、價(jià)格更低的小戶型公寓。舊金山去年開盤的一個(gè)小公寓建筑群推出的典型的工作室式小戶型就層高較高，并配有伸縮床和折疊桌，出租價(jià)格每月不到1600美元。作為開發(fā)商之一的帕特里克·肯尼迪說：“我們的設(shè)計(jì)集空間感、實(shí)用性、功能性以及藝術(shù)靈感于一體?！蔽挥诩~約、波士頓和西雅圖的很多樓盤也都在紛紛效仿這種設(shè)計(jì)。

喜歡去體育場看比賽的體育迷要做好被監(jiān)視的準(zhǔn)備了。科技已經(jīng)給體育運(yùn)動(dòng)帶來了革命性的變化。只要配備了視頻錄像、分析軟件以及一群忠實(shí)的技術(shù)高手，職業(yè)運(yùn)動(dòng)隊(duì)現(xiàn)在就可以掌握每位隊(duì)員、賽場新秀和競爭對手的優(yōu)勢和劣勢?！暗绻堰@種技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)而應(yīng)用到體育迷身上會(huì)發(fā)生什么呢？”紐約大學(xué)運(yùn)動(dòng)實(shí)驗(yàn)室的計(jì)算機(jī)科學(xué)家喬治·威廉姆斯提出了這樣的疑問。畢竟是體育迷花錢買票，因此運(yùn)動(dòng)隊(duì)很想知道哪些運(yùn)動(dòng)員能引起觀眾的歡呼雀躍，哪首歌曲能讓觀眾手舞足蹈，以及吉祥物在中場休息時(shí)是否能給他們帶來歡樂。

威廉姆斯對那些信息了如指掌。他在過去的三年里研發(fā)了一款攝像軟件，通過掃描體育迷的面部表情來實(shí)時(shí)辨別他們在體育場中的行為，如加油、喝倒彩或拿著手機(jī)打電話。據(jù)此，公司就可以估測一些數(shù)據(jù)，比如：大屏幕上的廣告吸引了多少人的眼球（粉絲們看廣告了嗎？）；廣告在多大程度上被大家接受（他們看過廣告后是大笑，微笑，還是在搗鼓手機(jī)，然后直接把廣告忽略了？）。收集這種詳盡的反饋信息會(huì)促使運(yùn)動(dòng)隊(duì)老板不斷完善自己的廣告宣傳和促銷活動(dòng)，甚至可以促使運(yùn)動(dòng)隊(duì)為觀眾創(chuàng)造更令人賞心悅目的體驗(yàn)，最終售出更多門票。

把洪水擋在外面——這是幾十年來各個(gè)城市一直采用的防洪措施。威尼斯至少投入了70億美元用在防洪海閘上?？ㄌ乩锬蕊Z風(fēng)過后，新奧爾良市正在建設(shè)防洪堤和防洪墻。但是，隨著海平面上升以及暴風(fēng)雨變得愈發(fā)猛烈和頻繁，這種耗資巨大的表層屏障將無法滿足需要。

考慮到這種情況，世界上的一些大城市開始接受為洪水“安家”的建筑：興建多功能建筑，在洪水肆虐時(shí)讓水流進(jìn)來。針對有些建筑物提出的設(shè)計(jì)調(diào)整較小，比如將熱電系統(tǒng)從地下室改裝到閣樓去，或者從二樓起才安裝電梯。然而，一些目標(biāo)更宏大的項(xiàng)目所發(fā)揮的作用要比控制洪水多得多。在鹿特丹，采用防水材料制成的低洼游樂場在暴雨襲擊時(shí)可以兼作蓄洪區(qū)。在新加坡，新建的公用場地可通過凈水系統(tǒng)引流洪水。在紐約，所謂的綠色屋頂可以收集雨水，并能將其回收利用，用于澆灌草坪、樹木和其他植物。

當(dāng)然，這些項(xiàng)目很復(fù)雜，成本也高，并且大概只能作為現(xiàn)有防洪屏障的補(bǔ)充措施，而非替代措施。我們都知道洪水就要來了，我們越早意識到自己不可能將其全部攔截在外，我們就會(huì)越安全。

機(jī)器人技術(shù)革命將使人類直面一個(gè)古老的擔(dān)憂：這些人造機(jī)器人和人類一樣聰明能干，卻沒有道德準(zhǔn)則。隨著機(jī)器人在人類生活中不斷充當(dāng)更為復(fù)雜的角色，一個(gè)問題自然凸顯出來：誰來為它們的過失負(fù)責(zé)？制造商？用戶？還是軟件開發(fā)者？答案取決于機(jī)器人本身。

機(jī)器人已經(jīng)在為我們節(jié)約時(shí)間、金錢和能量了，但是也一定會(huì)出現(xiàn)問題。無人駕駛汽車會(huì)撞車；無人駕駛飛機(jī)的操作者會(huì)侵犯他人的隱私；自動(dòng)割草機(jī)會(huì)碾到鄰居家的貓。對這些機(jī)器的受害者抱有同情心的陪審團(tuán)將會(huì)對企業(yè)家處以足以使企業(yè)倒閉的罰金與賠償金。那么，政府如何做才能在為技術(shù)創(chuàng)新保留空間的同時(shí)保護(hù)公民呢？

