It was reported last week that developers could take photos from Apple mobile and Google Android devices without the phone owners knowing that the images were being taken. In Apple’s case, developers can also obtain the location information for each photo.
Senator(参议员) Charles Schumer said in a telephone interview that his office had spoken with officials at both Apple and Google on Monday.
“We asked them if they could find a way on their own to prevent Apple from having access to private information,” Mr. Schumer said. “They were friendly and open to the idea that this ought to be changed.”
On Sunday, Mr. Schumer said that he planned to send a letter to the Federal Trade Commission asking the agency to investigate Apple and Google after the privacy concerns came to light. Claudia Bourne Farrell, an F.T.C. spokeswoman, said the agency had received the letter but she could not comment further.
“It worries people to think that one’s personal photos, address book, and who knows what else can be obtained and even posted online without permission,” Mr. Schumer wrote in his letter to the F.T.C. “If the technology exists to open the door to this kind of privacy invasion, then surely technology exists to close it, and that’s exactly what must happen.”
Mr. Schumer said if Apple and Google could not come to an agreement to fix the problem, then he would be forced to take the issue further.
He said other companies had been willing to work with his office to fix issues. “I’m optimistic that we can get this changed without any regulation,” he said. “If it’s not changed, then we’ll turn to the F.T.C., and if that doesn’t work then we’ll consider legislative approach.”
The F.T.C. has warned companies to try to be more vigilant(警醒的) in their efforts to protect consumers when it comes to privacy.The senators spoke with officials at both Apple and Google___________.
| A．to urge them not to invade consumers’ privacy. |
| B．to discuss whether it is illegal to have access to private information. |
| C．to stop them from developing the technology of taking photos. |
| D．to keep them from obtaining the location information for each photo. |
Which of the following statements is true?
| A．Privacy invasion from Apple has existed for a long time. |
| B．Mr. Schumer takes the privacy concerns caused by Apple and Google seriously. |
| C．Privacy invasion from Google has existed for a long time. |
| D．Apple and Google have decided to make a change. |
Mr. Schumer’s letter to the F.T.C. mainly shows that the technology to open the door to privacy invasion___________.
A. causes privacy invasion to happen frequently.
B. can be used if permitted.
C. causes people to worry about the safety of their personal information .
D. causes personal information to be posted online without permission.If the privacy concerns can’t be solved with the help of the F.T.C., ___________.
A. The senators will force the companies not to invade privacy.
B. The companies will be closed.
C. The companies will be fined.
D. The senators will turn to legislation.Where can we read about the passage?
| A．In a newspaper. | B．In a magazine |
| C．In a science report. | D．In a textbook. |
Organic food has no nutritional or health benefits over ordinary food, according to a major study.
Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine said consumers were paying higher prices for organic food because of its imagined health benefits，creating a global organic market worth an estimated $48 billion in 2007.
A systematic review of 162 scientific papers published in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, however, found there was no significant difference.
"A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally (通常)produced foodstuffs， but these have nothing to do with public health，" said Alan Dangour， one of the report's authors.
"Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority."
The results of research， which was commissioned by the British government's Food Standards Agency, were published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Sales of organic food have fallen in some markets，including Britain，as a slowdown in economic growth has led consumers to cut back on purchases.
The Soil Association said that growth in sales of organic products in Britain slowed to just 1.7percent, well below the average annual growth rate of 26 percent over the last decade. Why does organic food cost more than conventionally produced food?
| A．Because people think they are much healthier. |
| B．Because they are more delicious. |
| C．Because people prefer organic food. |
| D．Because they sell better. |
According to the study, organic food is ______ than conventionally produced food.
| A．much healthier | B．better |
| C．no healthier | D．less healthier |
Sales of organic food have fallen because of ______ .
| A．high price | B．economic decline |
| C．bad service | D．poor quality |
Where can you find this passage in a newspaper?
| A．Economy. | B．Science. |
| C．Food & Nutrition. | D．Fashion. |
When should people be made to retire? 55? 65? Should there be a compulsory age limit?
