单选题{{B}}Text D{{/B}} In the wars over information technology in the university, I am a neutral. I am neither an enthusiast nor a critic but a realist. Realists have it hard: they don't have an easy rhetoric they can use, and they don't fit into the conventional "pro versus con" story frame within which these disputes are narrated. I know people in both camps, though I admit that I find the extremists in the enthusiasts' camp much more insufferable than the extremists in the critics' camp. In talking to both camps, I have noticed a pattern. Many people on both sides imagine themselves to be a small and embattled minority pushing up against the inertia of established institutions. The enthusiasts, many of them, are individual faculty and researchers who are depressed at the difficulty of persuading their institutions to support large-scale initiatives in this area, and at their colleagues who remain focused on their individual research topics and not on the urgent work of revolutionizing the institution to take advantage of the technology. The critics, many of them, are likewise individual faculty and researchers who see university administrations acting like corporations and entering into partnerships with corporations to create commercialized cyber universities with no regard for the faculty, or for what education really means. Although these views seem like opposites, they come remarkably close to both being right. I want to transcend what they have in common -- a sense of futility that derives from an inefficiency of imagination. Not everyone fits these two patterns, of course. Some universities do have technology enthusiasts who are running significant programs online, for example degree programs that have students in Singapore. And a remarkable number of critically minded people have had a hand in shaping either the technology or their own institutions' use of it. Andrew Feenberg of San Diego State is an example; he did some the first, if not the very first, experiments with online teaching almost twenty years ago. Mike Cole at UC San Diego has been running classes at multiple UC campuses over video links. There are others. These people are not anti- technology; that is not what "critical" means to them. Rather, they want to ensure that the technology is used in a way that fits with serious ideas about education, so that the technology itself does not drive educational theory or practice. Although I am friends with many people in this latter camp, my work does not fit into any camp. I do often use technology in interesting ways in my classes, but I am not trying to change the world by doing so. Instead, my work in this area is mainly analytical and normative. I want to sketch a structure of ideas from which we might work in reinventing the university in the wired world. I am not trying to shape technology in a direct way; rather, I want to shape imagination -- imagination not just about technology, but about the larger unit of analysis that includes both the technology itself and the institutions within which it is embedded. My work is also distinct from the valuable community that conducts research on organizational informatics -- the institutional dynamics, largely cognitive and political in nature, that affect how information technology gets used in particular organizational contexts. These people focus squarely on the political processes that shape information technology: office politics, for example, or the politics that are shaping the development of online publishing, as in Rob Kling's current work at Indiana. Such work is thoroughly needed, but it's not what I'm doing. I'm focused on prescription and imagination -- not "how is it done?" but "how should it be done?". We often think of imagination as an escape from reality, but that's not what I mean. I want to develop a realistic imagination, one that is informed by the real dynamics of institutions, by the real grindings of power politics. I want to intervene in these politics, providing the raw imaginative material that will be needed by anyone who is trying to set things straight.

单选题{{B}}TEXT C{{/B}} Marriage may be about love, but divorce is a business. For global couples--born in different countries, married in a third, now working somewhere else and with children, pensions and other assets sprinkled over the world--a contested divorce is bliss for lawyers and a nightmare for others. Divorce laws vary wildly, from countries (such as Malta) that still forbid it to Islamic states where for the husband, at least--it may be obtained in minutes. Rules on the division of property and future financial obligations vary hugely too. France expects the poorer party, usually the wife, to start fending for herself almost immediately; England and some American states insist on lifelong support. Some systems look only at the "acquest"; others count the lot. A few, like Austria, still link cash to blame. Japan offers a temptingly quick cheap break, but--for foreigners--little or no enforceable contact with the kids thereafter, notes Jeremy Morley, a New York-based "international divorce strategist". Other places may be mum-friendly when it comes to money but dad-friendly on child custody. The European Union is trying to tidy up its divorce laws. A reform in 2001 called Brussels II tried to stop forum shopping, in which each party sought the most favourable jurisdiction, by ruling that the first court to be approached decides the divorce. That worked--but at the cost of encouraging trigger-happy spouses to kill troubled marriages quickly, rather than trying to patch them up. This, says David Hodson, a specialist in international divorce law, favours the "wealthier, more aggressive, more unscrupulous party". It goes against the general trend towards counselling, mediation and out-of-court settlement. An EU measure called Rome Ⅲ, now under negotiation and pencilled in to come into force in 2008, tries to ensure that the marriage is ended by the law that has governed it most closely. It may be easy for a Dutch court to apply Belgian law when dealing with the uncontested divorce of a Belgian couple, but less so for a Spanish court to apply Polish rules, let alone Iranian or Indonesian, and especially not when the divorce is contested. Such snags make Rome Ⅲ "laughably idiotic--a recipe for increasing costs", according to John Cornwell, a London lawyer. Britain and Ireland say they will opt out. That, says Mr. Hodson, will give a further edge to London. Since a judgment in 2000 entrenched the principle of "equality" in division of marital, assets, England, home to hundreds of thousands of expatriates, has become a "Mecca for wives", says Louise Spitz of Manches, a London law firm. David Truex, who runs a specialist international divorce outfit, reckons that at least a fifth of divorce cases registered in London's higher courts now have an international element. For the typical global couple, such high-profile, big-money cases matter less than the three basic (and deeply unromantic factors) in marriage planning. According to Mr. Truex, a rich man should choose his bride from a country with a stingy divorce law, such as Sweden or France, and marry her there. Second, he should draw up a pre-nuptial agreement. These are binding in many countries and have begun to count even in England. Third, once divorce looms, a wife may want to move to England or America (but should avoid no-alimony states such as Florida) I for husbands, staying in continental Europe is wise. Outside Europe, the country--or American State--deemed the most "appropriate" in terms of the couple's family and business connections will normally get to hear the case. But here too unilateral action may be decisive. When Earl Spencer, brother of Princess Diana, divorced his first wife he surprised her by issuing proceedings in South Africa where they were then living. In England, where they had been domiciled, she might have got a better deal. She ended up suing her lawyers. The lesson for couples? How you live may determine the length and happiness of your marriage. Where you live is likely to determine how it ends.

