问答题

问答题Thirty years ago this week, an American President arrived in China on a trip designed to end decades of estrangement and confront centuries of suspicion. President Richard Nixon showed the world that two vastly different governments could meet on the grounds of common interest, and in a spirit of mutual respect. During the 30 years since, America and China have exchanged many handshakes of friendship and commerce. And as we have had more contact with each other, the citizens of our two countries have gradually learned more about each other. Once, America knew China only by its history as a great and enduring civilization. Today, we see a China that is still defined by noble traditions of family, scholarship, and honor. And we see a China that is becoming one of the most dynamic and creative societies in the world as demonstrated by all the knowledge and potential right here in this room. China is on a rising path, and America welcomes the emergence of a strong, peaceful, and prosperous China.

问答题News Report: Xu Ting could not believe his luck when he discovered the generous ATM in Guangzhou in April 2006. For every 1,000 yuan the migrant worker withdrew from the machine, he noticed that his bank account was only debited by I yuan. It was discovered that in nearly eight months Xu withdrew 175,000 yuan in 171 transactions through this malfunctioning ATM. He was arrested a year later, charged and sentenced to life imprisonment for larceny. The judgment, however, has sparked an outcry from the public. Topic: Should taking advantage of a malfunctioning ATM warrant a life sentence? Questions for Reference: 1. Do you think that life sentence is unfair and far too harsh? Why or why not? 2. Do you think what Xu Ting did is a crime of theft? You can explain either from the viewpoint of a specialist or that of a layperson. 3. What will you do if you face such a malfunctioning ATM?

问答题 Last week's news that scientists had cloned a sheep sent academics and the public into a panic at the prospect that humans might be next. That's an understandable reaction. Cloning is a radical challenge to the most fundamental laws of biology, so it's not unreasonable to be concerned that it might threaten human society and dignity. Yet much of the ethical opposition seems also to grow out of an unthinking disgust—a sort of "yuk factor. " And that makes it hard for even trained scientist sand ethicists to see the matter clearly. While human cloning might not offer great benefits to humanity, no one has yet made a persuasive case that it would do any real harm, either. Theologians contend that to clone a human would violate human dignity. That would surely be true if a cloned individual were treated as a lesser being, with fewer rights or lower stature. But why suppose that cloned person wouldn't share the same rights and dignity as the rest of us? A leading lawyer-ethicist has suggested that cloning would violate the "right to genetic identity." Where did he come up with such a right? It makes perfect sense to say that adult persons have a right not to be cloned without their voluntary, informed consent. But if such consent is given, whose "right" to genetic identity would be violated? Many of the science-fiction scenarios prompted by the prospect of human cloning turn out, upon reflection, to be absurdly improbable. There's the fear, for instance, that parents might clone a child to have "spare parts" in case the original child needs an organ transplant. But parents of identical twins don't view one child as an organ farm for the other. Why should cloned children's parents be any different? Another disturbing thought is that cloning will lead to efforts to breed individuals with genetic qualities perceived as exceptional (math geniuses, basketball players). Such ideas are repulsive, not only because of the "yuk factor" but also because of the horrors perpetrated by the Nazis in the name of eugenics. But there's a vast difference between "selective breeding" as practiced by totalitarian regimes (where the urge to propagate certain types of people leads to efforts to eradicate other types) and the immeasurably more benign forms already practiced in democratic societies (where, say, lawyers freely choose to marry other lawyers ). Banks stocked with the frozen sperm of geniuses already exist. They haven't created a master race because only a tiny number of women have wanted to impregnate themselves this way. Why think it will be different if human cloning becomes available? So who will likely take advantage of cloning? Perhaps a grieving couple whose child is dying. This might seem psychologically twisted. But a cloned child born to such dubious parents stands no greater or lesser chance of being loved, or rejected, or warped than a child normally conceived. Infertile couples are also likely to seek out cloning. That such couples have other options (in vitro fertilization or adoption) is not an argument for denying them the right to clone. Or consider an example raised by Judge Richard Posner: a couple in which the husband has some tragic genetic defect. Currently, if this couple wants a genetically related child, they have four not altogether pleasant options. They can reproduce naturally and risk passing on the disease to the child. They can go to a sperm bank and take a chance on unknown genes. They can try in vitro fertilization and dispose of any afflicted embryo—though that might be objectionable, too. Or they can get a male relative of the father to donate sperm, if such a relative exists. This is one case where even people unnerved by cloning might see it as not the worst option. Even if human cloning offers no obvious benefits to humanity, why ban it? In a democratic society we don't usually pass laws outlawing something before there is actual or probable evidence of harm. A moratorium on further research into human cloning might make sense, in order to consider calmly the grave question it raises. If the moratorium is then lifted, human cloning should remain a research activity for an extended period. And if it is ever attempted, it should — and no doubt will — take place only with careful scrutiny and layers of legal oversight. Most important, human cloning should be governed by the same laws that now protect human rights. A world not safe for cloned humans would be a world not safe for the rest of us.

