单选题"The imperative to self-knowledge has always been at the heart of philosophical inquiry," wrote MIT professor Sherry Turkle in the insightful book about the web and the self, Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. Published in 1995 as the second part of a trilogy that examined our relationships with technology, it looked at how we are who we are in online spaces. And what that means for us offline. The good news is that the results are positive: "Play has always been an important aspect of our individual efforts to build identity," she said, referencing developmental psychologist Erik Erikson, and nodding to the theories of psychoanalysts Freud, Lacan and Jung. "In terms of our views of the self," she wrote, "new images of multiplicity, heterogeneity, flexibility, and fragmentation dominate current thinking about human identity. " At the time Life on the Screen was released, most of the visitors were college students and their professors from a remarkably small talent pool, and a surprisingly small geography. They were tech-savvy, and generically open-minded about the new fields of virtual exploration that lay within the networks of this new communication platform. They were, in other words, liberal, enlightened types who were more willing to embrace the unprecedented fluidity of self-expression that this new technology uniquely afforded. As a psychoanalyst and a web user herself, Turkle spent much of the book explaining why the articulation of multiple personalities wasn't pathological. Contrary to its Latin root, identity need not mean "the same", she argued. "No one aspect can be claimed as the absolute, true self", she wrote, maintaining that the web allowed us the opportunity to get to know our "inner diversity". In the great psychoanalytic tradition, she said that self-actualisation meant coming to terms with who we are, and integrating each aspect of it into a coherent and well-integrated us. Almost everyone has experienced this kind of identity play. Even if you've never ventured into an online game or been a signed-up member of a web community, you've probably developed a profile for a social network, written a blog, styled a website, commented on an article. But things are different from the time when Turkle was writing Life on the Screen. Nowadays, our virtual social lives are increasingly integrated. with our offline social lives. The freedom of expression is curtailed by the threat of offline consequences from online actions. Today, your reputation offline is far more closely tied to your reputation online than before. In fact, our experience of contemporary identity online is disarmingly similar to offline. However, I still subscribe to the old Turkle. Consequence-free online environments allow us to practise and play without fear of offline effect, and offer an extraordinary place to experience the fluidity of our selves: I can be anyone, even a dog. As Tom MacMaster found, there still are places online where this is possible.

单选题In a paper just published in Science, Peter Gordon of Columbia University uses his study of the Piraha and their counting system to try to answer a tricky linguistic question. The Piraha, a group of hunter-gatherers who live along the banks of the Maiei River in Brazil, use a system of counting called "one-two-many". In this, the word for "one" translates to "roughly one" (similar to "one or two" in English), the word for "two" means "a slightly larger amount than one" (similar to "a few" in English), and the word for "many" means "a much larger amount". This question was posed by Benjamin Lee Whorl in the 1930s. Whorl studied Hopi, an Amerindian language very different from tile Eurasian languages that had hitherto been the subject of academic linguistics. His work led him to suggest that language not only influences thought but, more strongly, that it determines thought. While there is no dispute that language influences what people think about, evidence suggesting it determines thought is inconclusive. For example, in 1972, Eleanor Rosch and Karl Heider investigated the colour-naming abilities of the Dani people of Indonesia. The Dani have words for only two colours.- black and white. But Dr. Rosch and Dr. Heider found that, even so, Dani could distinguish and comprehend other colours. That does not support the deterministic version of the Whorl hypothesis. While recognising that there are such things as colours for which you have no name is certainly a cognitive leap, it may not be a good test of Whorf's ideas. Colours, after all, are out there everywhere. Numbers, by contrast, are abstract, so may be a better test. Dr. Gordon therefore spent a month with the Piraha and elicited the help of seven of them to see how far their grasp of numbers extended. The tests began simply, with a row of, say, seven evenly spaced batteries. Gradually, they got more complicated. The more complicated tests included tasks such as matching numbers of unevenly spaced objects, replicating the number of objects from memory, and copying a number of straight lines from a drawing. In the tests that involved matching the number and layout of objects they could see, participants were pretty good when faced with two or three items, but found it harder to cope as the number of items rose. Things were worse when the participants had to remember the number of objects in a layout and replicate it "blind", rather than matching a layout they could see. In this case the success rate dropped to zero when the number of items became, in terms of their language, "many". And line drawing produced the worst results of all--though that could have had as much to do with the fact that drawing is not part of Piraha culture as it did with the difficulties of numerical abstraction. Indeed, Dr. Gordon described the task of reproducing straight lines as being accomplished only with "heavy sighs and groans".

