While Jennifer was at home taking an online exam for her business law class, a monitor（监控器）a few hundred miles away was watching her every move.

    Using a web camera equipped in Jennifer's Los Angeles apartment, the monitor in Phoenix tracked how frequently her eyes moved from the computer screen and listened for the secret sounds of a possible helper in the room. Her Internet access was locked — remotely — to prevent Internet searches, and her typing style was analyzed to make sure she was who she said she was: Did she enter her student number at the same speed as she had in the past? Or was she slowing down?

    In the battle against cheating, this is the cutting edge and a key to encouraging honesty in the booming field of online education. The technology gives trust to the entire system, to the institution and to online education in general. Only with solid measures against cheating, experts say, can Internet universities show that their exams and diplomas are valid — that students haven't just searched the Internet to get the right answers.

    Although online classes have existed for more than a decade, the concern over cheating has become sharper in the last year with the growth of “open online courses”. Private colleges, public universities and corporations are jumping into the online education field, spending millions of dollars to attract potential students, while also taking steps to help guarantee honesty at a distance.

    Aside from the web cameras, a number of other high-tech methods are becoming increasingly popular. Among them are programs that check students' identities using personal information, such as the telephone number they once used.

根据短文内容，选择最佳答案，并将选定答案的字母标号填在题前括号内。

    Workplaces all over the UK are preparing for Christmas and all the traditions and customs that come with it. But will Christmas be a cause for happiness and celebration or embarrassment and disappointment?

    One way that colleagues in Britain show their appreciation of each other at this time of year is by doing "Secret Santa" present giving. At that time, people who work together buy each other gifts without saying whom they are from.

    Co-workers all write their names on a piece of paper and then organize a lottery in which each workmate takes another colleague's name at random(任意地). Each person then has to buy a present for the colleague whose name they have picked, usually with an agreed price set at a small amount of money such as five or ten pounds.

    As the gifts are given without knowing the names of the gift givers, the quality of the presents can be very different; gifts that people received are from tickets to the opera to an air-freshener for a car.

    Another common seasonal workplace tradition is the office Christmas party, when workmates put on their most attractive clothes and enjoy lots of free wine.

    Although most parties are held without a hitch, sometimes the effects of alcohol(酒精) cause party goers to regret their drunken antics(古怪行为).

The BBC invited people to share their most embarrassing(令人尴尬的) Christmas office party stories, and received hundreds of funny stories, such as the man who split his trousers back to front with his strange dance moves or the drunken lady who spent the entire night with back of her dress tucked into her pants and saw the photos that proved it later at work.

    But the worst story must surely come from Stuart Vaines, who got so drunk that he put his boss's head into the toilet. Unsurprisingly, he lost his job the very next day.

    Think twice the next time you decide to copy your boss in an email. That simple little “CC” box (抄送框) could send a message that ruins your relationship with the other receivers.

    A study in Harvard Business Review asked working adults to imagine that their coworker always, sometimes, or rarely CC'ed their boss in emails. The study results show that employees felt less trusted when their coworker “always'' copied the boss than when they ''sometimes” or “almost never” did. The results of the survey aren't surprising, says career expert Bruce Tulgan. Sometimes the boss really does need to stay in the loop (在圈内) with an email chain. But most times, employees are purposely sending the message that they don't think the receiver follow through with what they're asking unless the boss gets involved, says Tulgan. “That is an expression of lack of trust,'' he says.

    Breaking down that trust level in your office can have serious consequences. Like in any relationship, coworkers need trust to keep things running smoothly. “When people have trust, there is a much higher level of wanting to deliver for each other,” says Tulgan. “When people have enthusiasm, they try harder.” That means more willingness to take risks and make decisions, he says. Even if you don't trust your coworker to follow through for you, copying the boss in an email is not the best strategy, says career expert Todd Dewett, PhD. “CC'ing is the adult version of being a tattletale (告密者),” he says. “It tells your colleague you didn't agree without telling it to their face, and you want your boss to know without talking about it.”

    As a rule of thumb, only about 20 percent of what you do in the office is truly urgent, and those are the only times you should consider getting your boss involved in, says Tulgan. “The most important people, the most important project, key relationship,” she says. “That's when you might consider the occasional use of CC.”

    Scientists say we are all born with a knack for mathematics. Every time we scan the cafeteria for a table that will fit all of our friends, we're exercising the ancient estimation center in our brain.