问答题The Difficulty of Translation Since translating is a skill which requires considerable practice, most people assume that it can be taught, and to some extent this is true. But it is also true that really exceptional translators are born, not made. Potential translators must have a high level of aptitude for the creative use of language, or they are not likely to be outstanding in their profession. Perhaps the greatest benefit from instruction in translating is to become aware of one"s own limitations, something which a translator of Steinbeck"s of Mice and Men into Chinese should have learned. Then he would not have translated English mule-skinner into a Chinese phrase meaning "a person who skins the hide of a mule". For many people the need for human translation seems paradoxical in this age of computers. Some modern computers can be loaded with dictionaries and grammars, why not let computers do the work? Computers can perform certain very simple interlingual tasks, providing there is sufficient pre-editing and post-editing. But neither advertising brochures nor lyric poetry can ever been reduced to the kind of logic required of computer programs. Computer printouts of translations can often be understood, if the persons involved already know what the text is supposed to say. But the results of machine translating are usually in an unnatural form of language and sometimes just plain weird. Furthermore, real improvements will not come from merely doctoring the program or adding rules. The human brain is not only digital and analogic, but it also has a built-in system of values which gives it a componentially incalculable advantage over machines. Human translators will always be necessary for any text that is stylistically appealing and semantically complex—which includes most of what is worth communicating in another language. The most difficult texts to translate are not, however, highly literary productions, but rather those texts which say nothing, the type of language often used by politicians and delegates to international forums. In fact, a group of professional translators at the United Nations headquarters in New York City have insisted that the most difficult text to translate is one in which the speaker or writer has attempted to say nothing. The next most difficult type of text is one filled with irony and sarcasm, since in a written text the paralinguistic clues to the meaning are usually much more difficult to detect than when someone is speaking. And perhaps the third most difficult type of text is a book or article on translating in which the illustrative examples rarely match. Some people imagine that the greatest problem in translating is to find the right words and constructions in the receptor or target language. On the contrary, the most difficult task for the translator is to understand thoroughly the designative and associative meanings of the text to be translated. This involves not only knowing the meanings of the words and the syntactic relations, but also being sensitive to all the nuances of the stylist device. As one struggling translator summed up his problem, "if I really understood what the text means, I could easily translate it."

问答题Dell says the problem is that it dropped prices too much. But deeper, more threatening forces are also now at play. The first is the resurgence of rivals, which have caught up with Dell"s low price model. By driving prices down, Dell has unintentionally cut costs for its rivals too. "The supply chain has become as standardized as the components—the money has been wrung out," explains an expert. Dell, by not working through retail outlets, is still more efficient, but the cost benefits that this once brought have been whittled away. The second factor hurting Dell is that growth in the computer business is coming from the consumer market and emerging countries rather than the corporate market, in which Dell sells around 85% of its machines. Increasing sales to consumers is difficult for Dell because individuals tend to want to see and touch computers before buying them. They also like to be able to return the machine easily if it breaks. Dell"s tack of retail presence, once ballyhooed as a benefit, has turned into grave disadvantage. A third problem facing Dell is its exclusive use of Intel chips rather than lower-priced ones made by Intel"s sworn rivals, AMD. This arrangement lets Dell buy chips inexpensively and benefit from Intel"s generous co-marketing programmes. But it has started to harm Dell"s sales for higher margin computer servers.