单选题Which of the following is NOT mentioned as an occasion when the author will be moved to tears?

单选题Highland, bagpipe, kilt and Edinburgh may associate you well enough with ______. A. Wales B. England C. Scotland D. Northern Ireland

单选题The statement that shows the best understanding of the first two paragraphs of the passage is ______.

单选题The novel For Whom the Bell Tolls is written by______.

单选题The ______ writers introduced a new theme into literature, that is, the struggle of the proletariat for its rights, which expressed firm belief in the ultimate victory of the suffering people.[A] Utopian[B] Chartist[C] Idealist[D] Realist

单选题[此试题无题干]

单选题According to the passage, the panic disorder_____.

单选题Which of the following writers is praised by President Lincoln as "the little woman who wrote the book that made this great war"? A. Emily Dickinson. B. Willa Cather. C. Harriet Beecher Stowe. D. George Eliot.

单选题The author's opinion about the pervasive fear seems to be that ______.

单选题What must the explorers be, even though they have modem equipment and technique?

单选题It is implied in the passage that the primary difficulty in seeking a safe way to dispose of nuclear wastes is caused by______.

单选题From the sentence "Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, whose department had ignored security at Los Alamos for years, was walking around in a daze. ", we know that_____.

单选题The promoters of the construction have argued that ______.

单选题According to the author, Green EFL has all of the following advantages EXCEPT that ______.

单选题 {{B}}TEXT A{{/B}} Paula Jones' case against Bill Clinton is now, for all possible political consequences and capacity for media sensation, a fairy routine lawsuit of its kind. It does, however, have enormous social significance. For those of us who care about sexual harassment, the matter of Jones v. Clinton is a great conundrum. Consider: if Jones, the former Arkansas state employee, proves her claims, then we must face the fact that we helped to elect someone --Bill Clinton -- who has betrayed us on this vital issue. But if she is proved to be lying, then we must accept that we pushed onto the public agenda an issue that is venerable to manipulation by alleged victims. The skeptics will use Jones' case to east doubt on the whole cause. Still, Ms Jones deserves the chance to prove her case; she has a right to pursue this claim and have the process work. It will be difficult: these kinds of cases usually are, and Ms. Jones' task of suing a sitting president is harder than most. She does have one thing sitting on her side: her case is in the courts. Sexual-harassment claims are really about violations of the alleged victims' civil rights, and there is no better forum for determining and assessing those violations -- and finding the truth -- than federal court. The judicial system can put aside political to decide these complicated issues. That is a feat that neither the Senate Judicial nor ethics committees have been able to accomplish--witness the Clarence Thomas and Bob Packwood affairs. One lesson: the legal arena, not the political one, is the place to settle these sensitive problems. Some have argued that the people (the "feminists") who rallied around me have failed to support Jones. Our situations, however, are quite different. In 1991 the country was in the middle of a public debate over whether Clarence Thomas should be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Throughout that summer, interest groups on both sides weighed in on his nomination. It was a public forum that invited a public conversation. But a pending civil action -- even one against the president -- does not generally invite that kind of public engagement. Most of the public seems content to let the process move forward. And given the conundrum created by the claim, it is no wonder that many ("feminists" included) have been slow to jump into the Jones-Clinton fray. But people from all walks of life remain open to her suit. We don' t yet know which outcome we must confront: the president who betrayed the issue or the woman who used it. Whichever it is, we should continue to pursue sexual harassment with the same kind of energy and interest in eliminating the problem that we have in the past, regardless of who is the accused or the accuser. The statistics show that about 40 percent of women in the work force will encounter some form of harassment. We can' t afford to abandon this issue now.

单选题 Question 10 is based on the following news. At the end of the news item, you will be given 10 seconds to answer the question. Now listen to the news.

单选题The second largest racial and ethnic group in the United States is

单选题It can be inferred from the passage that, had the Civil Rights movement not prompted an investigation of prison conditions, ______.