Many old people work well into their 70s and 80s, running families, countries or corporations. Other people, however, despite being fit and highly talented, are forced to retire in their fifties or even earlier because of the regulations of a company or the nation. This essay will examine whether people should be allowed to continue working as long as they want or whether they should be encouraged to retire at a particular stage.
Some people think there are several arguments for allowing older people to continue working as long as they are able. First of all, older employees have an immense amount of knowledge and experience which can be lost to a business or organization if they are made to retire. A second point is that older employees are often extremely loyal employees and are more willing to carry out company policies than younger less committed staff. However, a more important point is regarding the attitudes in society to old people. To force someone to resign or retire at 60 indicates that the society does not value the input of these people and that effectively their useful life is over. Age is irrelevant to a working life, surely if older employees are told they cannot work after 60, this is age discrimination. That they become old does not necessarily mean they are going to be sick. Old people could be more aware, experienced and committed than some youngsters.
Others, however, think that allowing older people to work indefinitely is not a good policy. Age alone is no guarantee of ability. Old people are only ambitious workaholics who are too selfish and self-centered to believe that a younger person could do better. Actually, many younger employees have more experience or skills than older staff, who may have been stuck in one area or unit for most of their working lives. Having compulsory retirement allows new ideas in an organization. In addition, without age limits, however, many people would continue to work purely because they did not have any other plans or roles. A third point of view is that older people should be rewarded by society for their life’s labor by being given generous pensions and the freedom to enjoy their leisure. We now have youngsters who can’t find jobs because old people are choosing not to retire. Old people are not retiring because this new generation of “old people” think they will never die due to modern advances in medicine.
With many young people unemployed or frustrated in low-level positions, there are often calls to compulsorily retire older workers. However, this can affect the older individual’s freedom and right to work and can deprive（剥夺）society of valuable experience and insights. I feel that giving workers more flexibility and choice over their retirement age will benefit society and the individual.What is the purpose of this passage?
| A．To explain the compulsory age limit. |
| B．To discuss the retirement age. |
| C．To examine people’s working life. |
| D．To introduce a particular stage. |
Which of the following is NOT a reason for allowing old people to continue working according to the passage?
| A．Their contribution should be valued. |
| B．Their experience should be made use of. |
| C．They can help the youngsters. |
| D．They are loyal employees. |
It can be inferred in the fourth passage that ______.
| A．the young people have more creative spirits |
| B．Modern advances in medicine make old people never die |
| C．Pensions and freedom are not given to the old now |
| D．old people believe that a younger person could do better |
The passage is arranged as follows:
What is the author’s opinion on the retirement age?
| A．The author thinks when to retire depends on the employees themselves. |
| B．The author is against lengthening the retirement age. |
| C．The author thinks that retirement age varies from country to country. |
| D．The author is in favor of allowing old people to continue working. |
I don’t ever want to talk about being a woman scientist again. There was a time in my life when people asked constantly for stories about what it’s like to work in a field dominated by men. I was never very good at telling those stories because truthfully I never found them interesting. What I do find interesting is the origin of the universe, the shape of space-time and the nature of black holes.
At 19, when I began studying astrophysics, it did not bother me in the least to be the only woman in the classroom. But while earning my Ph.D. at MIT and then as a post-doctor doing space research, the issue started to bother me. My every achievement—jobs, research papers, awards—was viewed through the lens of gender (性别) politics. So were my failures. Sometimes, when I was pushed into an argument on left brain versus (相对于) right brain, or nature versus nurture (培育), I would instantly fight fiercely on my behalf and all womankind.
Then one day a few years ago, out of my mouth came a sentence that would eventually become my reply to any and all provocations（挑衅）: I don’t talk about that anymore. It took me 10 years to get back the confidence I had at 19 and to realize that I didn’t want to deal with gender issues. Why should curing sexism be yet another terrible burden on every female scientist? After all, I don’t study sociology or political theory.
