Invisibility cloaks would have remained impossible, forever locked in science fiction, had it not been for the development of metamaterials. In Greek, "meta" means beyond, and metamaterials can do things beyond what we see in the natural world-like shuffle light waves around an object, and then bring’ them back together. If scientists ever manage to build a full-fledged invisibility cloak, it will probably be made of metamaterials.
"We are creating materials that don’t exist in nature, and that have a physical phenomenon that doesn’t exist in nature," says engineer Dentcho Genov. "That is the most exciting thing." Genov designs and builds metamaterials such as those used in cloaking at Louisiana Tech University in Ruston, Louisiana.
An invisibility cloak will probably not be the first major accomplishment to come from the field of metamaterials. Other applications are just as exciting. In many labs, for example, scientists are working on building a hyperlens. A lens is a device, usually made of glass that can change the direction of light waves. Lenses are used in microscopes and cameras to focus light, thus allowing a researcher to see small things or a photographer to capture image of things that are far away.
A hyperlens, however, would be made of metamaterials. And since metamaterials can do things with light that ordinary materials can’t, the hyperlens would be a powerful too 1. A hyperlens would allow researchers to see things at the smallest scale imaginable, as small as the wavelength of visible light.
Genov points out that the science of metamaterials is driven by the imagination. If someone can think of an idea for a new behavior for fight, then the engineers can find a way to design a device using metamaterials. "We need people who can imagine," he says.
Since 2006, many laboratories have been exploring other kinds of metamaterials that don’t involve just visible light. In fact, scientists are finding that almost any kind of wave may respond to metamaterials.
At the Polytechnic University of Valencia in Spain, Jose Sanchez-Dehesa is working with acoustics, or the science of sound. Just as an invisibility cloak shuffles waves of light, an "acoustic" cloak would shuffle waves of sound in a way that’s not found in nature. In an orchestra hall, for example, an acoustic cloak could redirect the sound waves so someone sitting behind a column would hear the same concert as the rest of the audience without distortion.
Sanchez-Dehesa, an engineer, recently showed that it’s possible to build such an acoustic cloak, though he doubts we’ll see one any time soon. "In principle, it is possible," he says, "but it might be impossible to make one." he adds.
Other scientists are looking into ways to use larger metamaterials as shields around islands or oil rigs as protection from tsunamis. A tsunami is a giant destructive wave. The metamaterial would redirect the tsunami around the rig or island, and the wave would resume its energy on the other side without causing any harm.
What ways are some scientists looking into to protect the island and oil rig from tsunamis

A:Surround them with metamaterials as protective shields. B:Stopping the tsunami with metamaterials hours before it reaches them. C:Building them with larger metamaterials to keep away tsunamis. D:Using the equipment made of metamaterials to forecast arrival of a tsunam

If your doctor could give you a drug that would let you live a healthy life for twice as long, would you take it
The good news is that we may be drawing near to that date. Scientists have already extended the lives of flies, worms and mice in laboratories. Many now think that using genetic treatments we will soon be able to extend human life to at least 140 years.
This seems a great idea. Think of how much more time we could spend chasing our dreams, spending time with our loved ones, watching our families grow and have families of their own.
"Longer life would give us a chance to recover from our mistakes and promote long term thinking," says Dr. Gregory Stock of the University of California School of Public Health. "It would also raise productivity by adding to the year we can work."
Longer lives don’t just affect the people who live them. They also affect society as a whole. "We have war, poverty, all sorts of issues around, and I don’t think any of them would be at all helped by having people live longer," says US bioethicist Daniel Callahan. “The question is ’What will we get as a society’ I suspect it won’t be a better society."
It would certainly be a very different society. People are already finding it more difficult to stay married. Divorce rates are rising. What would happen to marriage in a society where people lived for 140 years And what would happen to family life if nine or 10 generations of the same family were all alive at the same time
Research into ageing may enable women to remain fertile for longer. And that raises the prospect of having 100-year-old parents, or brothers and sisters born 50 years apart. We think of an elder sibling as someone, who can protect us and offer help and advice. That would be hard to do if that sibling came from a completely different generation.
Working life would also be affected, especially if the retirement age was lifted. More people would stay in work for longer. That would give us the benefits of age, skill, wisdom and good judgment.
On the other hand, more people working for longer would create greater competition for jobs. It would make it more difficult for younger people to find a job. Top posts would be dominated by the same few individuals, making career progress more difficult. And how easily would a 25-year-old employee be able to communicate with a 125-year-old boss
Young people would be a smaller part of a society in which people lived to 140. It may be that such a society would place less importance on guiding and educating young people, and more on making life comfortable for the old.
And society would feel, very different if more of its members were older. There would be more wisdom, but less energy: Young people like to move about. Old people like to sit still. Young people tend to act without thinking. Old people tend to think without acting. Young people are curious and like to experience different things. Old people are less enthusiastic about change. In fact, they are less enthusiastic about everything.
The effect of anti-ageing technology is deeper than we might think. But as the science advances, we need to think about these changes now.
"If this could ever happen, then we’d better ask what kind of society we want to get," says Daniel Callahan. "We had better not go anywhere near it until we have figure those problems out./
Which of the following is NOT mentioned as one of the things that living longer might enable an individual to do

