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

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 Mr. Zwerling’s own appreciation of the barking problem

A:The ordinance is not tough enough since it allows a dog bark for 30 minutes. B:. The problem can only be solved if people are civil enough to each other. C:Financial punishment is the best way to ban dogs from barking. D:The city should try its best to resolve the matter through mediation.

Do you feel sad Happy Angry You may think that the way you show these emotions is unique. Well, think again. Even the expression of the most personal feelings can be classified, according to Mind Reading game, a DVD displaying every possible human emotion. It demonstrates 412 distinct ways in which we feel the first visual dictionary of the human heart.
Attempts to classify expressions began in the mid-1800s, when Darwin divided the emotions into six types-anger, fear, sadness, disgust, surprise and enjoyment. (46) . Every other feeling was thought to derive from Darwin’s small group. More complex expressions of emotions were probably learned and therefore more specific to each culture. But now it is believed that many more facial expressions are shared worldwide. (47) . The Mind Reading DVD is a systematic visual record of these expressions.
The project was conceived by a Cambridge professor as an aid for people with autism (孤独), who have difficulty both reading and expressing emotions. But it quickly became apparent that it had broader uses. Actors and teachers, for example, need to understand a wide range of expressions. The professor and his research team first had to define an "emotion" (48) . Using this definition, 1,512 emotion terms were identified and discussed. This list was eventually reduced to 412, from "afraid" to "wanting".
Once these emotions were defined and classified, a DVD seemed the clearest and most efficient way to display them. In Mind Reading, each expression is acted out by six different actors in three seconds. (49) . The explanation for this is simple: we may find it difficult to describe emotions using words, but we instantly recognize one when we see it on someone’s face. "It was really clear when the actors had got it right," says Cathy Collis, who directed the DVD "Although they were given some direction," says Ms Collis, "the actors were not told which facial muscles they should move." (50) . For example, when someone feel contempt, you can’t say for certain that their eyebrows always go down.
Someone who has tried to establish such rules is the American, Professor Paul Ekman, who has built a database of how the face moves for every emotion. The face can make 43 distinct muscle movements called "action units". These can be combined into more than 10,000 visible facial shapes. Ekman has written out a pattern of facial muscular movements to represent each emotion.

• A. He said that this expression of feeling is universal and recognizable by anyone from any culture.
• B. Any other method of showing the 412 emotions would have been far less effective.
• C. Research has also been done to find out which area of brain read the emotional expressions.
• D. These particular muscles are difficult to control, and few people can do it.
• E. They decided that it was a mental state that could be preceded by "I feel he looks" or "she sounds".
• F. We thought of trying to describe each emotion, but it would have been almost impossible to make clear rules of this.