style=text-align: justify; style=text-align: justify; style=text-align: justify; style=text-align: justify; style=text-align: justify; style=text-align: justify; style=text-align: justify; style=text-align: justify; style=text-align: justify; style=text-align: justify; style=text-align: justify; style=text-align: justify; style=text-align: justify; style=text-align: justify; style=text-align: justify; style=text-align: justify; style=text-align: justify;

A) The effect of television on children has been debated ever since the first sets were turned on. Now three new studies find that too much tube time can lower test scores, retard learning and even predict college performance. The reports appear in the July issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Ado-lescent Medicine.　　B) In the first report, researchers studied the effect that having a TV in a child's bedroom can have on third graders. "We looked at the household media environment in relation to 　　academic achievementon mathematics, reading and language arts tests," said study author Dina L.G. Borzekowski, an as-sistant professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.　　C) Borzekowski and her colleague, Dr. Thomas Robinson of Stanford University, collected data on386 third graders and their parents about how much TV the children watched, the number of TV sets, computers and video game consoles in the household and where they were. They also collected data on how much time the children spent using the different media, as well as the time spent doing homework and reading. The researchers found that the media in the household, where it is and how it is used can have a profound effect on learning. "We found that the household media environment has a very close association with performance on the different test scores," Borzekowski said.　　D) "A child who has a TV in his or her bedroom is likely to have a score that is eight points lower on a mathematics test compared to a child who doesn't have a TV in the bedroom," she noted. These children also scored lower on the reading and language arts tests. However, children who have ac-cess to a home computer are likely to have higher scores on each of the tests compared with children who don't have access to a home computer, Borzekowski noted.　　E) The reasons why TV has this negative effect are not clear, Borzekowski said. "When there's TV in the bedroom, parents are less likely to have control over the content and the amount watched," Borzekowski said. "They are also unable to know how early or how late the set is on. This seems to be associated with kids' performance on academic tests." Borzekowski believes that content and the time the TV is on may be the primary reasons for its negative effect. "If the TV is in the family room, then parents can see the content of what children are watching," she said. "Parents can choose to sit alongside and watch, or turn the set off. A simple and straightforward, positive parenting strategy is to keep the TV out of the child's bedroom, or remove it if it's already there."　　F) In the second report, Dr. Robert J. Hancox from the University of Ot ago in Dunedin, New Zealand, and colleagues found, regardless of your intelligence or social background, if you watch a lot of TV during childhood, you are a lot less likely to have a college degree by your mid-20s. In their study, the researchers followed 1,037 people born in 1972 and 1973. Every two years, between the ages of5 and 15, they were asked how much television they watched. The researchers found that those who watched the most television during these years had earned fewer degrees by the time they were 26."We found that the more television the child had watched, the more likely they were to leave school without any qualifications," Hancox said in a prepared statement. "Those who watched little television had the best chance of going on to university and earning a degree."　　G) Hancox's team found that watching TV at an early age had the most effect on graduating from college. "An interesting finding was that although teenage viewing was strongly linked to leaving school without any qualifications, it was earlier childhood viewing that had the greatest impact on getting a degree," he said. "This suggests that excessive television in younger children has a long-lasting adverse effect on educational performance."　　H) In the third paper, Frederick J. Zimmerman and Dr. Dimitri A. Christakis from the University of Washington report that, for very young children, watching TV can result in lower test scores in mathematics, reading recognition and reading comprehension. "We looked at how much television children watched before age 3 and then at ages 3 to 5," Zimmerman said. "We found that for children who watched a small amount of TV in the earlier years, there was co nsider able beneficial effect compared to children who watched a lot of TV."　　I) For children aged 3 to 5, the effect was not as clear, Zimmerman said. "There were some beneficial effects of watching TV on reading, but no beneficial effects for math or vocabulary," he noted. "The worst pattern was to watch more than three hours of TV before age 3. Those kids had a significant disadvantage compared to the other kids." Parents should follow the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation, which is no TV for children under 2, Zimmerman said. "Personally, I feel the cutoff should be children under 3, because there is just not any good content for children under 3."　　J) One expert believes that TV can have both positive and negative effects, but it all depends on what children are watching. "Content matters," said Deborah L. Line barger, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania, who co-authored an accompanying editorial. "Educational content has been found to be related to performance on school readiness tests, higher grades when they are teen-agers, whereas, non-educational content tends to be associated with lower academic performance."　　K) Another expert agrees. "TV watching takes up space that could be used by more useful things," said Dr. Christopher P. Lucas, a clinical coordinator at the Early Childhood Evaluation and Treatment Program at the New York University Child Study Center. "TV is not necessarily toxic, but is some-thing that has to be done in moderation; something that balances the other needs of the child for healthy development."　　L) Lucas puts the responsibility for how much TV kids watch and what they watch squarely on parents. "The amount of TV watching certainly has a link with the reduced amount of time reading or doing homework," he said. "The key is the amount of control parents have in limiting the amount of access. Get the TV out of the bedroom; be aware of what is being watched; limit the amount of TV watching."