Today I research and teach at Barnard, a women’s college in New York City. Recently, someone asked me how many of the 45 students in my class were women. You cannot imagine my satisfaction at being able to answer, 45. I know some of my students worry how they will manage their scientific research and a desire for children. And I don’t dismiss those concerns. Still, I don’t tell them “war” stories. Instead, I have given them this: the visual of their physics professor heavily pregnant doing physics experiments. And in turn they have given me the image of 45 women driven by a love of science. And that’s a sight worth talking about.Why doesn’t the author want to talk about being a woman scientist again?
| A．She feels unhappy working in male-dominated fields. |
| B．She is fed up with the issue of gender discrimination. |
| C．She is not good at telling stories of the kind. |
| D．She finds space research more important. |
From Paragraph 2, we can infer that people would owe the author’s failures to ________.
| A．the very fact that she is a woman |
| B．her involvement in gender politics |
| C．her over-confidence as a female astrophysicist |
| D．the burden she bears in a male-dominated society |
What did the author constantly fight against while doing her Ph.D. and post-doctoral research?
A. Lack of confidence in succeeding in space science.
B. Unfair accusations from both inside and outside her circle.
C. People’s stereotyped attitude toward female scientists.
D. Widespread misconceptions about nature and nurtured.Why does the author feel great satisfaction when talking about her class?
| A．Female students no longer have to bother about gender issues. |
| B．Her students’ performance has brought back her confidence. |
| C．Her female students can do just as well as male students. |
| D．More female students are pursuing science than before. |
What does the image the author presents to her students suggest?
| A．Women students needn’t have the concerns of her generation. |
| B．Women have more barriers on their way to academic success. |
| C．Women can balance a career in science and having a family. |
| D．Women now have fewer problems pursuing a science career. |
Global warming may or may not be the great environmental crisis of the 21st century, but—regardless of whether it is or isn’t — we won’t do much about it. We will argue over it and may even, as a nation, make some fairly solemn-sounding commitments to avoid it. But the more dramatic and meaningful these commitments seem, the less likely they are to be observed.
Al Gore calls global warming an “inconvenient truth,” as if merely recognizing it could put us on a path to a solution. But the real truth is that we don’t know enough to relieve global warming, and—without major technological breakthroughs—we can’t do much about it.
From 2003 to 2050, the world’s population is estimated to grow from 6.4 billion to 9.1 billion, a 42% increase. If energy use per person and technology remain the same, total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions (mainly, CO2) will be 42% higher in 2050. But that’s too low, because societies that grow richer use more energy. We need economic growth unless we condemn（注定）the world’s poor people to their present poverty and freeze everyone else’s living standards. With modest economic growth, energy use and greenhouse emissions more than double by 2050.
No government will adopt rigid restrictions on economic growth and personal freedom (limits on electricity usage, driving and travel) that might cut back global warming. Still, politicians want to show they’re “doing something.” Consider the Kyoto Protocol (京都议定书). It allowed countries that joined to punish those that didn’t. But it hasn’t reduced CO2 emissions (up about 25% since 1990), and many signatories (签字国) didn’t adopt tough enough policies to hit their 2008-2012 targets.
The practical conclusion is that if global warming is a potential disaster, the only solution is new technology. Only an aggressive research and development program might find ways of breaking our dependence on fossil fuels or dealing with it.
