单选题Question 15-18

单选题

单选题It may be the last book you"ll ever buy. And certainly, from a practical standpoint, it will be the only book you"ll ever need. No, it"s not the Bible or some New Age tome promising enlightenment—although it would let you carry around both texts simultaneously. It"s an electronic book—a single volume that could contain a library information or, if your tastes run toward what"s current, every title on today"s bestseller list. And when you"re done with those, you could refill it with new titles. Why an electronic book? Computers can store a ton of data and their laptop companions make all that information portable. True enough. But laptops and similar portable information devices require a lot of power—and heavy batteries—to keep their LCD screens operating. And LCDs are not easy to read in the bright light of the sun. Fact is, when it comes to portability, easy viewing, and low power requirements, it"s hard to beat plain old paper. So let"s make the ink electronic. That"s the deceptively simple premise behind a project currently coming to fruition at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Some hurdles—mostly having to do with large-scale manufacturing—remain, so it will be a few years before you see an electronic book for sale in stores. But the basic technology already exists, developed at the Institute"s Media Lab by a team led by physicist Joe Jacobson. Simply put, each page in an electronic book is coated with millions of microscopic particles encased in tiny capsules. Each of these microcapsules can respond independently to an electrical charge: Particles within the capsule moving to the rear appear dark while those moving toward the front look white. The direction in which the particles move depends upon whether a negative (dark) or positive (white) charge is applied. Each microcapsule is about 40 microns in size (that"s a little less than half the thickness of a human hair). The number of microcapsules used on a given page is enormous. For instance, about 1,000 micor-capsules might be used to create the letter "A" on this page. "The smaller the size of the letter, the more microcapsules you use," says Jacobson, "thereby improving resolution." The target is to have a "paper display" with a resolution higher than that offered by today"s computer screens. More than static letters are at stake: Theoretically, the microcapsules could be programmed to "flip" rapidly between dark and white states, providing, for example, a sense of motion in a diagram showing how a car works. Thanks to electronic ink, the book essentially typesets itself, receiving instructions for each page via electronics housed in the spine. From a power standpoint, this process makes the electronic book very efficient. Unlike an LCD screen, which uses power all the time, energy is no longer needed to view the electronic book"s pages once they are typeset. Only a small battery would be required, as opposed to the large ones needed to power laptop computers and their LCDs. Convenience, though, is still the main attraction—and that means more than simple portability. Because the information is in electronic form, it can be easily manipulated. You could, for instance, make the type larger for easier reading. Or you could make notes in the margin with a stylus, your observations being stored on tiny, removable flash-memory cards in the spine. lt"s likely that electronic books will come preloaded with a selection of titles. New titles could be made available through flash-memory cards, for example. Jacobson, though, thinks the Internet will be the delivery method of choice. Imagine browsing through an online bookstore like www. amazon, com and downloading a novel into your electronic book via the modem in its spine. Transmitting Moby Dick would take about a minute. You could download a few titles, so you"ll have a few good read to choose from while you"re relaxing at the beach. If your first choice is not to your liking, a new title becomes available at the push of button. Jacobson thinks an electronic book will be affordable—around $200 for a basic readonly model to about 400 $ for one that would record your margin scribbles. Some hurdles remain, though, before you can take an electronic book with you anywhere. Paper is produced in long sheets, and Jacobson is still working on the best method to integrate electronic ink into that process. To avoid having to use thousands of tiny wires on each page, the ink itself must be conductive. Such ink was recently demonstrated in the lab but has yet to be produced in volume. "Essentially," notes Jacobson, "we"re trying to print chips." Jacobson is confident, however, that this can be done on a large scale. If Jacobson succeeds, he will have the book for the 21st century.