单选题The decision of the New York Philharmonic to hire Alan Gilbert as its next music director has been the talk of the classical-music world ever since the sudden announcement of his appointment in 2009. For the most part, the response has been favorable, to say the least. “Hooray! At last!” wrote Anthony Tommasini, a sober-sided classical-music critic. One of the reasons why the appointment came as such a surprise, however, is that Gilbert is comparatively little known. Even Tommasini, who had advocated Gilbert's appointment in the Times, calls him “an unpretentious musician with no air of the formidable conductor about him.” As a description of the next music director of an orchestra that has hitherto been led by musicians like Gustav Mahler and Pierre Boulez, that seems likely to have struck at least some Times readers as faint praise. For my part, I have no idea whether Gilbert is a great conductor or even a good one. To be sure, he performs an impressive variety of interesting compositions, but it is not necessary for me to visit Avery Fisher Hall, or anywhere else, to hear interesting orchestral music. All I have to do is to go to my CD shelf, or boot up my computer and download still more recorded music from iTunes. Devoted concertgoers who reply that recordings are no substitute for live performance are missing the point. For the time, attention, and money of the art-loving public, classical instrumentalists must compete not only with opera houses, dance troupes, theater companies, and museums, but also with the recorded performances of the great classical musicians of the 20th century. There recordings are cheap, available everywhere, and very often much higher in artistic quality than today's live performances; moreover, they can be “consumed” at a time and place of the listener's choosing. The widespread availability of such recordings has thus brought about a crisis in the institution of the traditional classical concert. One possible response is for classical performers to program attractive new music that is not yet available on record. Gilbert's own interest in new music has been widely noted: Alex Ross, a classical-music critic, has described him as a man who is capable of turning the Philharmonic into “a markedly different, more vibrant organization.” But what will be the nature of that difference? Merely expanding the orchestra's repertoire will not be enough. If Gilbert and the Philharmonic are to succeed, they must first change the relationship between America's oldest orchestra and the new audience it hops to attract.

单选题Directions: Read the following text. Choose the best word(s) for each numbered blank. Our ape-men forefathers had no obvious natural weapons in the struggle for{{U}} (1) {{/U}}in the open. They had neither the powerful teeth nor the strong claws of the big cats. They could not {{U}}(2) {{/U}}with the bear, whose strength, speed and claws{{U}} (3) {{/U}}an impressive " small fire" weaponry. They could not even defend themselves{{U}} (4) {{/U}}running swiftly like the horses, zebras or small animals. If the ape-men had attempted to compete on those terms in the open, they would have been{{U}} (5) {{/U}}to failure and extinction. But they were{{U}} (6) {{/U}}with enormous concealed advantages of a kind not possessed by any of their competitors. In the search{{U}} (7) {{/U}}the pickings of the forest, the ape-men had{{U}} (8) {{/U}}efficient stereoscopic vision and a sense of color that the animals of the grasslands did not{{U}} (9) {{/U}}. The ability to see clearly at close range permitted the ape-men to study practical problems in a way that lay far{{U}} (10) {{/U}}the reach of the original inhabitants of the grassland. Good long-distance sight was{{U}} (11) {{/U}}another matter. Lack of long-distance vision had not been a problem for forest-dwelling apes and monkeys because the{{U}} (12) {{/U}}the viewpoint, the greater the range of sight-so{{U}} (13) {{/U}}they had had to do was climb a tree. Out in the open, however, this simple solution was not{{U}} (14) {{/U}}. Climbing a hill would have helped, but in many places the ground was flat. The ape-men{{U}} (15) {{/U}}the only possible solution. They reared up as high as possible on their hind limbs and began to walk{{U}} (16) {{/U}}. This vital change of physical position brought about considerable disadvantages. It was extremely unstable and it meant that the already slow ape-men became{{U}} (17) {{/U}}still. {{U}}(18) {{/U}}, they persevered and their bone structure gradually became{{U}} (19) {{/U}}to the new, unstable position that{{U}} (20) {{/U}}them the name Homo erectus, upright man.

