单选题The custom of young men bowing to show respect when passing the dwellings of their elders was cited as a characteristic of

单选题The marvelous telephone and television network that has now enmeshed the whole world, making all men neighbors, cannot be extended into space. It will never be possible to converse with anyone on another planet. Even with today's radio equipment, the messages will take minutes—sometimes hours—on their journey, because radio and light waves travel at the same limited speed of 186, 000 miles a second. Twenty years from now you will be able to listen to a friend on Mars, but the words you hear will have left his mouth at least three minutes earlier, and your reply will take a corresponding time to reach him. In such circumstances, an exchange of verbal messages is possible—but not a conversation. To a culture which has come to take instantaneous communication for granted, as part of the very structure of civilized life, this "time barrier" may have a profound psychological impact. It will be a perpetual reminder of universal laws and limitations against which not all our technology can ever prevail. For it seems as certain as anything can be that no signal--still less any material object—can ever travel faster than light. The velocity of light is the ultimate speed limit, being part of the very, structure of space and time. Within the narrow confines of the solar system, it will not handicap us too severely. At the worst, these will amount to twenty hours—the time it takes a radio signal to span the orbit of Pluto, the outer-most planet. It is when we move out beyond the confines of the solar system that we come face to face with an altogether new order of cosmic reality. Even today, many otherwise educated men—like those savages who can count to three but lump together all numbers beyond four—cannot grasp the profound distinction between solar and stellar space. The first is the space enclosing our neighboring worlds, the planets; the second is that which embraces those distant suns, the stars, and it is literally millions of times greater. There is no such abrupt change of scale in the terrestrial affairs. Many conservative scientists, appalled by these cosmic gulfs, have denied that they can ever be crossed. Some people never learn ; those who sixty years ago scoffed at the possibility of flight, and ten years ago laughed at the idea of travel to the planets, are now quite sure that the stars will always be beyond our reach. And again they are wrong, for they have failed to grasp the great lesson of our age— that if something is possible in theory, and no fundamental scientific laws oppose its realization, then sooner or later it will be achieved. One day we shall discover a really efficient means of propelling our space vehicles. Every technical device is always developed to its limit and the ultimate speed for spaceships is the velocity of light. They will never reach that goal, but they will get very near it. And then the nearest star will be less than five years voyaging from the earth.

单选题Section Ⅲ will be of no help unless the reader______.

单选题Does using a word processor affect a writer s style? The medium usually does do something to the message after all, even if Marshall McLuhan' s claim that the medium simply is the message has been heard and largely forgotten now. The question matters. Ray Hammond, in his excellent guide The Writer and the Word Processor, predicts that over half the professional writers in Britain and the USA will be using word processors by the end of 1985. The best known recruit is Leu Deighton, from as long ago as 1968, though most users have only started since the microcomputer boom began in 1980. Ironically word processing is in some ways psychologically more like writing in rough than typing, since it restores fluidity and provisionality to the text. The typist' s dread of having to get out the Tippex, the scissors and paste, or of redoing the whole thing if he has any substantial second thoughts, can make him consistently choose the safer option in his sentences, or let something stand which he knows to be unsatisfactory or incomplete, out of weariness. In word processing the text is loosened up whilst still retaining the advantage of looking formally finished. This has, I think, two apparently contradictory effects. The initial writing can become excessively sloppy and careless, in the expectation that it will be corrected later. That crucial first inspiration is never easy to recapture, though, and therefore, on the other hand, the writing can become over - deliberated, lacking in flow and spontaneity, since revision becomes a larger part of composition. However, these are faults easier to detect in others than in oneself. My own experience of the sheer difficulty of committing any words at all to the page means I' m grateful for all the help I' can get. For most writers, word processing quite rapidly comes to feel like the ideal method ( and can always be a second step after drafting on paper if you prefer). Most of the writers interviewed by Hammond say it has improved their style ( "immensely", says Deighton). Seeing your own word on a screen helps you to feel cool and detached about them. Thus is not just by freeing you from-the labor of mechanical retyping that a word processor can help you to write. One author (Terence Feely) claims it has increased his output by 400%. Possibly the feeling of having a reactive machine, which appears to do things, rather than just have things done with it, accounts for this--your slave works hard and so do you. Are there no drawbacks? It costs a lot and takes time to learn--" expect to lose weeks of work", says Hammond, though days might be nearer the mark. Notoriously it is possible to lose work altogether on a word processor, and this happens to everybody at least once. The awareness that what you have written no longer' exists anywhere at all, is unbelievably enraging and baffling. Will word processing generally raise the level of professional writing then? Does it make writers better as well as more productive? Though all users insist it has done so for them individually, this is hard to believe. But reliance happens fast.