A:Spending more time with his family. B:Having more education. C:Realizing more dreams. D:Working longer.

If your doctor could give you a drug that would let you live a healthy life for twice as long, would you take it
The good news is that we may be drawing near to that date. Scientists have already extended the lives of flies, worms and mice in laboratories. Many now think that using genetic treatments we will soon be able to extend human life to at least 140 years.
This seems a great idea. Think of how much more time we could spend chasing our dreams, spending time with our loved ones, watching our families grow and have families of their own.
"Longer life would give us a chance to recover from our mistakes and promote long term thinking," says Dr. Gregory Stock of the University of California School of Public Health. "It would also raise productivity by adding to the year we can work."
Longer lives don’t just affect the people who live them. They also affect society as a whole. "We have war, poverty, all sorts of issues around, and I don’t think any of them would be at all helped by having people live longer," says US bioethicist Daniel Callahan. “The question is ’What will we get as a society’ I suspect it won’t be a better society."
It would certainly be a very different society. People are already finding it more difficult to stay married. Divorce rates are rising. What would happen to marriage in a society where people lived for 140 years And what would happen to family life if nine or 10 generations of the same family were all alive at the same time
Research into ageing may enable women to remain fertile for longer. And that raises the prospect of having 100-year-old parents, or brothers and sisters born 50 years apart. We think of an elder sibling as someone, who can protect us and offer help and advice. That would be hard to do if that sibling came from a completely different generation.
Working life would also be affected, especially if the retirement age was lifted. More people would stay in work for longer. That would give us the benefits of age, skill, wisdom and good judgment.
On the other hand, more people working for longer would create greater competition for jobs. It would make it more difficult for younger people to find a job. Top posts would be dominated by the same few individuals, making career progress more difficult. And how easily would a 25-year-old employee be able to communicate with a 125-year-old boss
Young people would be a smaller part of a society in which people lived to 140. It may be that such a society would place less importance on guiding and educating young people, and more on making life comfortable for the old.
And society would feel, very different if more of its members were older. There would be more wisdom, but less energy: Young people like to move about. Old people like to sit still. Young people tend to act without thinking. Old people tend to think without acting. Young people are curious and like to experience different things. Old people are less enthusiastic about change. In fact, they are less enthusiastic about everything.
The effect of anti-ageing technology is deeper than we might think. But as the science advances, we need to think about these changes now.
"If this could ever happen, then we’d better ask what kind of society we want to get," says Daniel Callahan. "We had better not go anywhere near it until we have figure those problems out./
Which of the following is implied in the sixth paragraph

A:Marriages in the US today are quite unstable. B:More and more people in the US today want to get married. C:Living longer would make it easier for people to maintain their marital ties. D:If people live longer, they would stay in marriage longer.