单选题In an interview last month, Frank Church, chairman of the Senate committee that is investigating the CIA, issued an oblique but impassioned warning, that the technology of eavesdropping had become so highly developed that Americans might soon be left with "no place to hide". That day may have arrived. Newsweek has learned that the country's most secret intelligence operation, the National Security Agency, already possesses the computerized equipment to monitor nearly all overseas telephone calls and most domestic and international printed messages. The agency's devices monitor thousands of telephone circuits, cable lines and the microwave transmissons that carry an increasing share of both spoken and written communications. Computers are programed to watch for "trigger" words or phrases indicating that a message might interest intelligence analysis, when the trigger is pulled, entire messages are tape-recorded or printed out. That kind of eavesdropping is, however, relatively simple compared with the breakthroughs that lie ahead in the field of snoopery. Already it is technically feasible to "bug" an electric typewriter by picking up its feeble electronic emissions from a remote location and then translating them into words. And some scientists believe that it may be possible in the future for remote electronic equipment to intercept and "read" human brain waves. Where such capabilities exist, so too does the potential for abuse. It is the old story of technology rushing forward with some new wonder, before the man who supposedly control the machines have figure out how to prevent the machines from controlling them.

单选题Technologists aren' t usually known for their sense of humor, but last week Scott McNealy, chief executive of Sun Microsystems, was working hard to come up with the Quip of the Day. For four contentious hours, he and another casualty of the software wars, Netscape's Jim Barksdale, took turns before the Senate Judiciary committee slamming their nemesis, Bill Gates. They called him a predator, a monopolist, the "most dangerous and powerful industrialist of our age!. Microsoft's Windows operating systems, driving 90 percent of the computers across the land, are the railroads of our dawning Information Age. No one person should be allowed to control them, they argued. Cyberspace should be open to all, Gates insisted it still was. He's no monopolist, he told the senators. Windows is vulnerable. So is his company. "Technology is ever-changing," Gates retorted. Who knows what new wave will come along and sweep even mighty Microsoft into the dustbin of history? To many that sounded a bit disingenuous, given Microsoft's dominance, and the lawmakers were skeptical, to say the least. But might Gates be right? Last week's other big tech news gave just such a hint. First, Intel announced a surprise drop in first-quarter earnings. That was followed late Friday by report that Compaq's financials would also be disappointing. Demand for computers seems to be slowing, analyst suggested--a trend due in part to a range of short-term factors, including Asia's economic crisis. "I don' t think we have clear date either as a company or an industry as to what these numbers mean," says Intel spokesman Howard High, True enough. But the slowdown is a sharp reminder that consumer demand for computers has fallen short of the hype surrounding the Info Revolution. Three years ago, 31 percent of U.S. house holds owned a computer. Today, 40 percent do. "We should be at 60 to 65 percent," says Nick Donatiello, president of Odyssey Communications, a San Francisco market-research firm. For most Americans, he suggests, the personal computer is not yet the indispensable tool that digital enthusiasts think it is. Today, new products are coming out that resemble computers but aren't, and they may eventually appeal to frustrated consumers more than hard-to-use PCs. The computer "is a technology-driven device made by technologists for technologists who don't know any better," says Donald Norman, senior technical adviser to Hewlett Packard. At the same time, new alliances between companies and industries are aiming to dash in on the Internet of tomorrow--without partnering with the titans of today. If all this poses a challenge for Intel, it portends even greater difficulties for Microsoft. All the challenges and threats pose a compelling question: if Microsoft enjoys the monopoly critics say it has, how long will it last?

单选题Which of the following statements is NOT true according the passage?

单选题Based on the information provided in paragraph 3, if a man dreamed of being hit by a train, it is likely that he______.

单选题On the ground floor of the Federal Reserve building in Washington, DC, there is an electronic game which tests a visitor's skill at setting interest rates. You have to decide how to respond to events such as rising inflation or a stockmarket crash. If you get all the answers right, the machine declares you the next Fed chairman. In real life, because of huge uncertainties about data and how the economy works, there is no obviously right answer to the question of when to change interest rates. Nor is there any easy test of who will make the best Fed chairman. So who would The Economist select for the job? Alan Greenspan will retire as Fed chairman on January 31st, after a mere 181/2 years in the job. So George Bush needs to nominate a successor soon. Mr. Bush has a penchant for picking his pals to fill top jobs: last week he nominated his personal lawyer Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. But his personal bank manager really would not cut the mustard as Fed chairman. This is the most important economic-policy job in America—indeed in the whole world. The Fed chairman sets interest rates with the aim of controlling inflation, which in turn helps determine the value of the dollar, the world's main reserve currency. It is hardly surprising that financial markets worldwide can rise or fall on his every word. Financial markets are typically more volatile during the first year after the handover to a new chairman than during the rest of his tenure. In October 1987,barely two months after Mr. Greenspan took office, the stock market crashed. Current conditions for a handover are hardly ideal. America's economy has never looked so unbalanced, with a negative household savings rate, a housing bubble, a hefty budget deficit, a record current-account deficit and rising inflation. Figures due on October 14th are expected to show that the 12-monthrate of inflation has risen above 4% —its highest since 1991.