单选题When anyone opens a current account at a bank, he is lending the bank money. He may (1) the repayment of the money at any time, either (2) cash or by drawing a check in favor of another person. (3) , the banker-customer relationship is that of debtor and creditor who is (4) depending on whether the customer's account is (5) credit or is overdrawn. But, in (6) to that basically simple concept, the bank and its customer (7) a large number of obligations to one another. Many of these obligations can give (8) to problems and complications but a bank customer, unlike, say, a buyer of goods, cannot complain that the law is (9) against him. The bank must (10) its customer's instructions, and not those of anyone else. (11) , for example, a customer opens an account, he instructs the bank to debit his account only in (12) of checks drawn by himself. He gives the bank (13) of his signature, and there is a very firm rule that the bank has no right or (14) to pay out a customer's money (15) a check on which its customer's signature has been (16) It makes no difference that the forgery may have been a very (17) one: the bank must recognize its customer's signature. For this reason there is no (18) to the customer in the practice, (19) by banks, of printing the customer's name on his checks. If this (20) Forgery, it is the bank that will lose, not the customer. (254 words)

单选题{{B}}Text 2{{/B}} If Bill Gates ever had reason to doubt that the brash young billionaires of Google were out to get him, the time for such uncertainty is now officially over. Last month's dramatically revised version of its program Google Desktop is a glove slap across the face of Microsoft's fabled chief software architect. Obviously Google's update to a previous tool that searched people's hard drives in addition to the usual lightning-quick survey of the entire World Wide Web, Google Desktop 2 turns out to be a not-so-stealthy attempt to hijack the desktop from Microsoft. And in a move that must be particularly galling to Gates, the program does it in a way that directly steals thunder from Microsoft's upcoming Windows update, Vista. Specifically, I'm talking about Google's feature called Sidebar, a stack of small windows that sit on the side of the screen and dynamically draw on Web and personal information to track things like weather, stock prices, your e-mail, your photos, recently opened documents and Web destinations . Several years ago, demonstrating an early version of Vista, Microsoft proudly showed a column of on-screen "tiles" that did the same kinds of things. Microsoft's name for this upcoming feature (which it still plans to include in Vista when it ships in late 2006): Sidebar. That's not all. Google product manager Nakhil Bhatla explains that another purpose of Desktop is to use the search box to quickly locate programs and files that you want to open--bypassing the Windows way of clicking on an icon or using the Start menu. Clearly, Google is squatting on Microsoft's turf, asking users to live in its environment as opposed to Bill's. Microsoft still believes that the central point of personal computing is productivity. That's why the desktop search in Vista will limit itself to probing the user's hard disk. Microsoft's explanation for this approach is that mixing Web-search results with hits from your own information is just too confusing. Things go more efficiently, the theory goes, when your personal data pond is segregated from the ocean of information data located elsewhere in the world. (Microsoft offers Web search as a separate program. ) In contrast, Google Desktop searches bring results from everywhere--your hard disk, your email and billions of Web sites. That's because the Google mission is organizing and managing all the world's information. "You shouldn't have to think about where the information comes from," says Google VP Susan Wojcicki. Though Google-sites acknowledge difficulties in merging the personal with the public, their core belief is that the essence of 21st-century computing springs from the connectivity that allows all human knowledge, from books to instant messages, to be potentially shared. As Google tries to annex new information flows, it increasingly runs smack against issues of privacy, copyright and censorship. That's one part of Google's challenge. The other will be fending off Bill Gates, undoubtedly determined to prove that his vision of computing still dominates.