单选题

单选题Questions 23-26

单选题It is possibly the most famous promise in British retailing: "Never knowingly undersold" has been at the heart of John Lewis's business since 1925. But a quietly introduced change has infuriated loyal customers, who claim the price-match promise is now slipping away. For many years John Lewis customers have been safe in the knowledge that if they found their purchase for a lower price elsewhere the company would refund the difference. Carrier bags and marketing campaigns have proudly proclaimed to the world that John Lewis won't be beaten on price. Yet since September some customers who have asked John Lewis to match the price of goods found cheaper elsewhere on the high street have been turned away. A Guardian Money reader from Roydon, Essex, contacted us after he bought a Hotpoint washing machine in John Lewis's Welwyn store for ￡279. A few days later he saw the same model in Argos for ￡219--￡60 cheaper. John Lewis turned down his claim made under the never knowingly undersold policy, because it said it guaranteed the washing machines for two years, while Argos offered only one year. The customer complained--unsuccessfully--that the store wasn't being fair as this was not made clear in the literature. When Money investigated, we found that John Lewis had made a fundamental change to its policy. In a statement in September, which at the time drew positive headlines, it said it would for the first time match online prices from other retailers as long as they also had a physical high street presence. What was made less clear was that the store would no longer match a price unless its rival offers the exact same warranty. The policy change might not sound much, but it in effect allows the store to avoid almost all price matching of electrical items--because John Lewis has adopted a policy of offering two-year warranties on almost every such item. Most stores in the UK offer just one year. When we first raised the reader's complaint with John Lewis it told us. "As part of our commitment to be never knowingly undersold, we match prices based on the combined cost of the product plus charges the competitor may make for a comparable warranty or guarantee. We evaluate price-match claims on a like-for-like basis, and breakdown cover is a crucial part of our proposition to our customers. " What it failed to mention was that prior to the September policy rewrite, it would have paid the complainant the ￡60 difference between the John Lewis and Argos washing machines. Interestingly, the store confirmed it would not price match the cost of buying a product plus a warranty from a third party company, but would consider a claim if the cheaper retailer offered the chance to buy both together. David Suddock, head of buying support at John Lewis, who revised the policy, says. "As a result of our commitment to expand our never knowingly undersold policy to include other retailers with online presences we now put a great deal of resources into checking the prices charged by our rivals and lowering ours where appropriate; Our customers are benefiting through significantly reduced prices. They tell us they value the extra warranty periods we offer, and we think it is only fair we should include that in our price match scheme. The terms of the never knowingly undersold policy are clearly presented in both our stores and on the website. " But if the Money postbag is to be believed, most John Lewis customers were unaware of the change. And Martyn Hocking, editor of Which? says: "John Lewis is known for its great customer service, so the change to its never knowingly undersold policy is very disappointing. Customers would naturally expect any price matching policy to relate to the up-front cost of a product, excluding the value of added extras such as warranties and guarantees. As such, we feel that the amended policy is misleading and will lead to frustration for many shoppers. " But Natalie Berg, research director at retail analysts Planet Retail, says John Lewis/s move was perhaps inevitable. "The internet has put the power to compare prices in the hands of all of us; some shoppers now use smart phones to check prices as they walk around a store. John Lewis has realized that while price is important, it's not the factor in where to buy. The fact that John Lewis has been one of the winners on the high street in recent months suggests consumers are not just looking for the lowest prices, but they want value--and the perception that John Lewis delivers this. /

单选题Questions 11 to 15 are based on the following news.