单选题At some point during their education, biology students are told about a conversation in a pub that took place over 50 years ago. J. B. S. Haldane, a British geneticist, was asked whether he would lay down his life for his country. After doing a quick calculation on the back of a napkin, he said he would do so for two brothers or eight cousins. In other words, he would die to protect the equivalent of his genetic contribution to the next generation. The theory of kin selection--the idea that animals can pass on their genes by helping their close relatives--is biology's explanation for seemingly altruistic acts. An individual carrying genes that promote altruism might be expected to die younger than one with "selfish" genes, and thus to have a reduced contribution to the next generation's genetic pool. But if the same individual acts altruistically to protect its relatives, genes for altruistic behavior might nevertheless propagate. Acts of apparent altruism to non-relatives can also be explained away, in what has become a cottage industry within biology. An animal might care for the offspring of another that it is unrelated to because it hopes to obtain the same benefits for itself later on (a phenomenon known as reciprocal altruism). The hunter who generously shares his spoils with others may be doing so in order to signal his superior status to females, and ultimately boost his breeding success. These apparently selfless acts are therefore disguised acts of self interest. All of these examples fit economists' arguments that Homo sapiens is also Homo economicus--maximizing something that economists call utility, and biologists fitness. But there is a residuum of human activity that defies such explanations: people contribute to charities for the homeless, return lost wallets, do voluntary work and tip waiters in restaurants to which they do not plan to return. Both economic rationalism and natural selection offer few explanations for such random acts of kindness. Nor can they easily explain the opposite: spiteful behavior, when someone harms his own interest in order to damage that of another. But people are now trying to find answers. When a new phenomenon is recognized by science, a name always helps. In a paper in Human Nature, Dr Fehr and his colleagues argue for a behavioral propensity they call "strong reciprocity". This name is intended to distinguish it from reciprocal altruism. According to Dr Fehr, a person is a strong reciprocator if he is willing to sacrifice resources to be kind to those who are being kind, and to punish those who are being unkind. Significantly, strong reciprocators will behave this way even if doing so provides no prospect of material rewards in the future.

单选题"Intelligence" at best is an assumptive construct--the meaning of the word has never been clear. It is generally agreed that a person of high intelligence is one who can grasp ideas (1) , make distinctions, reason logically, and (2) verbal and mathematical symbols in solving problems. An intelligence test is a rough measure of a child's (3) for learning, particularly for learning the kinds of things required in school. It does not (4) character, social adjustment, physical endurance, manual skills, or artistic abilities. It is not (5) to--it was not designed for such (6) . To criticize it for such failure is roughly (7) criticizing a thermometer for not measuring wind velocity. The other thing we have to notice is that the assessment of the intelligence of the (8) is essentially a comparative affair. (9) the assessment of intelligence is a comparative matter we must be sure that the (10) with which we are comparing our subjects provides a "valid" and " (11) " comparison. It is here (12) some of the difficulties which interest us begin. Any test (13) involves at least three factors: the (14) to do one's best, the knowledge required for understanding what you have to do, and the (15) ability to do it. In school populations in our culture these assumptions can be made fair and reasonable, and the value of intelligence testing has been (16) thoroughly. Its value (17) , of course, in its providing a satisfactory basis for prediction. No one is (18) interested in the marks a little child gets on his test; what we are interested in is whether we can (19) from his mark on the test that the child will do better or worse than other children of his age in (20) which we think require "general intelligence".