A) The effect of television on children has been debated ever since the first sets were turned on. Now three new studies find that too much tube time can lower test scores, retard learning and even predict college performance. The reports appear in the July issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Ado-lescent Medicine.　　B) In the first report, researchers studied the effect that having a TV in a child's bedroom can have on third graders. "We looked at the household media environment in relation to 　　academic achievementon mathematics, reading and language arts tests," said study author Dina L.G. Borzekowski, an as-sistant professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.　　C) Borzekowski and her colleague, Dr. Thomas Robinson of Stanford University, collected data on386 third graders and their parents about how much TV the children watched, the number of TV sets, computers and video game consoles in the household and where they were. They also collected data on how much time the children spent using the different media, as well as the time spent doing homework and reading. The researchers found that the media in the household, where it is and how it is used can have a profound effect on learning. "We found that the household media environment has a very close association with performance on the different test scores," Borzekowski said.　　D) "A child who has a TV in his or her bedroom is likely to have a score that is eight points lower on a mathematics test compared to a child who doesn't have a TV in the bedroom," she noted. These children also scored lower on the reading and language arts tests. However, children who have ac-cess to a home computer are likely to have higher scores on each of the tests compared with children who don't have access to a home computer, Borzekowski noted.　　E) The reasons why TV has this negative effect are not clear, Borzekowski said. "When there's TV in the bedroom, parents are less likely to have control over the content and the amount watched," Borzekowski said. "They are also unable to know how early or how late the set is on. This seems to be associated with kids' performance on academic tests." Borzekowski believes that content and the time the TV is on may be the primary reasons for its negative effect. "If the TV is in the family room, then parents can see the content of what children are watching," she said. "Parents can choose to sit alongside and watch, or turn the set off. A simple and straightforward, positive parenting strategy is to keep the TV out of the child's bedroom, or remove it if it's already there."　　F) In the second report, Dr. Robert J. Hancox from the University of Ot ago in Dunedin, New Zealand, and colleagues found, regardless of your intelligence or social background, if you watch a lot of TV during childhood, you are a lot less likely to have a college degree by your mid-20s. In their study, the researchers followed 1,037 people born in 1972 and 1973. Every two years, between the ages of5 and 15, they were asked how much television they watched. The researchers found that those who watched the most television during these years had earned fewer degrees by the time they were 26."We found that the more television the child had watched, the more likely they were to leave school without any qualifications," Hancox said in a prepared statement. "Those who watched little television had the best chance of going on to university and earning a degree."　　G) Hancox's team found that watching TV at an early age had the most effect on graduating from college. "An interesting finding was that although teenage viewing was strongly linked to leaving school without any qualifications, it was earlier childhood viewing that had the greatest impact on getting a degree," he said. "This suggests that excessive television in younger children has a long-lasting adverse effect on educational performance."　　H) In the third paper, Frederick J. Zimmerman and Dr. Dimitri A. Christakis from the University of Washington report that, for very young children, watching TV can result in lower test scores in mathematics, reading recognition and reading comprehension. "We looked at how much television children watched before age 3 and then at ages 3 to 5," Zimmerman said. "We found that for children who watched a small amount of TV in the earlier years, there was co nsider able beneficial effect compared to children who watched a lot of TV."　　I) For children aged 3 to 5, the effect was not as clear, Zimmerman said. "There were some beneficial effects of watching TV on reading, but no beneficial effects for math or vocabulary," he noted. "The worst pattern was to watch more than three hours of TV before age 3. Those kids had a significant disadvantage compared to the other kids." Parents should follow the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation, which is no TV for children under 2, Zimmerman said. "Personally, I feel the cutoff should be children under 3, because there is just not any good content for children under 3."　　