The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral problem when it’s really an engineering one. The inconvenient truth is that if we don’t solve the engineering problem, we’re helpless.What is said about global warming in the first paragraph?
| A．It may not prove an environmental crisis at all. |
| B．It is an issue requiring worldwide commitments. |
| C．Serious steps have been taken to avoid or stop it. |
| D．Very little will be done to bring it under control. |
According to the author’s understanding, what is A1 Gore’s view on global warming?
| A．It is a reality both people and politicians are unaware of. |
| B．It is a phenomenon that causes us many inconveniences. |
| C．It is a problem that can be solved once it is recognized. |
| D．It is an area we actually have little knowledge about. |
Greenhouse emissions will more than double by 2050 because of ________.
| A．economic growth |
| B．wasteful use of energy |
| C．the widening gap between the rich and poor |
| D．the rapid advances of science and technology |
The author believes that, since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, ________.
| A．politicians have started to do something to better the situation |
| B．few nations have adopted real tough measures to limit energy use |
| C．reductions in energy consumption have greatly cut back global warming |
| D．international cooperation has contributed to solving environmental problems |
What is the message the author intends to convey?
| A．Global warming is more of a moral issue than a practical one. |
| B．The ultimate solution to global warming lies in new technology. |
| C．The debate over global warming will lead to technological breakthroughs. |
| D．People have to give up certain material comforts to stop global warming. |
Here’s one number to keep in mind during your next cell phone conversation: 50. A new experiment shows that spending 50 minutes with an active phone pressed up to the ear increases activity in the brain. This brain activity probably doesn't make you smarter. When cell phones are on, they emit (发出) energy in the form of radiation that could be harmful, especially after years of cell phone usage. Scientists don't know yet whether cell phones are bad for the brain. Studies like this one are attempting to find it out.
The 47 participants in the experiment may have looked a little strange. Each one had two Samsung cell phones attached to his or her head — one on each ear. The phone on the left ear was off. The phone on the right ear played a message for 50 minutes, but the participants couldn't hear it because the sound was off.
With this set-up, the scientists could be sure they were studying brain activity from the phone itself, and not brain activity due to listening and talking during a conversation. After 50 minutes with two phones strapped to their heads, the participants were given PET scans.
The PET scan showed that the left side (the side with the phone turned off) of each participant's brain hadn't changed during the experiment. The right side of the brain, however, had used more glucose, which is a type of sugar that provides fuel to brain cells. These right-side brain cells were using almost as much glucose as the brain uses when a person is talking. This suggests that the brain cells there were active ― even without the person hearing anything. That activity, the scientists say, was probably caused by radiation from the phone.
Henry Lai, who works at the University of Washington in Seattle, is uncomfortable with the data related to cell phones. Holding a cell phone to your ear during a conversation is “not really safe,” Lai told Science News. Lai is a bioengineer at the University of Washington in Seattle. He wrote an article about the new study for a journal, but he did not work on the study. Bioengineers bring together ideas from engineering and biology.
For those who don't want to wait to find out for sure whether cell phones are bad for the brain, there are ways to talk more safely. You can have short and sweet conversations, use a speakerphone or keep the phone away from your head.Which of the following statement is true?
| A．Scientists are sure that cell phones are bad for the brain. |
| B．In the experiment, the left side of the brain used more glucose. |
| C．Radiation from the phone probably causes the change in the brain. |
| D．Henri Lai wrote a lot of articles about this new study. |
Why weren’t the participants allowed to have a conversation on the phone during the experiment?
| A．Because that would be too noisy and bad for the experiment. |
| B．Because they really looked strange and no one wanted to talk to others. |
| C．Because they were given PET scans and they lost the ability to talk. |
| D．Because the scientists want to be sure of the accuracy of the experiment. |
What is glucose?
| A．A type of sugar that provides vitamin to brain cells. |
| B．Something that the right side of the brain used. |
| C．A type of sugar that gives energy to brain cells. |
| D．Something that makes a human excited. |
According to the last two paragraphs, which is the safest way to use a cell phone?
| A．Holding the cell phone close to your head. |
| B．Using a cell phone more than three hours a day. |
| C．Taking the most powerful cell phone. |
| D．Keeping the cell phone at a distance. |
Where is this article probably taken from?
| A．Literature magazine. | B．Science News. |
| C．Story books. | D．Art Journal. |