问答题What does the author mean by "non-Netizens"? Who are those people?

问答题The three sacred words "duty", "honor" and "country" reverently dictate what you should be, what you can be, and what you will be. They urge you to build courage when courage seems to fail, to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith, to create hope when hope becomes abandoned. I am convinced that these words teach you to be proud and unbending in honest failure, but humble and gentle in success; not to substitute words for action; not to seek the path of comfort, but to face the stress of difficulty and challenge; to learn to stand up in the storm, but to have compassion on those who fall; to have a heart that is clean, a goal that is high; to learn to laugh, yet never forget how to weep; to reach into the future, yet never neglect the past; to be serious, yet never take yourself too seriously; to be modest so that you will remember the simplicity of true greatness, the open mind of true wisdom, the meekness of true strength. In short, these words teach you to be both a militant fighter and a gentleman.

问答题黄浦江纵横南北，把上海分为两部分。浦东因位于黄浦江以东而得名。本世纪20至30年代，随着以外滩为核心的金融、商贸区的建立，外商和我国民族资本家开始把经济活动伸向浦东地区。但黄浦江的阻隔，极大地影响了浦东的经济发展。浦江两岸形成了一边是万商云集的十里洋场，一边是以自然农作物为主的大片农田的鲜明对照。 自1990年中央宣布开放浦东以来，浦东新区的建设日新月异，突飞猛进。高楼大厦如雨后春笋，拔地而起，田园风光和现代建筑交相辉映，浦东正以崭新的面貌跨入新世纪。

问答题What is "hedge fund"? What impacts does it have on Asian countries?

问答题

问答题

问答题{{B}}Directions:{{/B}} {{I}}In this part of the test, you will hear 5 sentences in English. You will hear the sentences ONLY ONCE. After you have heard each sentence, translate it into Chinese and write your version in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET.{{/I}}

问答题Today in the United States and the developed world, women are better off than ever before. But the blunt truth is that men still run the world. While women continue to outpace men in educational achievement, we have ceased making real progress at the top of any industry. Women hold around 14% of Fortune 500 executive-officer positions and about 17% of board seats, numbers that have barely budged over the last decade. This means that when it comes to making the decisions that most affect our world, our voices are not heard equally. It is time for us to face the fact that our revolution has stalled. A truly equal world would be one where women ran half of our countries and companies and men ran half of our homes. The laws of economics and many studies of diversity tell us that if we tapped the entire pool of human resources and talent, our performance would improve. Throughout my career, I was told over and over about inequalities in the workplace and how hard it would be to have a career and a family. I rarely, however, heard anything about the ways I was holding myself back. From the moment they are born, boys and girls are treated differently. Women internalize the negative messages we get throughout our lives—the messages that say it"s wrong to be outspoken, aggressive, more powerful than men—and pull back when we should lean in. We must not ignore the real obstacles women face in the professional world, from sexism and discrimination to a lack of flexibility, access to child care and parental leave. But women can dismantle the internal barriers holding us back today. Here is one example of how women can lean in. In 2003, Columbia Business School professor Frank Flynn and New York University professor Cameron Anderson ran an experiment. They started with a Harvard Business School case study about a real-life entrepreneur named Heidi Roizen. It described how Roizen became a successful venture capitalist by using her "outgoing personality ... and vast personal and professional network ... [which] included many of the most powerful business leaders in the technology sector". Half the students in the experiment were assigned to read Heidi"s story. The other half got the same story with just one difference—the name was changed from Heidi to Howard. When students were polled, they rated Heidi and Howard as equally competent. But Howard came across as a more appealing colleague. Heidi was seen as selfish and not "the type of person you would want to hire or work for". This experiment supports what research has already clearly shown, success and likeability are positively correlated for men and negatively correlated for women. When a man is successful, he is liked by both men and women. When a woman is successful, people of both genders like her less. I believe this bias is at the very core of why women are held back. It is also at the very core of why women hold themselves back. When a woman excels at her job, both men and women will comment that she is accomplishing a lot but is "not as well liked by her peers". She is probably also "too aggressive", "not a team player", "a bit political"; she "can"t be trusted" or is "difficult". Those are all things that have been said about me and almost every senior woman I know. The solution is making sure everyone is aware of the penalty women pay for success. Recently at Facebook, a manager received feedback that a woman who reported to him was "too aggressive". Before including this in her review, he decided to dig deeper. He went back to the people who gave the feedback and asked what aggressive actions she had taken. After they answered, he asked point-blank, "If a man had done those same things, would you have considered him too aggressive?" They each said no. By showing both men and women how female colleagues are held to different standards, we can start changing attitudes today.

