单选题{{B}}Text 2{{/B}} Successful businesses tend to continue implementing the ideas that made them successful. But in a rapidly changing world, ideas often become obsolete overnight. What worked in the past won't necessarily work in the future. In order to thrive in the future, you must constantly create new ideas for every aspect of your business. In fact, you must continually generate new ideas just to keep your head above water. Businesses that aren't creative about their future may not survive. Although Bill Gates is the richest, most successful man on the planet, he did not anticipate the Internet. Now he's scrambling to catch up. If Bill Gates can miss a major aspect of his industry, it can happen to you in your industry. Your business needs to continually innovate and create its future. Gates is now constantly worried about the future of Microsoft. Here's what he said in a recent interview in U. S. News World Report: "Will we be replaced tomorrow? No. In a very short time frame, Microsoft is an incredibly strong company. But when you look to the two-to three-year time frame, I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that any technology company has a guaranteed position. Not Intel, not Microsoft, not Compaq, not Dell, take any of your favorites. And that's totally honest." You may remember that in 1985 the Cabbage Patch Kids dolls were the beat-selling toy on the market But after Coleco Industries introduced their sensational line of dolls they became complacent and didn't create any new toys worth mentioning. As a result, Coleco went bankrupt in 1988. The most successful businesses survive in the long term because they constantly reassess their situations and reinvent themselves accordingly. The 3M Company has a 15% rule: Employees are encouraged to spend 15% of their time developing new ideas on any project they desire. It's no surprise, then, that 3M has been around since 1902. Most businesses are not willing to tear apart last year's model of success and build a new one. Here's a familiar analogy to explain why they are lulled into complacency. Imagine that your business is like a pet of lobsters. To cook lobsters, you put them into a pot of warm water and gradually turn up the heat. The lobsters don't realize they're being cooked because the process is se gradual. As a result, they become complacent and die without a struggle. However, if you throw a lobster into the pot when the water is boiling, it will desperately try to escape. This lobster is not lulled by a slowly changing environment. It realizes instantly that it's in a bad environment and takes immediate action to change its status.

单选题During the past generation, the American middle-class family that once could count on hard work and fair play to keep itself financially secure has been transformed by economic risk and new realities. Now a pink slip, a bad diagnosis, or a disappearing spouse can reduce a family from solidly middle class to newly poor in a few months. In just one generation, millions of mothers have gone to work, transforming basic family economics. Scholars, policymakers, and critics of all stripes have debated the social implications of these changes, but few have looked at the side effect: family risk has risen as well. Today"s families have budgeted to the limits of their new two-paycheck status. As a result, they have lost the parachute they once had in times of financial setback—a back-up earner (usually Mom) who could go into the workforce if the primary earner got laid off or fell sick. This "added-worker effect" could support the safety net offered by unemployment insurance or disability insurance to help families weather bad times. But today, a disruption to family fortunes can no longer be made up with extra income from an otherwise-stay-at-home partner. During the same period, families have been asked to absorb much more risk in their retirement income. Steelworkers, airline employees, and now those in the auto industry are joining millions of families who must worry about interest rates, stock market fluctuation, and the harsh reality that they may outlive their retirement money. For much of the past year, President Bush campaigned to move Social Security to a saving-account model, with retirees trading much or all of their guaranteed payments for payments depending on investment returns. For younger families, the picture is not any better. Both the absolute cost of healthcare and the share of it borne by families have risen—and newly fashionable health-savings plans are spreading from legislative halls to Wal-Mart workers, with much higher deductibles and a large new dose of investment risk for families" future healthcare. Even demographics are working against the middle class family, as the odds of having a weak elderly parent—and all the attendant need for physical and financial assistance—have jumped eightfold in just one generation. From the middle-class family perspective, much of this, understandably, looks far less like an opportunity to exercise more financial responsibility, and a good deal more like a frightening acceleration of the wholesale shift of financial risk onto their already overburdened shoulders. The financial fallout has begun, and the political fallout may not be far behind.

单选题Programs displayed on HDTV

单选题Between 1900 and 1912, the nations of Europe were at peace. But there were hostilities, rivalries, and conflicts brewing that would soon tear the whole continent apart. The great conflict was World War Ⅰ. (1) just prior to that war, there were two (2) conflicts in the Balkan Peninsula. These two short wars took place in 1912 and 1913. Their (3) result was to end the (4) of the Turkish Ottoman Empire in Europe. The more tragic (5) of the Balkan Wars was to heighten the already fierce international tensions that were (6) the nations of Europe toward World War Ⅰ.In 1912 the Balkan nations (7) of Bosnia, Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Greece. The Macedonian region in northern Greece was under the (8) of the Turks. The Balkan lands were also peopled by many intensely nationalistic ethnic groups. Among these were Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Bulgars and Macedonians. These peoples had long been fierce rivals for territory and political (9) . Religious (10) between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians within these groups further added to their disputes. These rivalries still (11) . Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, and Montenegro formed the Balkan League in 1912. In October 1912 the Balkan League (12) war (13) the Ottoman Turks. The Balkan (14) were quickly victorious. They won battles (15) Skopje, Monastir and other cities. The war ended in December. In May 1913 a treaty signed in London formally (16) the conflict. The Turks lost most of their European (17) . (18) , the peace did not last. In June 1913 Bulgaria attacked Serbia and Greece. This (19) conflict was ended by a (20) signed in Bucharest in August 1913.