    Stanislas Dehaene was the first researcher to show that this part of the brain exists. In 1989, he met Mr. N who had suffered a serious brain injury. Mr. N couldn't recognize the number 5, or add 2 and 2. But he still knew that there are “about 50 minutes” in an hour. Dehaene drew an important conclusion from his case: there must be two separate mathematical areas in our brains. One area is responsible for the math we learn in school, and the other judges approximate amounts.

    So what does the brain's estimation center do for us? Harvard University researcher Elizabeth Spelke has spent a lot of time posing math problems to preschoolers. When he asks 5-year-olds to solve a problem like 21+30, they can't do it. But he has also asked them questions such as, “Sarah has 21 candles and gets 30 more. John has 34 candles. Who has more candles?” It turns out preschoolers are great at solving questions like that. Before they've learned how to do math with numerals and symbols, their brains' approximation centers are already hard at work.

    After we learn symbolic math, do we still have any use for our inborn math sense? Justin Halberda at Johns Hopkins University gave us an answer in his study. He challenged a group of 14-year-olds with an approximation test: The kids stared at a computer screen and saw groups of yellow and blue dots flash by, too quickly to count. Then they had to say whether there had been more blue dots or yellow dots. The researchers found that most were able to answer correctly when there were 25 yellow dots and 10 blue ones. When the groups were closer in size, 11 yellow dots and 10 blue ones, fewer kids answered correctly.

    The big surprise in this study came when the researcher compared the kids' approximation test scores to their scores on standardized math tests. He found that kids who did better on the flashing dot test had better standardized test scores, and vice versa (反之亦然). It seems that, far from being irrelevant, your math sense might predict your ability at formal math.

    I began cycling in 2004 when I was a poor student. It was dangerous, sure, but cycling is the fastest, cheapest point-to-point form of transport in Melbourne. I own a car now, but that's just for transporting the baby or groceries.

    I hate driving. So it's been quite encouraging watching the growth in cyclist numbers over the past decade. It is said that over 10,000 cyclists enter the CBD (Central Business District) each day, taking pressure off public transport. But as more people take to cycling as a way of transport, the number of cyclists seriously injured or killed keeps increasing. And that is a sign that our infrastructure (基础设施) is still not good enough.

    Melbourne was once a dream for cyclists—flat, long, wide roads, with plenty of paths along rivers. Now, cycling can be deadly, with roads taken up by cars. I have a friend who broke her back and was lucky to escape death and others with broken bones. In my time riding, I've been forced off the road by a truck, cut off by four-wheel drives, and told to get off the road. Drivers are a particularly rude to cyclists. And that's a sign of exactly one thing: inadequate infrastructure.

    We shouldn't need to be taught how to coexist in the same narrow space. Drivers and cyclists should be kept apart. Designing bike paths so riders are channelled between moving cars and parked cars is deadly. All it takes is one daydreaming driver to fling open the door and you are gone. That's what happened to the young university student James.

    This year, there are to be new cycling lanes (车道) built on Glen Road, where James died in 2010. But these lanes are not safe. Cyclists must still pass between two rows of cars.

    In a recent series of experiments at the University of California, researchers studied toddlers' thinking about winners and losers, bullies (欺凌) and victims.

    In the first experiment, toddlers (学步儿童) watched a scene in which two puppets (木偶) had conflicting goals: One was crossing a stage from right to left, and the other from left to right. The puppets met in the middle and stopped. Eventually one puppet bowed down and moved aside, letting the other one pass by. Then researchers asked the toddlers which puppet they liked. The result: 20 out of 23 toddlers picked the higher-status puppet—the one that did not bow or move aside. It seems that individuals can gain status for being dominant (占优势的) and toddlers like winners better than losers.

    But then researchers had another question: Do toddlers like winners no matter how they win? So researchers did another experiment very similar to the one described above. But this time, the conflict ended because one puppet knocked the other down and out of the way. Now when the toddlers were asked who they liked, the results were different: Only 4 out of 23 children liked the winner.

    These data suggest that children already love a winner by the age of 21-31 months. This does not necessarily mean that the preference is inborn: 21 months is enough time to learn a lot of things. But if a preference for winners is something we learn, we appear to learn it quite early.

    Even more interesting, the preference for winners is not absolute. Children in our study did not like a winner who knocked a competitor down. This suggests that already by the age of 21-31 months, children's liking for winners is balanced with other social concerns, including perhaps a general preference for nice or helpful people over aggressive ones.

    In a time when the news is full of stories of public figures who celebrate winning at all costs, these results give us much confidence. Humans understand dominance, but we also expect strong individuals to guide, protect and help others. This feels like good news.