问答题To date, the bulk of the public debate about copyright and new technology has focused on an issue that I consider to be secondary, the issue of how new technology alters the balance of power between consumers and a relatively narrow group of producers, primarily the producers of certain types of music and film. By focusing so narrowly on that issue, and framing that issue as being about "kids" stealing music", we run the risk of overlooking how bad copyright laws are increasingly affecting a much more important group of cultural producers. I am the founder of Wikipedia, a charitable effort to organize thousands of volunteers to write a high-quality encyclopedia in every language of the world. We the Wikipedians have achieved remarkable success in our five-year history, and we"ve done it as volunteers freely sharing our knowledge. And yet, strangely enough, in addition to researching facts on hundreds of thousands of topics, we are forced to become copyright experts, because so much of our cultural heritage is being threatened by absurd limits on fair use of information in the public domain. ! get two to three threatening lawyergrams each week; one I just received from a famous London museum begins, typically, "We notice you have a number of images on your website which are of portraits in the collection of [our museum] ... Unauthorized reproduction of such content may be an infringement ..." I now respond with a two-part letter. First, I patiently and tediously explain that museums do not and cannot own the copyrights to paintings that have been in the public domain for hundreds of years. And then I simply say. "You should be ashamed of yourselves." Museums exist to educate the public about our shared cultural heritage. The abuse of copyright to corner that heritage is a moral crime. The excuse normally given, that producing digital reproductions is costly and time-consuming, and museums need to be able to recoup that cost, is entirely bogus. Just give us permission, and Wikipedians will go to any museum in the world immediately to make high-quality digital images of any artwork. The solution to preserving our heritage and communicating it in a digital form is not to lock it up, but to get out of our way. This issue, public-domain artworks, is about an abuse of existing law. But the law itself is also a problem. Copyrights have been repeatedly extended to absurd lengths for all kinds of works, whether the author aims to protect them or not. Even works that have no economic value are locked away under copyright, preventing Wikipedians from rewriting and updating them. Every school system in the world faces the problem of expensive texts. Wikipedia shows a way to a solution, and we have founded a supporting project called Wikibooks to implement that solution. Here, thousands of volunteers are working to write textbooks. If we still lived in an era of reasonable copyright lengths (14 to 28 years, with registration), it would be no problem for us to seek out works of lapsed copyright, abandoned by their owners, and update them quickly. We could cut the costs of textbooks in schools radically, not just in the United States and other wealthy countries, but in the developing world as well. And finally, the example set by Wikipedia and Wikibooks is beginning to spread, in an explosion of creativity. Another of my projects, the for-profit Wikicities, allows communities to form and build knowledge bases or other works on any topic of interest. Again, thousands of people are working to write the definitive guides to humor, films, books, etc., and they are doing this work voluntarily and placing it all under free licenses as a gift to the world. And, of course, here we have again all the same problems of abusive application of copyright law as at Wikipedia and Wikibooks. We obey the law; we are not about civil disobedience. We want only to be good, to do good and to share knowledge in a million different ways. We have the people to do it. We have the technology to do it. And we will do it, bad law or no. But good law, law that recognizes a new paradigm of collaborative creativity, will make our job a lot easier. Copyright reform is not about kids" stealing music. It is about recognizing the astounding possibilities inherent in the honest and intelligent use of new technologies.