If your doctor could give you a drug that would let you live a healthy life for twice as long, would you take it
The good news is that we may be drawing near to that date. Scientists have already extended the lives of flies, worms and mice in laboratories. Many now think that using genetic treatments we will soon be able to extend human life to at least 140 years.
This seems a great idea. Think of how much more time we could spend chasing our dreams, spending time with our loved ones, watching our families grow and have families of their own.
"Longer life would give us a chance to recover from our mistakes and promote long term thinking," says Dr. Gregory Stock of the University of California School of Public Health. "It would also raise productivity by adding to the year we can work."
Longer lives don’t just affect the people who live them. They also affect society as a whole. "We have war, poverty, all sorts of issues around, and I don’t think any of them would be at all helped by having people live longer," says US bioethicist Daniel Callahan. “The question is ’What will we get as a society’ I suspect it won’t be a better society."
It would certainly be a very different society. People are already finding it more difficult to stay married. Divorce rates are rising. What would happen to marriage in a society where people lived for 140 years And what would happen to family life if nine or 10 generations of the same family were all alive at the same time
Research into ageing may enable women to remain fertile for longer. And that raises the prospect of having 100-year-old parents, or brothers and sisters born 50 years apart. We think of an elder sibling as someone, who can protect us and offer help and advice. That would be hard to do if that sibling came from a completely different generation.
Working life would also be affected, especially if the retirement age was lifted. More people would stay in work for longer. That would give us the benefits of age, skill, wisdom and good judgment.
On the other hand, more people working for longer would create greater competition for jobs. It would make it more difficult for younger people to find a job. Top posts would be dominated by the same few individuals, making career progress more difficult. And how easily would a 25-year-old employee be able to communicate with a 125-year-old boss
Young people would be a smaller part of a society in which people lived to 140. It may be that such a society would place less importance on guiding and educating young people, and more on making life comfortable for the old.
And society would feel, very different if more of its members were older. There would be more wisdom, but less energy: Young people like to move about. Old people like to sit still. Young people tend to act without thinking. Old people tend to think without acting. Young people are curious and like to experience different things. Old people are less enthusiastic about change. In fact, they are less enthusiastic about everything.
The effect of anti-ageing technology is deeper than we might think. But as the science advances, we need to think about these changes now.
"If this could ever happen, then we’d better ask what kind of society we want to get," says Daniel Callahan. "We had better not go anywhere near it until we have figure those problems out./
All of the following are possible effects living longer might have on working life EXCEPT ______.

A:Communication between employers and employees would be more difficult. B:More money would be used by employees in payment of their employees. C:The job market would be more competitive. D:It would be more difficult for young people to be promoted to top positions.

If your doctor could give you a drug that would let you live a healthy life for twice as long, would you take it
The good news is that we may be drawing near to that date. Scientists have already extended the lives of flies, worms and mice in laboratories. Many now think that using genetic treatments we will soon be able to extend human life to at least 140 years.
This seems a great idea. Think of how much more time we could spend chasing our dreams, spending time with our loved ones, watching our families grow and have families of their own.
"Longer life would give us a chance to recover from our mistakes and promote long term thinking," says Dr. Gregory Stock of the University of California School of Public Health. "It would also raise productivity by adding to the year we can work."
Longer lives don’t just affect the people who live them. They also affect society as a whole. "We have war, poverty, all sorts of issues around, and I don’t think any of them would be at all helped by having people live longer," says US bioethicist Daniel Callahan. “The question is ’What will we get as a society’ I suspect it won’t be a better society."
It would certainly be a very different society. People are already finding it more difficult to stay married. Divorce rates are rising. What would happen to marriage in a society where people lived for 140 years And what would happen to family life if nine or 10 generations of the same family were all alive at the same time
Research into ageing may enable women to remain fertile for longer. And that raises the prospect of having 100-year-old parents, or brothers and sisters born 50 years apart. We think of an elder sibling as someone, who can protect us and offer help and advice. That would be hard to do if that sibling came from a completely different generation.
Working life would also be affected, especially if the retirement age was lifted. More people would stay in work for longer. That would give us the benefits of age, skill, wisdom and good judgment.
On the other hand, more people working for longer would create greater competition for jobs. It would make it more difficult for younger people to find a job. Top posts would be dominated by the same few individuals, making career progress more difficult. And how easily would a 25-year-old employee be able to communicate with a 125-year-old boss
Young people would be a smaller part of a society in which people lived to 140. It may be that such a society would place less importance on guiding and educating young people, and more on making life comfortable for the old.
And society would feel, very different if more of its members were older. There would be more wisdom, but less energy: Young people like to move about. Old people like to sit still. Young people tend to act without thinking. Old people tend to think without acting. Young people are curious and like to experience different things. Old people are less enthusiastic about change. In fact, they are less enthusiastic about everything.
The effect of anti-ageing technology is deeper than we might think. But as the science advances, we need to think about these changes now.
"If this could ever happen, then we’d better ask what kind of society we want to get," says Daniel Callahan. "We had better not go anywhere near it until we have figure those problems out./
An important feature of a society in which people live a long life is that ______.

