单选题One hundred years ago, people were ______.

单选题{{B}}Text 2{{/B}} When two of the world's richest and mightiest men pledge to destroy an enemy, it is time to pay attention. Bill Gates, the former boss of Microsoft who now devotes all his time to his charitable foundation, travelled this week to New York, the city run by Michael Bloomberg, to join his fellow billionaire's campaign to stamp out smoking. Have the two potentates met their match? Despite decades of work by health campaigners, more than one billion people still smoke today. Smoking kills up to half of those who fail to quit puffing, reducing their lives by an average of 10 to 15 years. The World Health Organisation (WHO) says more than 5 million people a year die early from the effects (direct or indirect) of tobacco. That exceeds the combined toll of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Despite that dismal situation, there are three reasons to give the latest pair of campaigners a slim chance of success: money, methods and motivation. Messrs Gates and Bloomberg vowed to spend a combined total of $ 500 million on discouraging the weed. Since Mr. Bloomberg's charity had already announced an award of $125 million earlier, the new money pledged this week totalled a "mere" $ 375 million: $ 250 million from the mayor, and a fresh $ 125 million from the software magnate's philanthropic outfit. How will this cash be spent? In quite innovative ways, and that is a second reason for optimism. Hitherto, most anti-smoking funds have been channelled through a few large bureaucracies. But Mr. Bloomberg's charity wants to let a thousand flowers bloom: in other words, to lend a hand to many initiatives, both public and private, to see what works. There will be a competitive grant scheme for poor countries where the tobacco habit is spreading. The very fact that two giants are teaming up is a landmark in American philanthropy- comparable to Warren Buffett's decision, two years ago, to put his fortune at the disposal of Mr. Gates' foundation. As part of their joint commitment, Mr. Gates is giving some of his $ 125 million directly to Mr. Bloomberg's charity; the rest will go to carefully monitored projects in India, China and other places where the number of smokers is rising relentlessly. Then there is motivation. There are other big players in this cause, and that should induce every new entrant to try bringing something fresh to the party. Earlier this year the WHO started a campaign against tobacco known as MPower. One of its selling points was that in contrast with many other projects, it had a fairly clear idea about what was needed. WHO experts have listed a series of tactics, ranging from aggressive public education to a rise in tobacco taxes, that deliver results. (Even if high taxes lead to some smuggling and diversion, studies done in Brazil, for example, show that fiscal measures do curb consumption. ) The World Bank, which funded that research, is also thought to be ready to join the anti-smoking scrum after years of paying little attention. A crowded field, indeed. But having an extra $ 500 million from two hard-driven billionaires surely won't hurt.

单选题The example of the publicist is used to show most people's

单选题{{B}}Text 2{{/B}} This election year, the debate over cloning technology has become a circus -- and hardly anybody has noticed the gorilla hiding in the tent. Even while President Bush has endorsed throwing scientists in jail to stop '"reckless experiments", it's just possible the First Amendment will protect researchers who want to perform cloning research. Dr. Leon Kass, the chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, would like to keep that a secret. "I don't want to encourage such thinking," he said. But the notion that the First Amendment creates a "right to research" has been around for a long time, and Kass knows it. In 1977, four eminent legal scholars -- Thomas Emerson, Jerome Barron, Walter Berns and Harold P. Green -- were asked to testify before the House Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space. At the time, there was alarm in the country over recombinant DNA. Some people feared clones, designer babies, a plague of superbacteria. The committee wanted to know if the federal government should, or could, restrict the science. "Certainly the overwhelming tenor of the testimony was in favor of protecting it," Barron, who now teaches at George Washington University, recalls. Barns, a conservative political scientist, was forced to agree. He didn't like this conclusion, be- cause he feared the consequences of tinkering with nature, but even after consulting with Kass before his testimony, he told Congress that "the First Amendment protected this kind of research." Today, he believes it protects cloning experiments as well. Law-review articles written at the time supported Barns, and so would a report issued by Congress's Office of Technology Assessment (O. T. A. ). But the courts never got the chance to face the right-to-research issue squarely. An oversight body called the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, formed by the National Institutes of Health, essentially allowed science to police itself. So the discussion was submerged. Until now. Why legal scholars would defend the right to research is hardly mysterious. The founding fathers passionately defended scientific and academic freedom, and the Supreme Court has traditionally had a high regard for it. But why would the right to read, write and speak as you please extend to the tight to experiment in the lab? Neoconservatives like Kass have emphasized the need to maintain a fixed conception of human nature. But the O. T.A. directly addressed this in a 1981 report. "Even if the rationale.., were expanded to include situations where knowledge threatens fundamental cultural values about the nature of man, control of research for such a reason probably would not be constitutionally permissible," The government can restrict speech if it can prove a "compelling interest," like public safety or national security. But courts have set that bar very high. Unlike, say, an experiment that releases smallpox into the wind to study how it spreads, which could be banned, embryo research presents no readily apparent danger to public health or security. And if that's the case, scientists who wish to create stem cells by cloning might have a new source of succor: the U.S. Constitution.