问答题 Questions 4～6 They weren't exactly Hollywood's idea of a power couple: Disney CEO Robert Iger, once derided as a "suit", and studio chief Richard Cook, who got his start as a monorail operator at Disneyland. But last week Iger and Cook dropped a bomb bigger than any of the explosions you'll see in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. Just weeks after the record-smashing release of the sequel—soon to be the highest-grossing film in Disney history—Cook fired studio president Nina Jacobson and announced Disney was slashing 20 percent of its studio staff and cutting the number of films it makes each year by a third. As usual, Hollywood thought it was all about them. "People are concerned that if Disney is cutting back on live-action movies, then what are other companies going to do," says Jim Wiatt, chief executive of the William Morris Agency. The unflappable Iger's response: "We're focused on our own issues and strategies. If it has an effect on the industry, so be it. But it really is about us. " Not bad for two guys who were considered perpetual bridesmaids. Iger and Cook both spent years toiling in the shadow of larger-than-life CEO Michael Eisner, who ran Disney like his personal kingdom. When Eisner's reign came to a Shakespearean end after a shareholder revolt led by Walt Disney's nephew, Iger found himself having to audition for his boss's job. Cook, who came up through the marketing ranks, had to endure similar Tinseltown tongue-clucking from those who assumed the affable bear of a guy who didn't have teeth. No one's saying Iger and Cook aren't "sexy" anymore. In short order, Iger made up with shareholders and Pixar honcho Steve Jobs, who'd had an epic battle with Eisner, even persuading Jobs to sell the animation company to Disney. Cook, meanwhile, had been turning theme-park rides into movies and getting Disney back to its family roots. "Dick and Bob go by their own beat," says Oren Aviv, who was promoted to president of production last week. "They're not interested in fanfare or press or what other people think." (Mostly not interested: Iger did tell Newsweek once, "I hate being called a suit.") What people think now is that Disney is setting the pace for the industry. The film business has been on shaky ground: U.S. box office is flat, DVD sales have stalled and the cost of making movies is soaring. Family films seem like the only sure bets these days, and Disney is in a prime position to meet the demand. "Disney is the only real brand name in the movie business around the world," says Cook. In fact, Iger is taking the name "Disney World" quite literally. He spoke to Newsweek Friday after flying home from a five-day trip to Asia, where he attended the stage premiere of The Lion King in Shanghai. His immediate goal is to build the Disney brand in China and India. Iger has also aggressively embraced technological advances, podcasting and webcasting episodes of Lost and Desperate Housewives, hits on Disney's ABC network. "I don't see technology as a threat," he says. "Technology allows us to be in step with the consumer. " All of which sounds pretty good to Wall Street. Last week's cuts will save the company between $ 90 million and $100 million a year, according to Cook, and while that wasn't enough to boost its stock price, it sure doesn't hurt investor relations. "Iger has stated his goals and stuck to [them]; investors like that predictability," says analyst Jason Helfstein of CIBC World Markets. "He's widely regarded in a positive light." Ironic, since he wasn't supposed to have the job in the first place.

问答题

问答题A proposal to change long-standing federal policy and deny citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants on U. S. soil ran aground this month in Congress, but it is sure to resurface—kindling bitter debate even if it fails to become law. At issue is "birthright citizenship" —provided for since the Constitution's 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. Section 1 of that amendment, drafted with freed slaves in mind, says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Some conservatives in Congress, as well as advocacy groups seeking to crack down on illegal immigration, say the amendment has been misapplied over the years, that it was never intended to grant citizenship automatically to babies of illegal immigrants. Thus they contend that federal legislation, rather than a difficult-to-achieve constitutional amendment, would be sufficient to end birthright citizenship. "Most Americans feel it doesn't make any sense for people to come into the country illegally, give birth and have a new U.S. citizen," said the spokesman of the federation of American immigration reform. "But the advocates for illegal immigrants will make a fuss; they'll claim you're punishing the children, and I suspect the leadership doesn't want to deal with that. /

问答题中医是中国文化不可分割的一部分，为振兴中华做出了巨大的贡献。如今，中医和西医在中国的医疗保健领域并驾齐驱。中医以其独特的诊断手法、系统的治疗方式和丰富的典籍材料，备受世界瞩目。用西医的毒性和化学疗法治疗症会引起副作用，中医疗法却公认能显著地化解这副作用。 中国的中医事业由国家中医管理局负责、有条不紊地开展和发扬。现在国家已经出台了管理中医的政策、政令和法规，引导并促进这个新兴产业的研究和开发。 在定义上，中医是指导中国传统医理论和实践的一种医学，它包括中医疗法、中草、针灸、推拿和气功。

问答题Who is John W. Rogers Jr. ? What does the author want to tell us from his example?