A:it places more emphasis on educating the young. B:it is both wise and energetic. C:it lacks the curiosity to experiment what is new. D:it welcomes changes.

If your doctor could give you a drug that would let you live a healthy life for twice as long, would you take it
The good news is that we may be drawing near to that date. Scientists have already extended the lives of flies, worms and mice in laboratories. Many now think that using genetic treatments we will soon be able to extend human life to at least 140 years.
This seems a great idea. Think of how much more time we could spend chasing our dreams, spending time with our loved ones, watching our families grow and have families of their own.
"Longer life would give us a chance to recover from our mistakes and promote long term thinking," says Dr. Gregory Stock of the University of California School of Public Health. "It would also raise productivity by adding to the year we can work."
Longer lives don’t just affect the people who live them. They also affect society as a whole. "We have war, poverty, all sorts of issues around, and I don’t think any of them would be at all helped by having people live longer," says US bioethicist Daniel Callahan. “The question is ’What will we get as a society’ I suspect it won’t be a better society."
It would certainly be a very different society. People are already finding it more difficult to stay married. Divorce rates are rising. What would happen to marriage in a society where people lived for 140 years And what would happen to family life if nine or 10 generations of the same family were all alive at the same time
Research into ageing may enable women to remain fertile for longer. And that raises the prospect of having 100-year-old parents, or brothers and sisters born 50 years apart. We think of an elder sibling as someone, who can protect us and offer help and advice. That would be hard to do if that sibling came from a completely different generation.
Working life would also be affected, especially if the retirement age was lifted. More people would stay in work for longer. That would give us the benefits of age, skill, wisdom and good judgment.
On the other hand, more people working for longer would create greater competition for jobs. It would make it more difficult for younger people to find a job. Top posts would be dominated by the same few individuals, making career progress more difficult. And how easily would a 25-year-old employee be able to communicate with a 125-year-old boss
Young people would be a smaller part of a society in which people lived to 140. It may be that such a society would place less importance on guiding and educating young people, and more on making life comfortable for the old.
And society would feel, very different if more of its members were older. There would be more wisdom, but less energy: Young people like to move about. Old people like to sit still. Young people tend to act without thinking. Old people tend to think without acting. Young people are curious and like to experience different things. Old people are less enthusiastic about change. In fact, they are less enthusiastic about everything.
The effect of anti-ageing technology is deeper than we might think. But as the science advances, we need to think about these changes now.
"If this could ever happen, then we’d better ask what kind of society we want to get," says Daniel Callahan. "We had better not go anywhere near it until we have figure those problems out./
Which of the following best describes Callahan’s attitude to anti-ageing technology