单选题The author's main concern with young adults traveling more is______.

单选题{{B}}Text 2{{/B}} In recent years, Microsoft has focused on three big tasks: building robust security into its software, resolving numerous antitrust complaints against it and upgrading its Windows operating system. These three tasks are now starting to collide. On August 27th the firm said that the successor to its Windows XP operating system, code-named Longhorn, will go on sale in 2007 without one of its most impressive features, a technique to integrate elaborate search capabilities into nearly all desktop applications. (On the bright side, Longhorn will contain advances in rendering images and enabling different computing platforms to exchange data directly between applications. ) It is a big setback for Microsoft, which considers search technology a pillar of its future growth -not least as it competes against Google. The firm's focus on security championed by Bill Gates himself--took resources away from Longhorn, admits Greg Sullivan, a lead product manager in the Windows client division. Programmers have been fixing Windows XP rather than working on Longhorn. In mid- August, Microsoft released Service Pack 2, a huge set of free software patches and enhancements to make Windows XP more secure. Though some of the fixes turned out to have vulnerabilities of their own, the patches have mostly been welcomed. Microsoft's decision to forgo new features in return for better security is one that most computer users will probably applaud. Yet ironically, as Microsoft slowly improves the security of its products---by, for instance, incorporating firewall technology, anti-virus systems and spam filters its actions increasingly start to resemble those that, in the past, have got the firm into trouble with regulators. Is security software an "adjacent software market", in which case Microsoft may be leveraging its dominance of the operating system into it? Integrating security products into Windows might be considered "bundling" which, with regard to web browsing, so excited America's trustbusters in the 1990s. And building security directly into the operating system seems a lot like "commingling" software code, on which basis the European Commission ruled earlier this year that Microsoft abused its market power through the Windows Media Player. Microsoft is appealing against that decision, and on September 30th it will argue for a suspension of the commission's remedies, such as the requirement that it license its code to rivals. Just last month, the European Union's competition directorate began an investigation into Microsoft and Time Warner, a large media firm, on the grounds that their proposed joint acquisition of ContentGuard, a software firm whose products protect digital media files, might provide Microsoft with, undue market power over digital media standards. The commission will rule by January 2005. Microsoft, it seems, in security as elsewhere, is going to have to get used to being punished for its success. Its Windows monopoly lets it enjoy excessive profits but the resulting monoculture makes it an obvious target for viruses and regulators alike.

单选题{{B}}Text 2{{/B}} In 1575--over 400 years ago the French scholar Louis Le Roy published a learned book in which he voiced despair over the changes caused by the social and technological innovations of his time, what we now call the Renaissance. We, also, feel that our times are out of joint; we even have reason to believe that our descendants will be worse off than we are. The earth will soon be overcrowded and its resources exhausted. Pollution will ruin the environment, upset the climate and endanger human health. The gap in living standards between the rich and the poor will widen and lead the angry, hungry people of the world to acts of desperation including the use of nuclear weapons as blackmail. Such are the inevitable consequences of population and technological growth if present trends continue. The future is never a projection of the past. Animals probably have no chance to escape from the tyranny of biological evolution, but human beings are blessed with the freedom of social evolution. For us, trend is not destiny (fate). The escape from existing trends is now facilitated by the fact that societies anticipate future dangers and take preventive steps against expected changes. Despite the widespread belief that the world has become too complex for comprehension by the human brain; modern societies have often responded effectively to critical situations. The decrease in birth rates, the partial prohibition of pesticides and the rethinking of technologies for the production and use of energy are but a few examples illustrating a sudden reversal of trends caused not by political upsets or scientific breakthroughs, but by public awareness of consequences. Even more striking are the situations in which social attitudes concerning future difficulties undergo rapid changes before the problems have come to pass--witness the heated arguments about the problems of behavior control and of genetic engineering even though there is as yet no proof that effective methods can be developed to manipulate behavior and genes on a population scale. One of the characteristics of our times is thus the rapidity with which steps can be taken to change the orientation of certain trends and even to reverse them. Such changes usually emerge from grass root movements rather than from official directives. {{B}}Notes:{{/B}} Renaissance (14--15 世纪欧洲)文艺复兴(时期)。tyranny 暴虐统治；暴虐行为。are blessed with幸有；有幸得到。but a few 只是几个。come to pass 发生，实现。as yet 至今。grass root 群众。

