以下内容来自网友回顾，仅供参考。高口第一篇阅读理解的原文选自timesonline，是一篇题为big brother surveillance means no one is safe, experts warn的文章，原文如下：

advances in surveillance technology could seriously damage individual privacy unless drastic measures are taken to protect personal data, scientists have said.

richard thomas, the information commissioner, gave warning last year that britain was “sleepwalking” into a surveillance society. yesterday the country’s leading engineers developed the theme, fleshing out a dystopian vision that not even george orwell could have predicted.

they said that travel passes, supermarket loyalty getword("loyalty"); cards and mobile phones could be used to track individuals’ every move.

they also predicted that cctv footage could BECome available for public consumption and that terrorists could hijack the biometric chips in passports and rig them up as a trigger for explosives.

the report by the royal academy of engineering, dilemmas of privacy and surveillance — challenges of technological change, argues that the scientists developing surveillance technology should also think about measures to protect privacy.

“just as security features have been incorporated into car design, privacy-protecting features should be incorporated into the design of products and services that rely on divulging personal information,” the report says.

“there is a choice between a big brother world where individual privacy is almost extinct and a world where the data are kept by individual organisations or services and kept secret and secure.”

the report says that shoppers should be allowed to buy goods and services without revealing their identities to the companies that provide them. it argues that travel and supermarket loyalty cards and mobile phones are mines of personal information that should be closely scrutinised to make sure that data is not abused.

professor nigel gilbert, chairman of the report group, said: “in most cases, supermarket loyalty cards will have your name on. why? what is needed in a loyalty card is for the supermarket to know what has been bought so you can get your discounts.

“does it need to identify you? no, it just needs authentication that you’ve bought the goods. it is the same for oyster cards on the tube, some of which you have to register for. these are all apparently small things but people are being required to give away more identification information than is required.”

ian forbes, the report’s co-author, said that because footage from cctv cameras could be digitised and potentially stored for ever, that necessitated GREater scrutiny of the controlling networks. britain has about five million cctv cameras, one for every 12 people.

the report says: “given this potential, it cannot be guaranteed that surveillance images will remain private, or will not be altered, misused or manipulated.”

the report also gives warning that biometric passports and identity cards would give fresh opportunities to fraudsters and terrorists to read remotely the data chips that they contain.

it says that it could be possible to rig a bomb to go off in the presence of a certain person or someone of a particular nationality.

the report proposes that the information commissioner should be given extended powers, and that stiffer penalties, including prison sentences, should be introduced for those who misuse personal data.

the commons home affairs select committee is expected to announce an inquiry into the growing use of surveillance.

根据网友回忆，小编在网上找到了原文。本文选自the christian science monitor。

journalists who write about families as well as social and cultural issues can count on receiving an annual barrage of public- relations pitches for valentine’s day.

the pr blitz begins right after christmas and continues almost until the big day itself. daily, sometimes hourly, e-mails pop up on my computer screen, as publicity agents propose stories on a variety of love-related subjects.

some suggest traditional topics: how about interviewing the author of a new book on how to find the perfect mate? or what about a story offering ideas on the best gifts to give to your heartthrob getword("heartthrob"); ?

other suggestions take a thoroughly modern approach to romance. publicists would be happy to provide information about the newest matchmaking website or the hottest dating coach. there’s even a "psychic medium" who promises to tell radio and television audiences about their "current and future relationships."

individually, these story promotions could be taken for what they are: just another day, another client, another dollar in the life of publicity agents. but collectively, they signal more than simply a desire to capitalize on a holiday that has mushroomed into a $17 billion industry. in their varied forms, these promotions reflect the urgency of the quest for love and companionship in a society where one-quarter of all households now consist of single people.

these pitches also serve as a measure of how much valentine’s day itself has changed. they can impel long-married observers to look back with a certain nostalgia to a time several decades ago when feb. 14 didn’t carry such intensity and when courtship didn’t cost quite so much.

that was a time before men were expected to spend two months’ worth of their salary for an engagement ring, before men and women decided they would settle for nothing less than a "soul mate," and before it was necessary to seek advice from an army of self-help gurus bearing titles such as "relationship and interpersonal communication expert."

that was also an era when many hopeful prince charmings could show their love with a card or a heart-shaped box of drugstore chocolates, and when even a single rose could melt a young woman’s heart.

what a contrast to today, when anything less than a dozen long-stemmed roses can risk making a sender appear frugal, and when an ardent suitor who wants to make an impression will buy chocolates from belgium, whatever the cost.

this year the average man will spend $120 and the average woman $85, according to the national retail federation (nrf).

is this love, or obligation? for some men, it might even include a bit of guilt. as tracy mullin, ceo of the nrf, notes, presumably with tongue planted firmly in cheek, some men "may be looking at valentine’s day as a way to make up for that hdtv they splurged on for the super bowl."

as one public radio station announcer put it during a valentine’s day fundraiser offering long-stemmed roses, "this is a perfect way to fulfill your valentine’s obligations." another host making a similar appeal urged listeners to "take care of your valentine’s day duties."