单选题Wildlife-based tourism is growing rapidly worldwide as the number of tourists continues to grow and as we, as travellers, seek out new and more enriching personal experiences with local cultures and wildlife. Experiencing the natural beauty of places like the Amazon rainforest, Iguazú Falls and Machu Picchu and the local people fighting to protect them was life-changing. The UN World Tourism Organisation estimates that 7% of world tourism relates to wildlife tourism, growing annually at about 3%, and much higher in some places, like our Unesco world heritage sites. A WWF report shows that 93% of all natural heritage sites support recreation and tourism and 91% of them provide jobs. In Belize, more than 50% of the population are said to be supported by income generated through reef-related tourism and fisheries. But the very assets that underpin this wildlife based tourism—the wildlife itself—are under severe threat. The threats come from a multitude of sources: habitat loss, pollution, infrastructure, climate change, over-exploitation and illegal trade, the most immediate threat to wildlife. If we lose the wildlife, we lose the wildlife based tourism and the jobs that go with it. The surge in illegal wildlife trade witnessed in recent years is industrial in scale and is driven by transnational organised criminals. They target high-value wildlife without regard for the animals or people"s lives. They corrupt local officials, recruit and arm local poachers, plunder local wildlife, create insecurity and put local communities into a poverty spiral. The international community is fighting back. There is a global collective effort underway to take on these criminals. But they are hard to beat. We cannot rely on law enforcement alone. We need the private sector, especially the transport, travel and tourism sectors, to join the fight. Many in the transport sector, especially airlines, have come on board largely thanks to HRH the Duke of Cambridge, through his Transport Task Force initiative. The tourism sector must join us as well, as must each one of us, as tourists. Well-managed wildlife-based tourism can offer an economic opportunity that supports wildlife. It must be responsibly managed and operators must engage with staff, customers and, most importantly, local people. Staff can be eyes and ears for the police, and customers can stop buying illegally or unsustainably sourced wildlife products. Engaging local people is the key, and that takes effort. Evidence shows that when? local people have a stake in it they will be the best protectors of wildlife, as is evident in the Northern Rangelands Trust. Tourism operators have the power to lift local people out of poverty in a manner that will be mutually beneficial and self-sustaining. Or they can choose not to engage with local communities and to invest in a manner that sees all of the profits go offshore—in which case I would say they are no better than the poachers and the smugglers. The reality is that the tourism sector is not a fringe player in the fight against illegal wildlife trade—it is right at the centre of it. Tourism operators are on the front line of this fight along with the customs and rangers and inspectors.

单选题Questions 6-10 For centuries, explorers have risked their lives venturing into the unknown for reasons that were to varying degrees economic and nationalistic. Columbus went west to look for better trade routes to the Orient and to promote the greater glory of Spain. Lewis and Clark journeyed into the American wilderness to find out what the U.S. had acquired when it purchased Louisiana, and the Apollo astronauts rocketed to the moon in a dramatic show of technological muscle during the cold war. Although their missions blended commercial and political-military imperatives, the explorers involved all accomplished some significant science simply by going where no scientists had gone before. Today Mars looms as humanity"s next great terra incognita. And with doubtful prospects for a short-term financial return, with the cold war a rapidly fading memory and amid a growing emphasis on international cooperation in large space ventures, it is clear that imperatives other than profits or nationalism will have to compel human beings to leave their tracks on the planet"s reddish surface. Could it be that science, which has long played a minor role in exploration, is at last destined to take a, leading role? The question naturally invites a couple of others.. Are there experiments that only humans could do on Mars? Could those experiments provide insights profound enough to justify the expense of sending people across interplanetary space? With Mars the scientific stakes are arguably higher than they have ever been. The issue of whether life ever existed on the planet, and whether it persists to this day, has been highlighted by mounting evidence that the Red Planet once had abundant stable, liquid water and by the continuing controversy over suggestions that bacterial fossils rode to Earth on a meteorite from Mars. A more conclusive answer about life on Mars, past or present, would give researchers invaluable data about the range of conditions under which a planet can generate the complex chemistry that leads to life. If it could be established that life arose independently on Mars and Earth, the finding would provide the first concrete clues in one of the deepest mysteries in all of science: the prevalence of life in the universe.