A:Optimistic. B:Pessimistic. C:Reserved. D:Negativ

For the past year, Cornelia Czarnecki said, the barking of her neighbor’s German shepherd has awakened her repeatedly at 4 am. The dog often barks for hours at a time, said Mrs. Czarnecki, a Clifton resident.
"That dog is out there barking day and night, and we don’t know .what to do anymore," she said.
Mrs. Czarnecki became so upset about the dog that she filed a municipal complaint against him under the town’s general noise ordinance. The case is set to be heard in municipal court on August 6. Complaints like the ones Mrs. Czarnecki lodged with the police and city officials led the Clifton City Council to draft an ordinance that could result in fines for residents whose dogs are "barking, howling, crying" or making any other loud noises for more than 30 minutes in an hour.
"I can’t wait," Mrs. Czarnecki said. The council took up the ordinance for a first reading on Tuesday; a final vote is scheduled on August 8.
"It’s a quality of life issue," said Councilman Frank C Fusco, who introduced the measure. Clifton is far from alone in seeking to silence noisy dogs. At least 144 of New Jersey’s municipalities have laws that address whining and barking, according to a municipal ordinance database online at www.generalcode.com.
In New York, at least 30 towns in Nassau and Suffolk Counties have similar laws, as do about 25 towns in Westchester County. Connecticut has a statewide law barring dogs that are a "nuisance" because of "excessive barking or other disturbance."
Many of the ordinances in the region are general prohibitions against excessive whining or barking. In Westchester, the City of New Rochelle ran into trouble with its law in 1997 after a resident challenged a citation. A city judge ruled that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague because it did not include details about time of day and duration of barking, and the city changed the law in 1998.
"Many of these ordinances go back to the 1800s," said the New Rochelle corporation counsel, Bernis Shapiro." They’re just carried forward and they don’t get changed until an issue comes up."
In May 2006, Hillsborough Township in Somerset County passed an ordinance to specifically address barking, but no complaints have been filed since then, said Lt. Bill Geary of the Hillsborough Police Department. Other New Jersey towns, including Bloomsbury in Hunterdon County and Manville in Somerset, considered such ordinances but withdrew them after residents complained that they would be unenforceable.
As for those who contend that a barking dog should be a low priority, Councilman Fusco said, "If the dog was next to your house, you’d sing a different song."
Mr. Fusco said he was confident that the ordinance proposed in Clifton would be supported by his fellow council members. At the same time, he knows that some residents may object.
But David Axelrod, a groomer at Furrs N Purrs on Valley Road, said he did not think the measure was tough enough.
"Thirty minutes is extremely generous," he said. "There is no reason why a dog should be barking that long."
The ordinance says barking must be sustained to be illegal, and it bans excessive barking only from 10 pm to 7 am.
Under the ordinance, a resident complains to the City Health Department, which sends a warning note. If the barking continues, the resident takes the complaint to municipal court, where fines can start at $250. Before a court date, the city would most likely try to resolve the matter through mediation, said the city attorney, Matthew T. Priore.
Last year about a dozen warning letters were sent to residents about their barking dogs, Clifton officials said.
Currently, residents can complain about barking under the city’s general noise ordinance, but they have to essentially prosecute the case in municipal court themselves, Mr. Fusco said. Under the proposed ordinance, residents would appear as a witness in a case presented by the municipal prosecutor.
"The new ordinance has some bite to it," Mr. Fusco said. Eric M. Zwerling, director of the Rutgers University Noise Technical Assistance Center, trains police officers on noise complaints and writes municipal noise codes.
"One of the things I say to the officers I train is that if people were fundamentally civil to each other, we’d all be out of work," he said.
Mr. Zwerling, the owner of a chocolate Labrador named Bosco, said he had his own appreciation of the barking problem.
"A dog is barking for one of two reasons -- either it needs attention or it is trying to alert you to something," he said. "In either case, you should be attending to it./
What’s the reaction of Mrs. Czarnecki when she was annoyed by the barking of her neighbor’s dog

A:She went to her neighbor’s door to complain about it. B:She wrote to the local government and suggested that a law should be made to prohibit the dogs from barking. C:She lodged a complaint against the dog with the municipality. D:She became so upset and telephoned the polic