J) One expert believes that TV can have both positive and negative effects, but it all depends on what children are watching. "Content matters," said Deborah L. Line barger, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania, who co-authored an accompanying editorial. "Educational content has been found to be related to performance on school readiness tests, higher grades when they are teen-agers, whereas, non-educational content tends to be associated with lower academic performance."　　K) Another expert agrees. "TV watching takes up space that could be used by more useful things," said Dr. Christopher P. Lucas, a clinical coordinator at the Early Childhood Evaluation and Treatment Program at the New York University Child Study Center. "TV is not necessarily toxic, but is some-thing that has to be done in moderation; something that balances the other needs of the child for healthy development."　　L) Lucas puts the responsibility for how much TV kids watch and what they watch squarely on parents. "The amount of TV watching certainly has a link with the reduced amount of time reading or doing homework," he said. "The key is the amount of control parents have in limiting the amount of access. Get the TV out of the bedroom; be aware of what is being watched; limit the amount of TV watching."

style=text-align: justify;
style=text-align: justify;B. criticism   
C. contained   
D. clearly     
E. adventurous style=text-align: justify;G. motivation  
H. terrible    
I. ignored     
J. difficult 　　 style=text-align: justify;L. expressed  
M. confidently  
N. b      
O. motive 

style=text-align: justify; style=text-align: justify; style=text-align: justify; style=text-align: justify; style=text-align: justify; style=text-align: justify; style=text-align: justify; style=text-align: justify;B. submit
C. career
D. semester
E. actually style=text-align: justify;G. ensure
H. conducted
I. detection
J. document style=text-align: justify;L. accused
M. confess
N. admitting
O. superior

    As cameras become ubiquitous(普遍存在的.and able to identify people，more safeguards on privacy will be needed． 
style=color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: "Microsoft YaHei"; white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);/B. More than a century later，amateur photography is once more a troubling issue．Citizens of rich countries have got used to being watched by closed．circuit cameras that guard roads and cities．But as cameras shrink and the cost of storing data falls sharply，it is individuals who are taking the pictures． 
style=color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: "Microsoft YaHei"; white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);/C. Some 10，000 people are already testing a prototype of Google Glass，a miniature computer worn like eveglasses．It aims to have all the functions of a smartphone in a device put on a person’s nose.Its flexible frame holds both a camera and a tiny screen，and makes it easy for users to take photos，send messages and search for things online． 
style=color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: "Microsoft YaHei"; white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);/D. Glass may fail，but a wider revolution is under way．In Russia，where insurance fraud is commonly seen，at least l million cars already have cameras on their dashboards(仪表盘.that film the road ahead．Police forces in America are starting to issue officers with video cameras，pinned to their uniforms，which record their 
style=color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: "Microsoft YaHei"; white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);/interactions with the public．Collar—cams help anxious cat—lovers watch their wandering pets carefully. Paparazzi(狗仔队.have started to use drones to photograph celebrities in their gardens or on yachts. Hobbyists are even devising clever ways to get cameras into space． 
style=color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: "Microsoft YaHei"; white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);/E. Ubiquitous recording can already do a lot of good．Some patients with brain injuries have been given cameras：looking back at images can help them recover their memories．Dash—cams can help resolve insurance claims and encourage people to drive better．Police—cams can discourage criminals from making groundless complaints against police officers and officers from abusing criminals．A British soldier has just been convicted of murdering a wounded Afghan because the act was captured by a colleague’s helmet—camera. Videos showing the line of sight of experienced surgeons and engineers can help train their successors and be used in liability disputes．Lenses linked to computers are reading street—sign sand product labels to partially sighted people． 