单选题 Three makes a trend. The Washington Post Co. Friday announced that it would look to sell its iconic headquarters building in downtown Washington, D.C. In January, the Detroit Free Press and The Detroit News announced they would put up for sale their headquarters. The same month, Frank Gannett said it will sell the building that houses the Rochester, N.Y., Democrat circulation revenues are back to where they were in 1996. The digital numbers are rising, but not nearly fast enough. Print media is hampered by high fixed costs incurred in the pre-digital era-pensions and union contracts, equipment like printing presses, large numbers of employees, and big office buildings. Virtually every newspaper company has engaged in drastic measures—laying off experienced employees, eliminating sections, cutting back printing from daily to a few days per week. Those efforts are all meant to lower day-to-day operating costs. But we've also seen newspaper companies seek onetime injections of cash by selling off non-core assets. Increasingly, the headquarters building—typically located right in the middle of town-is falling into the non-core asset category. Traditionalists may find these sales and the continued shrinking of newspapers' real-estate footprints to be depressing. But it's actually a positive development. Call it creative destruction, or adaptive reuse. In cities around the country, investors are finding better uses for properties. In lower Manhattan, Class B office buildings that used to house financial firms have been converted into ex pensive condos. "It's a great thing, because it drives more tax revenue to the cities. And it gives the suburbs a run for the money," said Jonathan Miller, president of appraisal company MillerSamuel. In D.C., the Washington Post will likely fetch an excellent price for its headquarters because Washington is a boomtown. Throughout D.C., investors are plowing cash into housing, office, and retail developments. The building that housed the organization that exposed the Watergate scandal may become the next Watergate complex. Of course, progress inevitably displaces the prior tenants. It's likely the new homes that will be occupied by newspapermen and newspaperwomen in Washington, Rochester, and Detroit will be less grand, less central, and less historic than their current homes. And the sale of these properties alone won't solve the newspapers' financial problems. But it will buy them a very valuable commodity: time.

单选题It was the biggest scientific grudge match since the space race. The Genome Wars had everything: two groups with appealing leaders ready to fight in a scientific dead heat, pushing the limits of technology and rhetoric as they battled to become the first to read every last one of the 3 billion DNA "letters" in the human body. The scientific importance of the work is unquestionable. The completed DNA sequence is expected to give scientists unprecedented insights into the workings of the human body, revolutionizing medicine and biology. But the race itself, between the government's Human Genome Project and Rockville, Md., biotechnology company Celera Genomics, was at least partly symbolic, the public/private conflict played out in a genetic lab. Now the race is over. After years of public attacks and several failed attempts at reconciliation, the two sides are taking a step toward a period of calm. HOP head Francis Collins (and .Ari Patrinos of the Department of Energy, an important ally on the government side) and Craig Venter, the founder of Celera, agreed to hold a joint press conference in Washington this Monday to declare that the race was over (sort of), that both sides had won (kind of) and that the hostilities were resolved (for the time being). No one is exactly sure how things will be different now. Neither side will be turning off its sequencing machines any time soon--the "finish lines" each has crossed are largely arbitrary points, "first drafts" rather than the definitive version. And while the joint announcement brings the former Genome Warriors closer together than they've been in years, insiders say I that future agreements are more likely to take the form of coordination, rather than outright collaboration. The conflict blew up this February when Britain's Welcome Trust, an HGP participant, released a confidential letter to Celera outlining the HGP's complaints. Venter called the move "a lowlife thing to do," but by spring, there were the first signs of a thaw. "The attacks and nastiness are bad for science and our investors," Venter told Newsweek in March, "and fighting back is probably not helpful." At a cancer meeting earlier this month, Venter and Collins praised each other's approaches, and expressed hope that all of the scientists involved in sequencing the human genome would be able to share the credit By late last week, that hope was becoming a reality as details for Monday's joint announcement were hammered out. Scientists in both camps welcomed an end to the hostilities. "If this ends the horse race, science wins." With their difference behind them, or at least set aside, the scientists should now be able to get down to the interesting stuff, figuring how to make use of all that data.