单选题The current malaise within Zimbabwe's tourism industry could benefit its long-term development by forcing it to examine its attitude towards fragile wilderness areas, argues Sally Wynn. My first experience of the Zambezi River's unique wilderness quality was a childhood walk upstream from Victoria Falls. Then, the revering bush really was wild and made a very strong first impression. Years later, a canoe trip from Manna Pools to Lake Cahora Bassa made me a wilderness convert for life and I feel truly lucky that my work sometimes takes me into remote parts of this magnificent river valley. I am not alone. The Zambezi Society's membership consists almost entirely of people who value the wild nature of the Zambezi River so much that they want to do something to conserve it. And the trend is worldwide. Type " wilderness " into an Internet search engine；the scores of societies and foundations devoted to wilderness appreciation, preservation and research show how popular this concept has become, as do the wilderness " discovery " experiences available to adventurous travelers. But still some people ask " how relevant is wihlerness conservation in 21 st century Africa? " Many argue that developing nations have more important concerns than setting aside wild places for the enjoyment of tourists and wilderness enthusiasts. But if the results of a recent Zambezi Society survey are anything to go by, wilderness conservation is very relevant indeed. The argument that wilderness is an unaffordable luxury shows a singular lack of understanding not only of the vital link between tourism and development, but of the true value of Africa's wild areas to the continent's people. At the height of its boom in the 1980s and early 90s, Zimbabwe's tourism industry was so busy counting the dollars that it paid scant heed either to the impact its success was having on major assets like the Zambezi River, or to whether its customers were satisfied with the experience they were getting for their money. The Zambezi Society and other conservation lobby groups were lone voices in the wilderness crying out for environmental sanity at places like Victoria Falls which, by 1995, was receiving bad press even in Time magazine. By October 2000, the Society had defined " Zambezi wilderness " as visitors see it and identified the factors which detract from this wilderness. 98% of respondents felt it important that wild places exist, and it was evident that visitors to Victoria Falls were less satisfied with the quality of their wilderness experience than, for example, visitors to Mana Pools, due to overdevelopment, commercialisation and overcrowding. It seemed that hotels and tour operators were contributing to the erosion of wilderness values in sensitive areas by promoting high-impact activities, so we defined wilderness-sensitive and appropriate tourism facilities.

单选题You cannot buy Prada shoes on Prada. com. In fact, there are no working links on the Web site. This is not a technical disorder. Since the late' 9Os, the site has been a single page, with only the name of the Italian fashion house and two photographs. No store locations or help numbers. Nothing. "I love Prada," ponders Nina Dietzel, president of Web-design company 300FeetOut. "But what's up with their 'site' ?" Prada claims a new Web site is "under development." But having a mysteriously useless home page, it admits, has an allure. It screams exclusivity: you can see, but you can't click. It's a uniquely Prada solution to this riddle: how to make your luxury brand work on the Internet without diminishing its value. In a sense, the Internet is antithetical to the "high touch" luxury experience. There is no indulgence by sales staff, and customers have come to see the Net as a path to cheap prices, not top-dollar goods. There's no velvet rope: anyone can place an order, or set up shop. That's why Prada strives to maintain the link between its name and the extravagant experience of shopping at stores like its $ 40 million New York flagship, designed by Rem Koolhaas. Unlike Prada, most luxury companies can't afford to ignore the Web: in the United States, ecommerce accounted for $ 2.5 billion in luxury sales. That figure is expected to grow to $ 7 billion by 2010, says Forrester Research. It's still a small fraction of the total market compared to other retail sectors, but five years ago analysts said there was "no way" luxury would sell online. They were betting customers wouldn't pay that much on the Web, and top brands wouldn't go slumming in this bargain basement. One of the first high-end luxury retailers, Ashford. com, had many well-publicized struggles, with its stock dropping to near rock bottom in 2001. Companies like Neiman Marcus that have strong catalog sales have made the transition to the Web more easily; online sales are the company's fastest-growing source of revenue. Swiss watchmakers Breitling and Patek Philippe have taken another tack with Web sites that offer only information, not sales. Breitling director of marketing Ben Balmer says a luxury brand needs to offer "a buying experience" that only a well-run store can provide. However, he notes that since 2002, it has presented 30 percent fewer catalogs in the United States, and seen sales rise more than 35 percent, thanks to exposure on the Internet. Prada may not need a working Web site after all.