问答题Today our lives are changing faster than at any time in history. Here we report on two important changes that will have a big impact on our everyday lives in the future. The cashless society Cash and bank-notes will disappear almost completely. They will be replaced by smart cards—plastic cards with microchip processors "loaded" with some money. When we pay for goods, the retailer will insert our smart card into a payment terminal and money will be transferred from our card to the retailer's card. When all the money is used up, we will be able to "reload" it by inserting it into a telephone, dialing our bank account and transferring money to the card from the account. If we want to transfer money from our card to a bank account, we will use the same method. Smart cards will be able to hold several different currencies at the same time, so if we go aboard, we will use our smart cards in the same way. Interactive telephone Human telephone operators will be sharply replaced by talking computers. These computers will recognize speech, ask us what information we need, access the information from a database, and convert it to speech. If we want to book a flight or pay a bill by phone, we will interact with a talking computer to do so. Of course, this won't happen until all the technology is in place, but when it is we will soon get used to interacting with computers in this way. Human telephone operators will be used only for more complex operations such as dealing with complaints or solving concrete problems.

问答题[此试题无题干]

问答题Chinese orphanages are filled with perfectly wonderful infants and toddling Chinese girls abandoned by their parents. However, many of the Chinese infertile couples are unwilling to adopt orphans. Topic: Shall we encourage more people to adopt? Questions for Reference: 1. What do you think are good reasons for people to adopt orphans? 2. Why doesn"t an infertile couple usually want to adopt a child from the orphanage? 3. There are so many abandoned children in the orphanages. What shall we do to solve this problem?

问答题 Directions: In this part of the test, you will hear 2 English passages. You will hear the passages ONLY ONCE. After you have heard each passage, translate it into Chinese and write your version in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET. You may take notes while you are listening.

问答题伟大的抗战精神，蕴含着中华儿女和衷共济的团结精神。面对亡国灭种的民族危机，中华儿女，地无分南北，人无分老幼，有钱出钱，有力出力，举国上下，万众一心，用血肉筑成了一座侵略者不可逾越的新的长城。“富贵不能淫，贫贱不能移，威武不能屈”，在民族患难的时代，这种浩然之气概，不屈之节操，激励着中华儿女赴汤蹈火，殊死奋战，使救亡图存成为可歌可泣、英勇卓绝的斗争。今年是中国人民抗日战争暨世界反法西斯战争胜利60周年。重温那段血与火的悲壮历史，缅怀抗日先烈的丰功伟绩，弘扬中华民族伟大的抗战精神，在今天仍然具有十分重要的意义。

问答题我们要创造更加良好的政治环境和更加自由的学术氛围，让人民追求真理、崇尚理性、尊重科学，探索自然的奥秘、社会的法则和人生的真谛。正因为有了充分的学术自由，像牛顿这样伟大的科学家，才能够思潮奔腾、才华迸发，敢于思考前人从未思考过的问题，敢于踏进前人从未涉足的领域。 我们历来主张尊重世界文明的多样性，倡导不同文明之间的对话、交流与合作。我国已故著名社会学家费孝通先生，上世纪30年代曾在英国留学并获得博士学位，一生饱经沧桑。他在晚年提出：“各美其美，美人之美，美美与共，世界大同。”费老先生的这一人生感悟，生动反映了当代中国人开放包容的胸怀。

问答题Answer: 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If you thought that only women on the heavier side felt bad about their bodies after being bombarded with images of stick thin models, well, you"d better think again, for the affliction is common to all members of the fairer sex. And, it doesn"t take a week or a month or even a year for those negative feelings to set in, but only three minutes. In a recent study, researchers measured how some women felt about themselves, from their body weight to their hair, and then exposed them to images of models in magazine ads for one to three minutes. The women were then asked to evaluate themselves again, and in all cases, they reported a drop in their level of satisfaction with their own bodies. The study suggests that the majority of women would benefit from social interventions aimed at curbing the effects of the media. Unlike past interventions that have targeted specific groups of women, such as those with preexisting eating and body-image concerns, this study suggests that such attempts are important for all women.