For the past year, Cornelia Czarnecki said, the barking of her neighbor’s German shepherd has awakened her repeatedly at 4 am. The dog often barks for hours at a time, said Mrs. Czarnecki, a Clifton resident.
"That dog is out there barking day and night, and we don’t know .what to do anymore," she said.
Mrs. Czarnecki became so upset about the dog that she filed a municipal complaint against him under the town’s general noise ordinance. The case is set to be heard in municipal court on August 6. Complaints like the ones Mrs. Czarnecki lodged with the police and city officials led the Clifton City Council to draft an ordinance that could result in fines for residents whose dogs are "barking, howling, crying" or making any other loud noises for more than 30 minutes in an hour.
"I can’t wait," Mrs. Czarnecki said. The council took up the ordinance for a first reading on Tuesday; a final vote is scheduled on August 8.
"It’s a quality of life issue," said Councilman Frank C Fusco, who introduced the measure. Clifton is far from alone in seeking to silence noisy dogs. At least 144 of New Jersey’s municipalities have laws that address whining and barking, according to a municipal ordinance database online at www.generalcode.com.
In New York, at least 30 towns in Nassau and Suffolk Counties have similar laws, as do about 25 towns in Westchester County. Connecticut has a statewide law barring dogs that are a "nuisance" because of "excessive barking or other disturbance."
Many of the ordinances in the region are general prohibitions against excessive whining or barking. In Westchester, the City of New Rochelle ran into trouble with its law in 1997 after a resident challenged a citation. A city judge ruled that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague because it did not include details about time of day and duration of barking, and the city changed the law in 1998.
"Many of these ordinances go back to the 1800s," said the New Rochelle corporation counsel, Bernis Shapiro." They’re just carried forward and they don’t get changed until an issue comes up."
In May 2006, Hillsborough Township in Somerset County passed an ordinance to specifically address barking, but no complaints have been filed since then, said Lt. Bill Geary of the Hillsborough Police Department. Other New Jersey towns, including Bloomsbury in Hunterdon County and Manville in Somerset, considered such ordinances but withdrew them after residents complained that they would be unenforceable.
As for those who contend that a barking dog should be a low priority, Councilman Fusco said, "If the dog was next to your house, you’d sing a different song."
Mr. Fusco said he was confident that the ordinance proposed in Clifton would be supported by his fellow council members. At the same time, he knows that some residents may object.
But David Axelrod, a groomer at Furrs N Purrs on Valley Road, said he did not think the measure was tough enough.
"Thirty minutes is extremely generous," he said. "There is no reason why a dog should be barking that long."
The ordinance says barking must be sustained to be illegal, and it bans excessive barking only from 10 pm to 7 am.
Under the ordinance, a resident complains to the City Health Department, which sends a warning note. If the barking continues, the resident takes the complaint to municipal court, where fines can start at $250. Before a court date, the city would most likely try to resolve the matter through mediation, said the city attorney, Matthew T. Priore.
Last year about a dozen warning letters were sent to residents about their barking dogs, Clifton officials said.
Currently, residents can complain about barking under the city’s general noise ordinance, but they have to essentially prosecute the case in municipal court themselves, Mr. Fusco said. Under the proposed ordinance, residents would appear as a witness in a case presented by the municipal prosecutor.
"The new ordinance has some bite to it," Mr. Fusco said. Eric M. Zwerling, director of the Rutgers University Noise Technical Assistance Center, trains police officers on noise complaints and writes municipal noise codes.
"One of the things I say to the officers I train is that if people were fundamentally civil to each other, we’d all be out of work," he said.
Mr. Zwerling, the owner of a chocolate Labrador named Bosco, said he had his own appreciation of the barking problem.
"A dog is barking for one of two reasons -- either it needs attention or it is trying to alert you to something," he said. "In either case, you should be attending to it./
In the city of Clifton, a legislative bill that addresses whining and barking was introduced by ______.