单选题{{B}}Text 3{{/B}} Some oil companies plan to get rid of some of the pollution they produce by pumping it into rocks deep inside the Earth, where they say it will stay for thousands of years. Other people, though, aren't so sure this is advisable; environmental groups say that putting this pollution back into the Earth is a bad idea. When oil burns, it doesn't just produce heat: it also produces carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a natural part of the air, but because people burn so much oil, there's too much carbon dioxide in the air. This extra carbon dioxide is pollution; some scientific studies show that carbon dioxide is one of the "greenhouse gases 'that is causing the Earth's temperature to rise. Environmentalists say that the oil companies' plans may not work. The oil companies say they are making sure that the gas will never escape, but environmentalists wonder how the oil companies can be so sure that the gas won' t seep into the air. They also point out that there's no way to check to make sure the gas isn't leaking. In addition, the environmentalists point out that the pumping costs money—for research and for equipment—that the oil companies should be spending on preventing pollution, rather than on just moving it someplace else. Another problem, say some people who are concerned about the Earth, is that if the oil companies find a cheap way to get rid of their pollution, they won' t look for new kinds of energy. These environmentalists say that energy companies should be researching ways to use hydrogen, wind power, and solar power instead of finding better ways to use oil. They argue that continuing to use oil means that we will still need to buy oil from other countries instead of producing our own cheap, clean energy. Environmentalists also say that burying pollution just pushes the problem into the future, rather than really solving it. They say that if the oil companies pump carbon dioxide into the rocks inside the Earth, it will be there for thousands of years, and that no one knows if this plan—even if it works—might turn into a pollution problem for all of us in the future. The oil companies insist that their plan is safe, and that putting the gas inside the Earth is a reasonable way to deal with it. They point out that there is a lot of room in the Earth for this extra gas, and that putting carbon dioxide inside the Earth means that the gas won' t be in the air, and if it' s not in the air, it won' t make the Earth warmer.

单选题 It is often observed that the aged spend much time thinking and talking about their past lives,{{U}} (1) {{/U}}about the future. These reminiscences are not simply random or trivial memories,{{U}} (2) {{/U}}is their purpose merely to make conversation. The old person's recollections of the past help to{{U}} (3) {{/U}}an identity that is becoming increasingly fragile:{{U}} (4) {{/U}}any role that brings respect or any goal that might provide{{U}} (5) {{/U}}to the future, the individual mentions their past as a reminder to listeners, that here was a life{{U}} (6) {{/U}}living.{{U}} (7) {{/U}}, the memories form part of a continuing life{{U}} (8) {{/U}}, in which the old person{{U}} (9) {{/U}}the events and experiences of the years gone by and{{U}} (10) {{/U}}on the overall meaning of his or her own almost completed life. As the life cycle{{U}} (11) {{/U}}to its close, the aged must also learn to accept the reality of their own impending death.{{U}} (12) {{/U}}this task is made difficult by the fact that death is almost a{{U}} (13) {{/U}}subject in the United States. The mere discussion of death is often regarded as{{U}} (14) {{/U}}As adults many of us find the topic frightening and are{{U}} (15) {{/U}}to think about it—and certainly not to talk about it{{U}} (16) {{/U}}the presence of someone who is dying. Death has achieved this taboo{{U}} (17) {{/U}}only in the modern industrial societies. There seems to be an important reason for our reluctance to{{U}} (18) {{/U}}the idea of death. It is the very fact that death remains{{U}} (19) {{/U}}our control; it is almost the only one of the natural processes{{U}} (20) {{/U}}is so.