问答题In general, investment in the United States will be in the form of a subsidiary. It is possible for a non-U. S. corporation to operate a branch office in the United States, but there are significant disadvantages to a branch, particularly with respect to its tax treatment. Branches of non-U. S. corporations are not subject to federal regulation or registration requirements. However, each state will require a "foreign" corporation to "qualify" before "doing business" in that state. A corporation will be considered "foreign" if it is organized under the laws of another country or another state, and so this is not a requirement imposed only on non-U. S. investors. "Doing business" is a technical term that implies a substantial presence in the state. This would include the ownership or leasing of real property, the maintenance of a stock of goods for local sale, employees and the like. Selling products to local customers, either directly or through an independent sales representative or distributor, would not in itself constitute "doing business". The states actually exercise little control over the qualification process other than to ensure that the qualifying entity's name is not confusingly similar to an already registered entity and that all registration fees and taxes are paid (qualification is basically a form of taxation). In most states, qualification for a non-U. S. corporation consists of a relatively easy application, a registration fee, and a notarized or legalized copy of the corporation's articles of incorporation (in English or a certified translation).

问答题For a keynote speaker at a conference on wilderness conservation, Pavan Sukhdev possessed astrange job title: banker. Sukhdev, a high-ranking executive of Deutsche Bank who helped build India's modern financial markets, had a fiscal message to deliver. The loss of forests is costing the global economy between $ 2.5 trillion and $ 4.5 trillion a year, he said. Many trillions more in costs arise from the loss of vegetation to filter water, bees to pollinate crops, microbes to breakdown toxins, and dozens of other "ecosystem services. " For centuries, economies have risen and collapsed based on the market value of the products extracted from nature-timber, coal, metals, game. And yet the value of much of what nature supplies hasn't been reflected in the numbers. A new movement now seeks to put this right by attaching an economic value to the services nature provides. The idea is predicated on the notion that since a paper mill, say, needs water as well as trees, there should be some kind of economic mechanism whereby it pays to help keep the water flowing. The same is true for dozens of other ecosystem services across a wide range of industries. There's scarcely a business in the world that doesn't rely in some way on natural features that help control flooding, disseminate seeds, fend off pests, and hold soil in place. According to a study Sukhdev is conducting for the United Nations, protecting and restoring damaged ecosystems can deliver extraordinarily high rates of return on investment--40, 50, even 80 percent. "People need to start thinking of 'ecological infrastructure'as something they can and should invest in," Sukdhev said at the conference. It sounds radical even to talk about nature in the language of finance, but it's quickly becoming a mainstream practice. One of the few tangible achievements expected from the climate talks in Copenhagen this month is agreement on a program called REDD, or Reducing Emissions From Deforestation and Forest Degradation, a complex set of regulations that would help developing countries keep their rainforests standing by turning their carbon-storing capacity into a source of income. Trees, after all, absorb carbon dioxide from the air, which can be seen as a service that offsets tailpipe and smokestack emissions. REDD would establish a market in which wealth ycountries can pay countries with old-growth forests, such as Brazil, Indonesia, and Guyana, for their carbon stocks, thereby creating an economic incentive to preserve the jungle. Carbon storage is only one of many services that could enter the global economy in the next few years. Watershed protection is already generating revenue. The Nature Conservancy, a conservation group, has set up "water funds" in the Southwestern U. S. and parts of South America. Urban water utilities, hydroelectric-power providers, and other users that rely on regular flows of clean water downstream pay into the funds to finance water shedprotection upstream. Elsewhere in the U.S. , federal environmental laws have enabled thriving markets for wetland and endangered-specie shabitat conservation. Under the Clean Water Act, developers who plan to drain or fill in wetlands must create an equal amount of wetlands within the same watershed to conform to a policy of "no net loss." For-profit companies like Wildlands, based in Rocklin, California, preserve, restore, or create wetlands that function as "mitigation banks," in which developers purchase credits to of fsetdestruction they cause. Conservation banks function in a similar way, preserving habitats for listed species. Mitigation banking alone has grown to a $ 3 billion-a-year industry. The next step is to turn ecosystem services into a viable portfolio option for large investors--such as pension funds--and to generate the capital needed to carry out large-scale conservation efforts. Experts are looking into bundling different services together into financial instruments. One former bond trader is building a private exchange that would make it easier for investors to identify ecosystem projects and trade credits. Not everyone thinks using market mechanisms is a good idea. Critics say that REDD, for instance, could protect one rainforest from clear-cutting merely by sending the logging trucks to a different forest. There's also a worry that carbon credits could easily be faked. In Papua New Guinea, government officials and foreign firms are already embroiled in a scandal involving duped locals and bogus projects. The potential upside of markets, though, may be too significant to ignore. "There's this inherent feeling that there's something unethical about a market, that it's permission to pollute, "says Tom Lovejoy, biodiversity chair at the Heinz Center in Washington, D.C. "But at the moment there's nothing else on the table that deals with this at a big-enough scale. " Whole, functioning ecosystems have never been worth as much as their disassembled parts. Turning that equation around may be the best hope for keeping ecosystems intact.1.What are the "ecosystem services"(para. 1)? What is the "ecological infrastructure?" (para. 2)according to Sukhdev?