单选题How efficient is our system of criminal trial? Does it really do the basic job we ask of it—convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent? It is often said that the British trail system is more like a game than a serious attempt to do justice. The lawyers on each side are so engrosses in playing hard to win, challenging each other and the judge on technical points, that the object of finding out the truth is almost forgotten. All the effort is concentrated on the big day, on the dramatic cross examination of the key witnesses in front of the jury. Critics like to compare our "adversarial" system (resembling two adversaries engaged in a contest) with the continental "inquisitorial" system, under which the judge plays a more important inquiring role. In early times, in the Middle Ages, the systems of trial across Europe were' similar. At that time trial by "ordeal"—especially a religious event--was the main way of testing guilt or innocence. When this way eventually abandoned the two systems parted company. On the continent church-trained legal officials took over the function of both prosecuting and judging, while in England these were largely left to lay people, the Justice of the Peace and the jurymen who were illiterate and this meant that all the evidence had to be put to them orally. This historical accident dominates procedure even today, with all evidence being given in open court by word of mouth on the crucial day. On the other hand, in France for instance, all the evidence is written before the trial under supervision by an investigating judge. This exhaustive pretrial looks very undramatic; much of it is just a public checking of the written records already gathered. The Americans adopted the British system lock, stock and barrel and enshrined it in their constitution. But, while the basic features of our systems are common, there are now significant differences in the way serious cases are handled. First, because the U. S. A. has virtually no contempt of court laws to prevent pretrial publicity in the newspaper and on television, Americans lawyers are allowed to question jurors about knowledge and beliefs. In Britain this is virtually never allowed, and a random selection of jurors who are presumed not to be prejudiced are empanelled. Secondly, there is no separate profession of barrister in the United States, and both prosecution and defense lawyers who are to present cases in court prepare themselves. They go out and visit the scene, track down and interview witnesses, and familiarize themselves personally with the background. In Britain it is the solicitor who prepares the case, and the barrister who appears in court is not even allowed to meet witness beforehand, British barristers also alternate doing both prosecution and defense work. Being kept distant from the preparation and regularly appearing for both sides, barristers are said to avoid becoming too personally involved, and can approach cases more dispassionately. American lawyers, however, often know their cases better. Reformers rightly want to learn from other countries~ mistakes and successes. But what is clear is that justice systems, largely because they are the result of long historical growth, are peculiarly difficult to adapt piecemeal.

单选题Which of the following statements NOT true according to the passage?______

单选题It is implied in the first sentence that the failure of Millennium trade round could be attributed to

单选题 These are tough times for Wal-Mart, America's biggest retailer. Long accused of{{U}} (1) {{/U}}small-town America mad condemned for the selfishness of its pay, the company has lately come under{{U}} (2) {{/U}}for its meanness over employees' health-care benefits. The charge is arguably{{U}} (3) {{/U}}: the firm's health coverage, while{{U}} (4) {{/U}}less extensive than the average for big companies, is on equal terms{{U}} (5) {{/U}}other retailers'. But bad publicity, coupled with rising costs, has{{U}} (6) {{/U}}the Bentonville giant to action. WalMart is making changes that should shift the ground in America's healthcare debate. One{{U}} (7) {{/U}}is to reduce the prices of many generic, or out-of-patent, prescription drugs. Wal-Mart's critics dismiss the move as a publicity{{U}} (8) {{/U}}. The list of drugs includes only 143 different medicines and excludes many popular group. True, but short-sighted. Wal-Mart has{{U}} (9) {{/U}}retailing by using its size to squeeze suppliers and{{U}} (10) {{/U}}the gains on to consumers. It could{{U}} (11) {{/U}}the same with drugs. A "Wal-Mart effect" in drugs will not solve America's health-costs problem: group account for only a small share of drug costs, which in turn make{{U}} (12) {{/U}}only 10% of overall health spending. But it would{{U}} (13) {{/U}}. The firm's other initiative is more{{U}} (14) {{/U}}. Wal-Mart is joining the small but fast-growing group of employers{{U}} (15) {{/U}}are controlling costs by shifting to health insurance with high deductibles. Early evidence{{U}} (16) {{/U}}these plans do help firms control the cost of health insurance. But critics say that the savings are{{U}} (17) {{/U}}. They argue that the plans shift costs to sicker workers, discourage preventative care and will anyway do little to{{U}} (18) {{/U}}overall health spending, {{U}}(19) {{/U}}most of the $2 trillion that America{{U}} (20) {{/U}}health care each year goes to people with multiple chronic diseases.