and if you don’t? one relationship expert quoted in a valentine’s day press release offers the stern warning that "if a guy doesn’t come through on valentine’s day, it means he doesn’t care about you," so just say goodbye and move on.

but assuming he does care, another pr firm suggests a high-tech approach to the day. "this year, think outside the box and send a video valentine!" the e-mail pitch begins. "too shy to say those three little words in person? profess your love on video! or use your cellphone to record yourself shopping for the perfect gift." diamonds, anyone?

whatever the approach, couples might do well to follow the advice of a group of husbands in japan who say they know the answer to wedded bliss. in an effort to communicate better with their wives, they offer three principles of love: say "sorry" without fear, say "thank you" without hesitation, and say "i love you" without shame.

it’s a trio of sentiments that women could adopt as well.

thursday all the unsold valentines with their declarations of love and affection will disappear from card racks, to be replaced by easter messages featuring eggs and bunnies. long-stemmed roses will begin to open, boxes of chocolate will be nibbled away, and cards with sentimental messages will be propped on desks and dressers.

whatever hopes and expectations are fulfilled or not wednesday, the celebration offers a touching reminder that when it comes to matters of the heart, the approaches might change, but the yearning for love and companionship doesn’t. above all, it offers this comforting reassurance:cupid lives.

根据网友回忆，本篇阅读理解文章为《时代周刊》的一篇文章，题为greenhouse airlines，原文如下，仅供参考。

right now, prince charles is probably wishing he had hit the slopes after all. britain’s prince of wales decided last year to begin reducing his carbon footprint--the amount of carbon dioxide created by his activities--by cutting down on his flights abroad, including an annual skiing vacation in switzerland. though we should all be in the position to make such sacrifices, charles didn’t win plaudits for his holiday martyrdom. instead british green groups, seconded by environment secretary david miliband, spanked the prince for deciding to fly to the u.s. on jan. 27 to pick up a prestigious environmental award, arguing that the carbon emissions created by his travel canceled out his green cred.

it’s too easy to mock his royal highness; in england it’s practically the national sport. but his critics may be onto something. jets are uniquely polluting, and the carbon they emit at high altitudes appears to have a greater warming effect than the same amount of carbon released on the ground by cars or factories. on an individual level, a single long-haul flight can emit more carbon per passenger than months of suv driving. though air travel is responsible for only 1.6% of total greenhouse gas emissions, according to one estimate, in many countries it’s the fastest-growing single source--and with annual airline passengers worldwide predicted to double to 9 billion by 2025, that growth is unlikely to abate. the intergovernmental panel on climate change (ipcc) put it bluntly last year: "the growth in aviation and the need to address climate change cannot be reconciled."

one of the biggest problems, as the ipcc points out, is that the carbon emitted by air travel currently has "no technofix." as messy a source of pollution as electricity generation and ground transportation are, technologies do exist that could drastically cut carbon from power plants and cars. not so for planes: the same aircraft models will almost certainly be flying on the same kerosene getword("kerosene"); fuel for decades.

admittedly, the airline industry has improved efficiency over the past 40 years, with technological upgrades more than doubling efficiency. there are tweaks in aircraft operations that could nip carbon emissions even further. virgin atlantic airlines tycoon richard branson, who last year pledged $3 billion in the fight against climate change, advocates having planes towed on the ground rather than taxiing, which he has said could cut a yet unspecified portion of fuel on long flights. emissions trading for the air industry could help as well, with airlines given carbon caps and then being required to purchase credits from other industries if they exceed their limits. but there’s nothing on the horizon for aircraft with the carbon-cutting potential of hydrogen engines or solar energy. "it’s not like having leaky home windows you can fix with double glazing," says leo murray, a spokesman for the straightforwardly named green group plane stupid, which led the criticism of prince charles.

nor is there any replacement for long-haul air travel itself. i can take a train from boston to washington, but until we can figure out how to travel via fireplace, harry potter--style, the only way i’m getting from tokyo to new york city is in aircraft that may emit more than 5,200 lbs. (about 2,400 kg) of carbon per passenger, round-trip, according to one estimate. on an individual level, you can try to make your flight carbon neutral by donating to, say, a forestry project that will soak up the greenhouse gases you have created. an increasing number of airlines and travel agents do offer such options. the london-based carbonneutral company reports that requests for carbon offsetting from individual travelers have jumped over the past six months. but the still tiny number of neutralized flights can hardly compensate for the rapid increases in global air travel.

so is grounding ourselves the only answer? that seems to be the conclusion of environmentalists in britain, who also went after prime minister tony blair for a recent holiday trip to miami. though blair belatedly promised to begin offsetting his leisure travel, he insisted that telling people to fly less was simply impractical--and he’s probably right. some environmentalists suggest that we could learn to live more locally, but good luck keeping them in brighton after they’ve seen beijing--and vice versa. our best bet for now may be to limit any business and leisure flights that we can and offset the rest. so when you’re pondering that luxury swiss vacation, ask yourself: what would prince charles do?