单选题When a spider is removed to a new position where half of a net has been made, it will probably

单选题After World War Ⅱ the glorification of an ever-larger GNP formed the basis of a new materialism, which became a sacred obligation for all Japanese governments, businesses and trade unions. Anyone who mentioned the undesirable by-products of rapid economic growth was treated as a heretic. Consequently, everything possible was done to make conditions easy for the manufacturers. Few dared question the wisdom of discharging untreated waste into the nearest water body or untreated smoke into the atmosphere. This silence was maintained by union leaders as well as by most of the country"s radicals; except for a few isolated voices, no one protested. An insistence on treatment of the various effluents would have necessitated expenditures on treatment equipment that in turn would have given rise to higher operating costs. Obviously, this would have meant higher prices for Japanese goods, and ultimately fewer sales and lower industrial growth and GNP. The pursuit of nothing but economic growth is illustrated by the response of the Japanese government to the American educational mission that visited Japan in 1947. After surveying Japan"s educational program, the Americans suggested that the Japanese fill in their curriculum gap by creating departments in chemical and sanitary engineering. Immediately, chemical engineering departments were established in all the country"s universities and technical institutions. In contrast, the recommendation to form sanitary engineering departments was more or less ignored, because they could bring no profit. By 1960, only two second-rate universities, Kyoto and Hokkaido, were interested enough to open such departments. The reluctance to divert funds from production to conservation is explanation enough for a certain degree of pollution, but the situation was made worse by the type of technology the Japanese chose to adopt for their industrial expansion. For the most part, they simply copied American industrial methods. This meant that methods originally designed for use in a country that stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific with lots of air and water to use as sewage receptacles were adopted for an area a fraction of the size. Moreover, the Japanese diet was much more dependent on water as a source of fish and as an input in the irrigation of rice; consequently discharged wastes built up much more rapidly in the food chain.

单选题It was implied from the passage that______

单选题The use of chemicals in almost all areas of life has become a commonplace phenomenon. There is growing evidence, however, that chemicals in the environment, including pesticides, may contribute to some illnesses. While studies are still being conducted, preliminary conclusions point to the verdict that such chemicals are indeed negatively impacting those humans to whom they are exposed. Children are especially vulnerable to toxic substances. Pound for pound, they eat, drink and breathe more than adults, all of which exposes them more heavily to those chemicals to which most individuals encounter on a daily basis. Furthermore, their bodies are still in developing stages, exacerbating the negative effects of those chemicals, which negatively impact them. Of 50 types of pesticides commonly used in American schools, a study conducted by the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides found that many caused negative reactions in laboratory animals. Such negative effects included kidney and liver damage, cancer, and neurological and reproductive problems. These implications of these findings are far-reaching. Given the variety of harmful effects attributed to those pesticides tested, one must pause and consider whether it is wise to continue their use in the nation's schools, where children will be constantly exposed to them. Activists have lobbied for the elimination of such use with a degree of success, and recent findings, if supported by further analysis and confirmation, may help further the cause. A long term solution or alternative, however, remains elusive. In the short run, however, there may be some measures that can be taken to mitigate the harmful effects of dangerous pesticides. The American Medical Association's Council on Scientific Affairs concluded in a 1997 report that given the "particular uncertainty.., regarding the long-term health effects of low-dose pesticide exposures," it is "prudent" for adults and children to limit their exposure and to "consider the use of the least toxic chemical pesticides or non-chemical alternatives. /

单选题Judge Kleinberg got it right when he made it clear that there weren't separate rules for bloggers and journalists. That's not to say bloggers are or aren't journalists—just that there shouldn't be a distinction. In other words, the same rules apply to everyone. But—and here's the tricky part—although the rules apply to people equally, we can, do, and should apply them differently to different acts. Asking whether bloggers are journalists is meaningless. What's important isn't the person but the product. If a snoopy 12-year-old girl find evidence that her town's mayor is taking bribes, then collects it, verifies it, and publishes it on her blog, that's journalism. If Waiter Cronkite writes in his diary that he planted daisies and washed the dishes that afternoon, that's not. It's what's done, not who's doing it. This isn't something that always needed to be pointed out. In the old days, you could draw a line between journalists and everyone else, just as you could draw a line between any other profession. What you did is what you were: reporter, barber, grocer, tailor, whatever. Journalists were usually hired by newspapers, magazines and radio stations. And they followed certain rules, respecting off-the-record comments, being accurate and not misquoting. Today, the Web is an essentially way to get news, and, while journalism is pretty much the same, the term "journalist" is getting a bit cloudy. That's why the question of whether bloggers are journalists keeps coming up. When anyone can publish, anyone can be a journalist. So the questions the courts need to answer is not, "Who is a journalist?" but rather, "Who is doing journalism?" That 12-year-old girl was doing it, even if she isn't in high school yet—even if she wasn't a journalist. Not being a journalist doesn't necessarily reduce the quality of the work, nor should it reduce the protections it receives. So when a question of journalists' rights comes up, we need to ask two questions. First, "What protections should journalism receive under the First Amendment?" And second, "Was the person in question performing an act of journalism?" If she is—if the work she was doing involves gathering and publishing information of legitimate public interest—then her profession doesn't matter. The idea that the line between amateurs and professionals is blurring is something we need to get used to. The Web gives the little guy the same publishing tools as the big guy. Video-editing software is inexpensive enough that the quality of amateurs equals that of many pros. But while our technology is removing age-old distinctions, our perceptions and our laws haven't quite embraced the new reality. It's time to shift our thinking.