单选题From the text we can infer that the NAB represents______.

单选题Advancing technology could possibly make us

单选题India has about a billion people and a dozen major languages of its own. One language, and only one, is understood-by the elite- across the country: that of the foreigners who ruled India for less than 200 years and left 52 years ago. Today, India. Tomorrow, unofficially, the world. That is well under way; at first, because the British not only built global empire but also it was settled by America, and now because the world (and notably America) has acquired its first truly global--and interactive--medium, the Internet. It is estimated that some 350 million people speak English as their first language. Maybe 250 - 350 million do or can use it as a second language; in excolonial countries, notably, or in English--majority ones, like 30 million recently immigrants to the United States, or Canada's 6 million francophone Quebeckers. And elsewhere.'? The guess is 100 million--1 billion depending how you define "can". Let us be hold: in all, 20 -25% of earth' s 6 billion people can use English; not the English of England, let alone of Dr. Johnson, but English. That number is soaring as each year brings new pupils to school and carries of monolingual oldies--and now as the Internet spreads. And the process is self-reinforcing. As business spreads across frontiers, the company that wants to move its executives around, and to promote the best of them, regardless of nationality, encourages the uses of English. So the executive who wants to be in the frame, or' to move to another employer, learns to use it. English has long dominated learned journals: German, Russian or French (depending on the field) may be useful to their expert readers, but English is essential. So, if you want your own work published--and widely read by your peers--then English is the language of choice. The growth of the cinema, and still more so of television, has spread the dominant language. Foreign movies or sitcoms may be dubbed into major languages, but for smaller audiences they are usually subtitled. Result: a Dutch or Danish or even Arab family has an audio-visual learning aid in its living-room, and usually the language spoken on-screen is English. The birth of the computer and its American operating systems gave English a nudge ahead: that of the Internet has given it a huge push. Any web-linked household today has a library of information available at the click of a mouse. And, unlike the books on its own shelves or in the public library, maybe four-fifths is written in English. That proportion may lessen, as more non-English sites spring up. But English will surely dominate.

单选题The Inland Revenue on Thursday accused the British film industry of abusing government aid, with every production of recent years deliberately over-claiming tax relief. Revenue officials called in about 20 members of the film industry and warned them of severe consequences if the "exploitation" of tax-relief schemes did not immediately stop. The move, which affects the including low to high-budget film-makers and financiers, is the latest in a series of attempts by the Revenue to clamp down on tax loopholes in an attempt to raise more money for the Exchequer, But the film industry responded on Thursday night, saying the Revenue could drive productions overseas and would confuse investors. A series of tax relief schemes, introduced in 1997, enables those involved in the financing of qualifying British-made films to claim the costs of production against future income. The schemes have Become popular with investors seeking a tax shelter, with an estimated ￡400m invested in the schemes in 1997 rising to about ￡2bn last year. But the Revenue said the industry was exploiting rules on tax relief by "double dipping", that is, by claiming relief more than once against a single piece of expenditure. While not illegal, the Revenue said, the industry was "not playing fair". It said double-dipping was "against the spirit" of legislation designed to encourage investment in the British film industry. The Revenue said the practice of double dipping was "virtually universal", with "every qualifying film it had seen financed on the basis of double dipping". It warned it would "take all steps to counter such abuse including, where necessary, advising ministers on introducing legislation to put matters beyond doubt". "Both the Revenue and the government are becoming increasingly exasperated at the extent to which some parts of the industry are exploiting the film reliefs," the Revenue said. "The government remains committed to encouraging film production in the UK through use of the reliefs in the way in which the legislation allows--but this does not extend to deliberate exploitation of those reliefs." Large film financiers said on Thursday night that the Revenue's action could undermine growth prospects for the British film industry. Peter James, managing director of Movision Entertainment, which has produced 16 British-made films in recent years, including the soon-to-be released "Merchant of Venice", said while the effect of the Revenue's clamp down would not Be "devastating", it could drive many independent film-makers overseas. Industry observers said on Thursday the Revenue's move was likely to confuse investors, who have been accustomed to the benefits of double-dipping.