A:David Axelrod B:Frank C Fusco C:Matthew T. Priore D:Eric M. Zwerling

For the past year, Cornelia Czarnecki said, the barking of her neighbor’s German shepherd has awakened her repeatedly at 4 am. The dog often barks for hours at a time, said Mrs. Czarnecki, a Clifton resident.
"That dog is out there barking day and night, and we don’t know .what to do anymore," she said.
Mrs. Czarnecki became so upset about the dog that she filed a municipal complaint against him under the town’s general noise ordinance. The case is set to be heard in municipal court on August 6. Complaints like the ones Mrs. Czarnecki lodged with the police and city officials led the Clifton City Council to draft an ordinance that could result in fines for residents whose dogs are "barking, howling, crying" or making any other loud noises for more than 30 minutes in an hour.
"I can’t wait," Mrs. Czarnecki said. The council took up the ordinance for a first reading on Tuesday; a final vote is scheduled on August 8.
"It’s a quality of life issue," said Councilman Frank C Fusco, who introduced the measure. Clifton is far from alone in seeking to silence noisy dogs. At least 144 of New Jersey’s municipalities have laws that address whining and barking, according to a municipal ordinance database online at www.generalcode.com.
In New York, at least 30 towns in Nassau and Suffolk Counties have similar laws, as do about 25 towns in Westchester County. Connecticut has a statewide law barring dogs that are a "nuisance" because of "excessive barking or other disturbance."
Many of the ordinances in the region are general prohibitions against excessive whining or barking. In Westchester, the City of New Rochelle ran into trouble with its law in 1997 after a resident challenged a citation. A city judge ruled that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague because it did not include details about time of day and duration of barking, and the city changed the law in 1998.
"Many of these ordinances go back to the 1800s," said the New Rochelle corporation counsel, Bernis Shapiro." They’re just carried forward and they don’t get changed until an issue comes up."
In May 2006, Hillsborough Township in Somerset County passed an ordinance to specifically address barking, but no complaints have been filed since then, said Lt. Bill Geary of the Hillsborough Police Department. Other New Jersey towns, including Bloomsbury in Hunterdon County and Manville in Somerset, considered such ordinances but withdrew them after residents complained that they would be unenforceable.
As for those who contend that a barking dog should be a low priority, Councilman Fusco said, "If the dog was next to your house, you’d sing a different song."
Mr. Fusco said he was confident that the ordinance proposed in Clifton would be supported by his fellow council members. At the same time, he knows that some residents may object.
But David Axelrod, a groomer at Furrs N Purrs on Valley Road, said he did not think the measure was tough enough.
"Thirty minutes is extremely generous," he said. "There is no reason why a dog should be barking that long."
The ordinance says barking must be sustained to be illegal, and it bans excessive barking only from 10 pm to 7 am.
Under the ordinance, a resident complains to the City Health Department, which sends a warning note. If the barking continues, the resident takes the complaint to municipal court, where fines can start at $250. Before a court date, the city would most likely try to resolve the matter through mediation, said the city attorney, Matthew T. Priore.
Last year about a dozen warning letters were sent to residents about their barking dogs, Clifton officials said.
Currently, residents can complain about barking under the city’s general noise ordinance, but they have to essentially prosecute the case in municipal court themselves, Mr. Fusco said. Under the proposed ordinance, residents would appear as a witness in a case presented by the municipal prosecutor.
"The new ordinance has some bite to it," Mr. Fusco said. Eric M. Zwerling, director of the Rutgers University Noise Technical Assistance Center, trains police officers on noise complaints and writes municipal noise codes.
"One of the things I say to the officers I train is that if people were fundamentally civil to each other, we’d all be out of work," he said.
Mr. Zwerling, the owner of a chocolate Labrador named Bosco, said he had his own appreciation of the barking problem.
"A dog is barking for one of two reasons -- either it needs attention or it is trying to alert you to something," he said. "In either case, you should be attending to it./
Which of the following statements is true according to the passage

A:Mrs. Czarnecki’s complaint made the city officials decide to introduce the general noise ordinance. B:Clifton is the first city in New Jersey that seeks to silence noisy dogs. C:The general noise ordinance in Clifton is contradictory to the Constitution so that it was changed in 1998. D:At present, Clifton residents who complain about the noisy dogs can not employ a lawyer to prosecute the case in municipal court.