諸如無人駕駛汽車這樣關(guān)系到公共安全的大型復(fù)雜系統(tǒng)，應(yīng)該由對確保安全承擔(dān)責(zé)任并對事故負(fù)責(zé)的生產(chǎn)商來制造、編程和銷售。政府應(yīng)該制定安全標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，并且讓保險(xiǎn)公司根據(jù)生產(chǎn)商而非乘客的駕駛記錄來給機(jī)器人的使用風(fēng)險(xiǎn)估價(jià)。

然而，并非每一種機(jī)器人生產(chǎn)商都應(yīng)該對他們創(chuàng)造的產(chǎn)品負(fù)責(zé)。華盛頓大學(xué)法學(xué)院的瑞恩·卡洛認(rèn)為，為了在家用及服務(wù)類機(jī)器人領(lǐng)域培育創(chuàng)新發(fā)展，機(jī)器人研發(fā)平臺不得不開放。這意味著任何應(yīng)用程序開發(fā)者都可以寫一個(gè)程序來教擦地板的機(jī)器人學(xué)會(huì)擦窗戶。因此，一些小問題方面的失誤應(yīng)該由應(yīng)用程序開發(fā)者或用戶來承擔(dān)責(zé)任。

所有這些并不表明，當(dāng)我們指望機(jī)器人改進(jìn)生活時(shí)沒有事故發(fā)生，但至少我們知道誰該為事故負(fù)責(zé)。

在“阿拉伯之春”運(yùn)動(dòng)爆發(fā)的日子里，我們看到幾千萬民眾聚集在公共廣場抗議獨(dú)裁政府，內(nèi)心都感到欣喜若狂。我們希望這次運(yùn)動(dòng)最終能讓阿拉伯世界走上自由民主的道路。如今兩年過去了，顯然這一地區(qū)的前景變得很復(fù)雜。事實(shí)證明，實(shí)現(xiàn)自由民主的關(guān)鍵不是人民的力量，而是“紙上”的力量；焦點(diǎn)應(yīng)少放在選舉上，而多放在憲法上。

關(guān)于“什么樣的環(huán)境會(huì)使民主得以繁榮”，學(xué)術(shù)爭論異常激烈。最強(qiáng)有力的一個(gè)相關(guān)性仍是由社會(huì)科學(xué)家西摩·馬丁·利普塞特首先提出的觀點(diǎn)。他在1959年指出：“國家越富有，維持民主的可能性越大。”但是還有其他吸引人的相關(guān)性。在民主方面，歐洲國家——即便是其中相對比較落后的國家——比其他大洲的國家做得都要好。

與其他一些學(xué)者一樣，我認(rèn)為在法治方面有深厚傳統(tǒng)的國家更傾向于發(fā)展民主文化，這種文化也注重保障個(gè)人權(quán)利。例如，在西方，對于生命、自由和財(cái)產(chǎn)的法律保護(hù)在17、18世紀(jì)就發(fā)展起來了。成年人普選制度卻是很久之后才建立起來的。自由先行于民主，而不是民主先行于自由。

貧窮的發(fā)展中國家應(yīng)該更重視法治。在首次大選前，在政客們通過投票獲得巨大的合法性之前，建立一個(gè)限制政府權(quán)力、保障個(gè)人自由和少數(shù)族裔權(quán)利的體制是至關(guān)重要的。

1.bulky [?b?lki] adj. 龐大的，體積大的

2.bioelectronics [?bai?u??lek?tr?n?ks] n. 生物電子學(xué)

3.hydration [ha??dre??（?）n] n. [化]水合作用

4.Fitbit：Fitbit計(jì)步器，2011年由美國公司Fitbit研發(fā)的一款創(chuàng)新型產(chǎn)品

5.pedometer [pe?d?m?t?（r）] n. 計(jì)步器，步程計(jì)

6.game-changing：打破格局的，具有革命性的

7.on the cusp of：在某事開始之時(shí)

8.Millennials：千禧一代，國外創(chuàng)造的專門術(shù)語，特指出生于1980～2000年之間的人，由于他們的成長與網(wǎng)絡(luò)交織在一起，因此又被稱為“網(wǎng)絡(luò)一代”（Net Generation）。

9.brain drain：人才外流

10.jettison [?d?et?s（?）n] vt. （故意）放棄（想法或機(jī)會(huì)等）；摒棄

11.zoning law：區(qū)劃法，指西方許多國家的地方政府用法律手段來管理土地利用和建設(shè)的一種規(guī)劃法。

12.retractable [r??tr?kt?b（?）l] adj. 能縮進(jìn)的；伸縮自如的

13.prospect [?pr?spekt] n. 有可能成功的人，有希望的候選人，合適的人選

14.mascot [?m?sk?t] n. 吉祥物

15.downtime [?da?nta?m] n. 停工期；閑暇

16.jeer [d???（r）] vi. 嘲笑，譏諷，戲弄

17.Jumbotron [?dr?mb??tr?n] n. （電視機(jī)的）超大屏幕

18.heck [hek] int. [用以加強(qiáng)語氣或咒罵] 見鬼，該死（hell的委婉語）

19.levee [?levi] n. 防洪堤

20.double [?d?bl] vi. 兼任；兼作

21.damage [?d?m?d?] n. [律]損害賠償；損害賠償金

22.Arab Spring：“阿拉伯之春”，指自2010年年底在北非和西亞的阿拉伯國家和其他地區(qū)的一些國家發(fā)生的一系列以民主和經(jīng)濟(jì)等為主題的反政府運(yùn)動(dòng)。

23.culminate [?k?lm?ne?t] vi. 告終