单选题As Eleanor Roosevelt once said, "Universal human rights begin in small places, close to home." And Tolerance. org, a Web site from the Southern Poverty Law Center, is helping parents across the country create homes in which tolerance and understanding are guiding themes. "The goal of nurturing open-minded, empathetic children is a challenging one," says Jennifer Holladay, director of Tolerance. org. "To cultivate tolerance, parents have to instill in children a sense of empathy, respect and responsibility—to oneself and to others—as well as the recognition that every person on earth is a treasure." Holladay offers several ways parents can promote tolerance: Talk about tolerance. Tolerance education is an ongoing process; it cannot be captured in a single moment. Establish a high comfort level for open dialogue about social issues. Let children know that no subject is taboo. Identify intolerance when children are exposed to it. Point out stereotypes and cultural misinformation depicted in movies, TV shows, computer games and other media. Challenge bias when it comes from friends and family members. Do not let the moment pass. Begin with a qualified statement: "Andrew just called people of XYZ faith 'lunatics. ' What do you think about that, Zoe?" Let children do most of the talking. Challenge intolerance when it comes from your children. When a child says or does something that reflects biases or embraces stereotypes, confront the child: "What makes that joke funny, Jerome?" Guide the conversation toward internalization of empathy and respect—"Mimi uses a walker, honey. How do you think she would feel about that joke?" or "How did you feel when Robbie made fun of your glasses last week?" Support your children when they are the victims of intolerance. Respect children's troubles by acknowledging when they become targets of bias. Don't minimize the experience. Provide emotional support and then brainstorm constructive responses. For example, develop a set of comebacks to use when children are the victims of name-calling. Create opportunities for children to interact with people who are different from them. Look critically at how a child defines "normal." Expand the definition. Visit playgrounds where a variety of children are present—people of different races, socioeconomic backgrounds, family structures, etc. Encourage a child to spend time with elders—grandparents, for example. Encourage children to call upon community resources. A child who is concerned about world hunger can volunteer at a local soup kitchen or homeless shelter. The earlier children interact with the community, the better. This will help convey the lesson that we are not islands unto ourselves. Model the behavior you would like to see. As a parent and as your child's primary role model, be consistent in how you treat others. Remember, you may say, "Do as I say, not as I do," but actions really do speak louder than words.

单选题Many countries have a tradition of inviting foreigners to rule them. The English called in William of Orange in 1688, and, depending on your interpretation of history, William of Normandy in 1066. Both did rather a good job. Returning the compliment, Albania asked a well-bred Englishman called Aubgrey Herbert to be their king in the 1920s. He refused—and they ended up with several coves called Zog. America, the country of immigrants, has no truck with imported foreign talent. Article two of the constitution says that "no person except a natural-born citizen.., shall be eligible to the office of the president". This is now being challenged by a particularly irresistible immigrant: Arnold Schwarzcnegger. Barely a year has passed since the erstwhile cyborg swept to victory in California's recall election, yet there is already an Amend-for-Arnold campaign collecting signatures to let the Austrian-born governor have a go at the White House. George Bush senior has weighed in on his behalf. There are several "Arnold amendments" in Congress: one al- lows foreigners who have been naturalized citizens for 20 years to become president. (The Austrian became American in 1983. ) It is easy to dismiss the hoopla as another regrettable example of loopy celebrity politics. Mr. Schwarzenegger has made a decent start as governor, but he bas done little, as yet, to change the structure of his dysfunctional state. Indeed, even if the law were changed, he could well be elbowed aside by another incomer, this time from Canada: the Democratic governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, who appears to have fewer skeletons in her closet than the hedonistic actor. Moreover, changing the American constitution is no doddle. It has happened only 17 times since 1791 (when the first ten amendments were codified as the bill of rights). To change the constitution, an amendment has to be approved by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, and then to be ratified by three-quarters of the 50 states. The Arnold amendment is hardly in the same category as abolishing slavery or giving women the vote. And, as some wags point out, Austrian imports have a pretty dodgy record of running mil- itary superpowers.