问答题Questions 1～3 From sacred cow to white elephant is a short jump. Wind power, once seen as the eco-friendly cure-all for Britain"s energy problems, is attracting unprecedented criticism. The latest campaign, which unites veteran Greens and the opposition Tories, opposes a proposed installation of 27 wind turbines next to Romney Marsh in Kent, a noted bird sanctuary and beauty spot. Hundreds more are planned elsewhere—many in beautiful bits of the countryside where some of Britain"s richest people happen to live. A bunch of media-savvy local organizations is now lobbying hard to stop them. The government remains unmoved. It calls wind power "the most proven green source of electricity generation" and cites Denmark as a role model. Renewables (mostly wind) account for 20% of electrical generation capacity there. Renewable energy is needed both to cut CO 2 emissions, promised under the Kyoto treaty, and to reach the government"s own target of generating 10% of British electricity from renewable sources by 2010. The cost of this to the taxpayer is likely to be ￡1 billion a year by 2020. But as well as Tories, toffs and country-lovers, many others think that wind power is seriously flawed. The first big problem is that it is too expensive. Although the British Wind Energy Association puts the cost of electricity from onshore wind farms at 2.5p per kilowatt-hour, only slightly more costly than other power sources, the Royal Academy of Engineering claims that on a more realistic view of construction costs it is much dearer(more expensive): 3.7p when generated onshore and 5.5p offshore. The government has tried to bridge this gap with tradable certificates. The wind-gatherers gain one of these for each megawatt-hour they generate. Power distribution companies then buy them as an alternative to paying the fines levied for failing to buy a set proportion (currently 4.9%) of renewable energy annually. But a recent House of Lords report noted a big snag: the nearer the industry gets to meeting the governments targets, the less the value of the certificates once the target is passed, their worth falls abruptly to zero. So the certificates, which will cost consumers a cool ￡500m this year and will be even more expensive next year, cap the supply of renewable energy instead of encouraging it. In effect, firms will buy only the minimum amount of renewable energy necessary to comply with the law. Then there are the engineering problems. Too light a breeze means no power too strong a gale and the turbines shut down to prevent damage. Even the wind-lovers expect that the farms will manage only 30% of their full capacity on average. Worse, that output can fluctuate rapidly—by up to 20% of the total national wind capacity in the space of a single hour, according to Hugh Sharman, an energy consultant, who has studied Denmark"s wind industry. Furthermore, in a typical year like 2002, he says, there were 54 days when the air was so still that virtually no wind power was generated at all. But whereas Denmark can import power from Norway and Germany to keep the lights on during calm periods, Britain"s power grid is not set up for imports. So conventional coal-, oil- or gas-fired power stations would have to be kept running, ready to take up the load. That sharply raises the real cost of wind energy and means extra CO 2 emissions. Ministers may be right when they argue that wind power is the only renewable energy source that has even a theoretical chance of meeting the government" s targets. Given the costs and technical uncertainties, perhaps it would be better to abandon those targets altogether.

