Computer hackers have now got their hands on mobile phones. A phone virus program can get your phone to do things you have no _____ of, computer security experts _____.

It might call the White House or the police, or _____ your personal address book to a marketing company. Or it could simply eat into the phone’s operating software, turning it _____ and erasing your personal information.

Similar viruses have already made mobile phone owners _____ in Japan and Europe.

Mr. Hypponen, chief technical officer of computer security in Finland said, “A virus can get your _____ and send them somewhere else. And it can record your _____.”

Mobiles are now able to _____ the Net, send e-mails and download software. So they easily become the _____ for the same hackers who have sent viruses to computers over the past decade.

“It’s technically ______ now,” said Stephen Trilling, director of research on anti-virus software.

“If the phone is connected to the ______, it can be used to transmit (传递) threats and ______ just as any computer can.”

In Japan, ______ you open a certain e-mail on your mobile, it will cause the phone to repeatedly ______ the national emergency number.

So phone operators will have to ______ emergency calls until the virus is ______.

In Europe, mobiles’ short message service, ______, SMS, has been used to send codes that could damage ______.

“Mobile users can ______ viruses, of course, by ______ their traditional phones without Web links,” some experts say.

   Every pet owner loves his pet. There is no argument here.

But when we asked our readers whether they would clone their beloved animals，the responses（反应）were split almost down the middle. Of the 228 readers who answered it，108 would clone their beloved animals，111 would not and nine weighed each side without offering an opinion.

Clearly，from readers’responses，this is an issue that reaches deeply into both the joy and eventual sadness of owning a pet. It also shows people’s widely different expectations over the developing scientific procedure.

Most of the respondents who favored the idea strongly believed it would produce at least a close copy of the original；many felt the process would actually return an exact copy. Those on the other side，however，held little hope that cloning could truly recreate a pet；many simply didn’t wish to go against the natural law of life and death.

Both sides expressed equal love for their animals. More than a few respondents owned“the dog/cat in the world”.They thought of their pets as their“best friend”，“a member of the family”，“the light of their life”.They told moving stories of pets’ heroism，intelligence and selfless devotion.

Few wonder the loss is so disturbing（令人不安的）and the cloning so attractive.“People become very close to their animals，and the loss can be just as hard to bear as when a friend or family member dies，”says Gary A. Kowalski，author of Goodbye Friend：Healing Wisdom for Anyone Who Has Ever Lost a Pet. “For me，cloning feels like an attempt to turn death away... It’s understandable. Death is always painful. It’s difficult to deal with it. It’s hard to accept.”

But would cloning reduce the blow? This question seemed to be at the heart of this problem.

   Residents in the poorest counties in the U. S. face a life expectancy（预期寿命）up to a decade shorter than their counterparts in the wealthiest areas, according to a study published in the American Journal of Public Health.

Researchers from East Tennessee State University wanted to better understand how socioeconomic status was associated with health outcomes. To find it out they divided the country's 3,141 counties into 50 new states based on household income.

The researchers broke down the data by county since they found state-level data may hide some impact of socioeconomic differences on both the wealthiest and poorest counties. They then examined health data from the wealthiest and poorest states to see how residents differed on factors like smoking, clinical care and excessive drinking. Researchers found that there was nearly a 10-year gap in the life expectancy of men with an average of 79. 3 years in the wealthy counties compared to 69. 8 years in the poorest. For women,the difference was slightly less - 83 years in the wealthiest counties and 76 years in the poorest.

The researchers caution that while they found a connection between socioeconomic status and health outcomes, they did not analyze cause and effect. But they suggest that the data shows policymakers should not just focus on state-wide initiatives（计划）but more targeted efforts to help those most at risk. “With limited resources, methods of finding the poorest counties can assist in the allocation of resources and programs to those communities that are in the greatest need,”the researchers wrote.