style=color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: "Microsoft YaHei"; white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);/F. Optimists see broader benefits ahead．Plenty of people carry activity trackers，worn on the wrist or placed in a pocket，to monitor their exercise or sleep patterns；cameras could do the job more effectively，perhaps also spying on their wearers’diets．“Personal black boxes’’might be able to transmit pictures if their owner falls victim to an accident or crime．Tiny cameras trained to recognise faces could become personal digital assistants，making conversations as searchable as documents and e—mails．Already a small band of“life. logger(生活记录器）stored years off ootage(镜头.into databases of“e—memories”． 
style=color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: "Microsoft YaHei"; white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);/G. Not everybody will be thrilled by these prospects．A perfect digital memory would probably be a pain, preserving unhappy events as well as cherished ones．Suspicious spouses and employers might feel entitled to review it． 
style=color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: "Microsoft YaHei"; white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);/H.The bigger worry is for those in front of the cameras，not behind them．School bullies already use illegal snaps from mobile phones to embarrass their victims．The web is full of secret photos of women，snapped in public places．Wearable cameras will make such immoral photography easier．And the huge，looming issue is the    growing sophistication of face-recognition technologies，which are starting to enable businesses and governments to get information about individuals by searching the billions of images online．The combination of cameras everywhere---in bars，on streets，in offices,on people’s heads--with the algorithms(算法.run by social networks and other service providers that process stored and published images is a powerful and alarming one．We may not be far from a world in which your movements could be tracked all the time．where a stranger walking down the street can immediately identify exactly who you are． 
style=color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: "Microsoft YaHei"; white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);/I. Well,we still strongly held beliefs that technological progress should generally be welcomed．not feared runs up against an even deeper impulse，in favour of liberty．Freedom has to include some fight to privacy：if every move you make is being recorded，liberty is limited． 
style=color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: "Microsoft YaHei"; white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);/J. One option is to ban devices that seem annoying．The use of dashboard cameras is forbidden in Austria. Drivers who film the road can face a €10，000($13，400.fine．But banning devices deprives people of their benefits．Society would do better to develop rules about where and how these technologies can be used,just as it learned to cope with the Kodak fiends． 
style=color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: "Microsoft YaHei"; white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);/K. For the moment，companies are behaving in a cautious way．Google has banned the use of face—recognition in apps on Glass and its camera is designed to film only in short bursts．Japanese digital camera．makers ensure their products emit a shutter sound every time a picture is taken．Existing laws to control stalking of harassment can be extended to deal with peeping drones． 
style=color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: "Microsoft YaHei"; white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);/L. Still，as cameras become smaller，more powerful and ubiquitous，new laws may be needed to Dreserve liberty. Governments should be granted the to use face—recognition technology only where there is a clear public good(identifying a bank robber for instance.．When the would．be identifiers are companies or strangers in the street，the starting—point should be that you have the not to have your identity automatically revealed．The principle is the same as for personal data．Just as Facebook and Google should be forced to establish high default settings(默认系统设置.for privacy(which can be reduced at the user's request.，the new cameras and recognition technologies should be regulated so as to let you decide whether you remain anonymous(匿名的.or not． 
style=color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: "Microsoft YaHei"; white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);/M. Silicon Valley emphasises the liberating power of technology--and it is often fight．But the freedom that a small device gives one person can sometimes take away liberty from another．Liberal politicians have been lazy about defending the idea of personal space，especially online．The fight should start now．Otherwise，in the blink of an eye，privacy could be gone．