问答题年近古稀的我，应该说是饱经风霜、世事洞明了。但依然时而明白，时而懵懂。孔子曰：“七十而从心所欲，不逾矩。”大概已达到大彻大悟的思想境界了吧。吾辈凡夫，生存在功利社会，终日忙忙碌碌，为柴米油盐所困，酒色财气所惑，既有追求，又有烦恼，若想做到从心所欲，难矣哉! 老年人的从心所欲，不是说可以我行我素，倚老卖老，从心所欲，说白了，就是要有自己的活法，在心灵深处构筑独自的“自由王国”。海阔任鱼跃，天高任鸟飞，悠悠然自得其乐。这种自由，既是无限的，又是有限的，无限的从心所欲寓于有限的生活空间。我想，这大概就是孔夫子所说的“不逾矩”吧。

问答题传统的中国画，不模仿自然，是以表现自然，是以表现心灵舒发性情为主体的意象主义艺术，画中意象与书法中的文字一样，是一种适于书写的极度概括抽象的象征符号，伴随着意象符号的是传统的程式表现技巧。古代的大师们创造着独自心中的意象及其程式，风格迥异，生机勃勃。 后来，多数人惯于对古人程式的模仿，所作之画千人一面。这样的画作一泛滥，雅的不再雅，俗的则更俗。近代中国画仍然在庸俗没落的模式漩涡中进退两难，阿文与当今的有识同行一样，有志标新立异，寻找自我，建立起现代的属于自己的新意象、新格局，且一直背靠着高雅的传统。

问答题A future of temporary networks would seem to run counter to the wave of mergers sweeping the global economy. The headlines of the business press tell the story, "Compaq buys Digital"; "WorldCom buys MC1"; "Citibank merges with Travelers"; "Daimler-Benz acquires Chrysler" Yet when we look beneath the surface of all merger and acquisition activity, we see signs of a counter-phenomenon: the disintegration of the large corporation. Twenty-five years ago, one in five US workers was employed by a Fortune 500 company. Today, the ratio has dropped to less than one in 10. Large companies are far less vertically integrated than they were in the past and rely more and more on outside suppliers to produce components and provide services. While big companies control ever larger flows of cash, they are exerting less and less direct control over actual business activity. They are, you might say, growing hollow. Even within large corporations, decisions are increasingly being pushed to lower levels. Workers are rewarded not for efficiently carrying out orders but for figuring out what needs to be done and doing it. Many large industrial companies have broken themselves up into numerous independent units that transact business with one another almost as if they were separate companies. What underlies this trend? The answers lie in the basic economics of organizations. Business organizations are, in essence, mechanisms for co-ordination. They exist to guide the flow of work, materials, ideas and money, and the form they take is strongly affected by the co-ordination technologies available. When it is cheaper to conduct transactions internally, within the bounds of a corporation, organizations grow larger, but when it is cheaper to conduct them externally, with independent entities in the open market, organizations stay small or shrink. The co-ordination technologies of the industrial era—the train and the telegraph, the car and the telephone, the mainframe computer and the fax machine—made internal transactions not only possible but advantageous. Companies were able to manage large organizations centrally, which provided them with economies of scale in manufacturing, marketing, distribution and other activities. It made economic sense to control many different functions and businesses directly and to hire the legions of administrators and supervisors needed to manage them. Big was good. But with the introduction of powerful personal computers and broad electronic networks— the coordination technologies of the 21st century—the economic equation changes. Because information can be shared instantly and inexpensively among many people in many locations, the value of centralized decision-making and bureaucracy decreases. Individuals can manage themselves, co-ordinating their efforts through electronic links with other independent parties. Small becomes good. In one sense, the new co-ordination technologies enable us to return to the pre-industrial organizational model of small, autonomous businesses. But there is one crucial difference: electronic networks enable these microbusinesses to tap into the global reservoirs of information, expertise and financing that used to be available only to large companies. The small companies enjoy many of the benefits of the big without sacrificing the leanness, flexibility and creativity of the small. In the future, as communications technologies advance and networks become more efficient, the shift to e-lancing promises to accelerate. Should this happen, the dominant business organization of the future may not be a stable, permanent corporation but rather an elastic network that might sometimes exist for no more than a day or two. We will enter the age of the temporary company.