以WM为操作系统，主要分为哪两类？（）A、Smart Phone；PPCB、Smart Phone；S60C、S60；UIQD、PPC；UIQ

Just how much does the Constitution protect your digital data?The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest.California has asked the justices to refrain from a sweeping ruling particularly one that upsets the old assumption that authorities may search through the possessions of suspects at the time of their arrest.It is hard,the state argues,for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidly changing technologies.The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California’s advice.Enough of the implications are discernable,even obvious,so that the justices can and should provide updated guidelines to police,lawyers and defendants.They should start by discarding California’s lame argument that exploring the contents of a smart phone—a vast storehouse of digital information—is similar to,say,rifling through a suspect’s purse.The court has ruled that police don’t violate the Fourth Amendment when they sift through the wallet or pocketbook of an arrestee without a warrant.But exploring one’s smart phone is more like entering his or her home.A smart phone may contain an arrestee’s reading history,financial history,medical history and comprehensive records of recent correspondence.The development of“cloud computing,”meanwhile,has made that exploration so much the easier.Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy.But keeping sensitive information on these devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life.Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches.As so often is the case,stating that principle doesn’t ease the challenge of line-drawing.In many cases,it would not be overly onerous for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents.They could still invalidate Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe,urgent circumstances,and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased or altered while a warrant is pending.The court,though,may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more freedom.But the justices should not swallow California’s argument whole.New,disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution’s protections.Orin Kerr,a law professor,compares the explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with the establishment of automobile use as a virtual necessity of life in the 20th:The justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of the passenger car then;they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now.
The Supreme Court will work out whether,during an arrest,it is legitimate to

A.prevent suspects from deleting their phone contents.
B.search for suspects’mobile phones without a warrant.
C.check suspects’phone contents without being authorized.
D.prohibit suspects from using their mobile phones.

Just how much does the Constitution protect your digital data?The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest.California has asked the justices to refrain from a sweeping ruling particularly one that upsets the old assumption that authorities may search through the possessions of suspects at the time of their arrest.It is hard,the state argues,for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidly changing technologies.The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California’s advice.Enough of the implications are discernable,even obvious,so that the justices can and should provide updated guidelines to police,lawyers and defendants.They should start by discarding California’s lame argument that exploring the contents of a smart phone—a vast storehouse of digital information—is similar to,say,rifling through a suspect’s purse.The court has ruled that police don’t violate the Fourth Amendment when they sift through the wallet or pocketbook of an arrestee without a warrant.But exploring one’s smart phone is more like entering his or her home.A smart phone may contain an arrestee’s reading history,financial history,medical history and comprehensive records of recent correspondence.The development of“cloud computing,”meanwhile,has made that exploration so much the easier.Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy.But keeping sensitive information on these devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life.Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches.As so often is the case,stating that principle doesn’t ease the challenge of line-drawing.In many cases,it would not be overly onerous for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents.They could still invalidate Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe,urgent circumstances,and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased or altered while a warrant is pending.The court,though,may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more freedom.But the justices should not swallow California’s argument whole.New,disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution’s protections.Orin Kerr,a law professor,compares the explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with the establishment of automobile use as a virtual necessity of life in the 20th:The justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of the passenger car then;they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now.
The author believes that exploring one’s phone contents is comparable to

A.principles are hard to be clearly expressed.
B.the court is giving police less room for action.
C.citizens’privacy is not effectively protected.
D.phones are used to store sensitive information.

根据以下材料，回答题
If you don′t think a phone is the rightgift for a lover, the smart choice this year is a smart phone.
For people who don′t read instructions
The easiest-to-use phone is the iPhone. It′sthat has pushed it to the No.1 selling position, surpassing the Motorola Razr.The iPhone′s touch screen is easy to operate and it′s also easy to customize (用户化). The iPhone can run allsorts of applications such as those help you to lose weight, identify a song onthe radio, find a restaurant or do many other things.
For the futurist
The T-Mobile G1 is very popular as it is thefirst phone to offer a Google browser, meaning that you′re getting the real webon your phone, but it′s the phone′s potential that qualifies it for the futurist.The exciting applications are interesting, but they don′t always work smoothly.Sometimes it is hard to use the applications it comes with. The system shouldimprove as it becomes more popular, so it holds great promise. With fewrestrictions on the design of applications for the phone,
the G1 could be the first phone toincorporate (整合) some of the coolest.
For the road warrior
The new BlackBerry Storm is something likethe equivalent (等同物) of a mullet--a business up front, party in the back. It stillincorporates the serious mail and organization features that have endeared (使受钟爱) these phones to business people. The 3.25-inch is bright anddetailed and it′s a decent size for watching videos on the go.
For the Luddite (反对技术进步的人)
For those who can′t handle buttons and newfeatures, there is the Samsung Jitterbug Dial. Some people are Luddites whojust want a few large buttons to make calls. That′s it, just calls. That makesit even easier to use an iPhone.

According to the passage, why is theBlackBerry Storm popular with business people (no more than 10 words)
_______________________________________________________________________

Just how much does the Constitution protect your digital data?The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest.California has asked the justices to refrain from a sweeping ruling particularly one that upsets the old assumption that authorities may search through the possessions of suspects at the time of their arrest.It is hard,the state argues,for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidly changing technologies.The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California’s advice.Enough of the implications are discernable,even obvious,so that the justices can and should provide updated guidelines to police,lawyers and defendants.They should start by discarding California’s lame argument that exploring the contents of a smart phone—a vast storehouse of digital information—is similar to,say,rifling through a suspect’s purse.The court has ruled that police don’t violate the Fourth Amendment when they sift through the wallet or pocketbook of an arrestee without a warrant.But exploring one’s smart phone is more like entering his or her home.A smart phone may contain an arrestee’s reading history,financial history,medical history and comprehensive records of recent correspondence.The development of“cloud computing,”meanwhile,has made that exploration so much the easier.Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy.But keeping sensitive information on these devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life.Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches.As so often is the case,stating that principle doesn’t ease the challenge of line-drawing.In many cases,it would not be overly onerous for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents.They could still invalidate Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe,urgent circumstances,and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased or altered while a warrant is pending.The court,though,may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more freedom.But the justices should not swallow California’s argument whole.New,disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution’s protections.Orin Kerr,a law professor,compares the explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with the establishment of automobile use as a virtual necessity of life in the 20th:The justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of the passenger car then;they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now.
The author’s attitude toward California’s argument is one of

A.disapproval.
B.indifference.
C.tolerance.
D.cautiousness.

Most smart phones have （）service capabilities, which means that apps that combine the phone user's location with the availability of retail stores and services can be interwoven into creative mobile business opportunities.
A.short messaging service
B.global positioning satellite(GPS)
C.online banking
D.EDI

The smart phone benefits us a lot, but the bad effect __________ has on the youth can not be ignored.

A.that
B.which
C.it
D.one