For the past year, Cornelia Czarnecki said, the barking of her neighbor’s German shepherd has awakened her repeatedly at 4 am. The dog often barks for hours at a time, said Mrs. Czarnecki, a Clifton resident.
"That dog is out there barking day and night, and we don’t know .what to do anymore," she said.
Mrs. Czarnecki became so upset about the dog that she filed a municipal complaint against him under the town’s general noise ordinance. The case is set to be heard in municipal court on August 6. Complaints like the ones Mrs. Czarnecki lodged with the police and city officials led the Clifton City Council to draft an ordinance that could result in fines for residents whose dogs are "barking, howling, crying" or making any other loud noises for more than 30 minutes in an hour.
"I can’t wait," Mrs. Czarnecki said. The council took up the ordinance for a first reading on Tuesday; a final vote is scheduled on August 8.
"It’s a quality of life issue," said Councilman Frank C Fusco, who introduced the measure. Clifton is far from alone in seeking to silence noisy dogs. At least 144 of New Jersey’s municipalities have laws that address whining and barking, according to a municipal ordinance database online at www.generalcode.com.
In New York, at least 30 towns in Nassau and Suffolk Counties have similar laws, as do about 25 towns in Westchester County. Connecticut has a statewide law barring dogs that are a "nuisance" because of "excessive barking or other disturbance."
Many of the ordinances in the region are general prohibitions against excessive whining or barking. In Westchester, the City of New Rochelle ran into trouble with its law in 1997 after a resident challenged a citation. A city judge ruled that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague because it did not include details about time of day and duration of barking, and the city changed the law in 1998.
"Many of these ordinances go back to the 1800s," said the New Rochelle corporation counsel, Bernis Shapiro." They’re just carried forward and they don’t get changed until an issue comes up."
In May 2006, Hillsborough Township in Somerset County passed an ordinance to specifically address barking, but no complaints have been filed since then, said Lt. Bill Geary of the Hillsborough Police Department. Other New Jersey towns, including Bloomsbury in Hunterdon County and Manville in Somerset, considered such ordinances but withdrew them after residents complained that they would be unenforceable.
As for those who contend that a barking dog should be a low priority, Councilman Fusco said, "If the dog was next to your house, you’d sing a different song."
Mr. Fusco said he was confident that the ordinance proposed in Clifton would be supported by his fellow council members. At the same time, he knows that some residents may object.
But David Axelrod, a groomer at Furrs N Purrs on Valley Road, said he did not think the measure was tough enough.
"Thirty minutes is extremely generous," he said. "There is no reason why a dog should be barking that long."
The ordinance says barking must be sustained to be illegal, and it bans excessive barking only from 10 pm to 7 am.
Under the ordinance, a resident complains to the City Health Department, which sends a warning note. If the barking continues, the resident takes the complaint to municipal court, where fines can start at $250. Before a court date, the city would most likely try to resolve the matter through mediation, said the city attorney, Matthew T. Priore.
Last year about a dozen warning letters were sent to residents about their barking dogs, Clifton officials said.
Currently, residents can complain about barking under the city’s general noise ordinance, but they have to essentially prosecute the case in municipal court themselves, Mr. Fusco said. Under the proposed ordinance, residents would appear as a witness in a case presented by the municipal prosecutor.
"The new ordinance has some bite to it," Mr. Fusco said. Eric M. Zwerling, director of the Rutgers University Noise Technical Assistance Center, trains police officers on noise complaints and writes municipal noise codes.
"One of the things I say to the officers I train is that if people were fundamentally civil to each other, we’d all be out of work," he said.
Mr. Zwerling, the owner of a chocolate Labrador named Bosco, said he had his own appreciation of the barking problem.
"A dog is barking for one of two reasons -- either it needs attention or it is trying to alert you to something," he said. "In either case, you should be attending to it./
Which of the following statements about the proposed ordinance is true

A:Clifton City Council finally passed it on Tuesday, August 8. B:Under the ordinance, whenever a dog barks over 30 minutes in an hour, its master will get fined. C:All the residents in Clifton hope that the ordinance can be reinforced as soon as possible because it is a quality of life issue. D:People who complain about the disturbance by noisy dogs do not need to prosecute the case in municipal court themselves according to the proposed ordinanc