单选题 Harry Truman didn't think his successor had the right training to be president. "Poor Ike—it won't be a bit like the Army," he said. "He'll sit there all day saying” do this, do that', and nothing will happen." Truman was wrong about Ike. Dwight Eisenhower had led a fractious alliance—you didn't tell Winston Churchill what to do—in a massive, chaotic war. He was used to politics. But Truman's insight could well be applied to another, even more venerated Washington figure: the CEO-turned cabinet secretary. A 20-year bull market has convinced us all that CEOs are geniuses, so watch with astonishment the troubles of Donald Rumsfeld and Paul O'Neill. Here are two highly regarded businessmen, obviously intelligent and well-informed, foundering in their jobs. Actually, we shouldn't be surprised. Rumsfeld and O'Neill are not doing badly despite having been successful CEOs but because of it. The record of senior businessmen in government is one of almost unrelieved disappointment. In fact, with the exception of Robert Rubin, it is difficult to think of a CEO who had a successful career in government. Why is this? Well, first the CEO has to recognize that he is no longer the CEO. He is at best an adviser to the CEO, the president. But even the president is not really the CEO. No one is. Power in a corporation is concentrated and vertically Structured. Power in Washington is diffuse and horizontally spread out. The secretary might think he's in charge of his agency. But the chairman of the congressional committee funding that agency feels the same. In his famous study "Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents", Richard Neustadt explains how little power the president actually has and concludes that the only lasting presidential power is "the power to persuade". Take Rumsfeld's attempt to transform the cold-war military into one geared for the future. It's innovative but deeply threatening to almost everyone in Washington. The Defense Secretary did not try to sell it to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congress, the budget office or the White House. As a result, the idea is collapsing. Second, what power you have, you must use carefully. For example, O'Neill's position as Treasury Secretary is one with little formal authority. Unlike Finance Ministers around the world, Treasury does not control the budget. But it has symbolic power. The secretary is seen as the chief economic spokesman for the administration and, if he plays it right, the chief economic adviser for the president. O'Neill has been publicly critical of the IMF's bailout packages for developing countries while at the same time approving such packages for Turkey, Argentina and Brazil. As a result, he has gotten the worst of both worlds. The bailouts continue, but their effect in bolstering investor confidence is limited because the markets are rattled by his skepticism. Perhaps the government doesn't do bailouts well. But that leads to a third role: you can't just quit. Jack Welch's famous law for re-engineering General Electric was to be first or second in any given product category, or else get out of that business. But if the government isn't doing a particular job at peak level, it doesn't always have the option of relieving itself of that function. The Pentagon probably wastes a lot of money. But it can't get out of the national-security business. The key to former Treasury Secretary Rubin's success may have been that he fully understood that business and government are, in his words, "necessarily and properly very different". In a recent speech he explained, "Business functions around one predominate organizing principle, profitability… Government, on the other hand, deals with a vast number of equally legitimate and often potentially competing objectives—for example, energy production versus environmental protection, or safety regulations versus productivity." Rubin's example shows that talented people can do well in government if they are willing to treat it as its own separate, serious endeavor. But having been bathed in a culture of adoration and flattery, it's difficult for a CEO to believe he needs to listen and learn, particularly from those despised and poorly paid specimens, politicians, bureaucrats and the media. And even if he knows it intellectually, he just can't live with it.

单选题Midway through the first decade of the 21st century, economic growth is pulling millions out of poverty. Growth, so devoutly desired yet often so elusive for developing countries, is occurring in China and India on a heroic scale. Yet once affluence is achieved, its value is often questioned. In the l960s and 1970s, economists started worrying about environmental and social limits to growth. Now Avner Offer, professor of economic history at Oxford University, has added a weighty new critique to this tradition. "The Challenge of Affluence" accepts that the populations of poor countries gain from growth, but says that the main benefits of prosperity are achieved at quite modest levels. Its central thesis is that rising living standards in Britain and America have engendered impatience, which undermines well-being. The fruits of affluence are bitter ones, and include addiction, obesity, family breakdown and mental disorders. The claim is as ambitious as it is pessimistic. Professor Offer, who has an unorthodox academic background (before embarking on his academic career he worked as a soldier, farmer and conservation worker in his native Israel), is unafraid to challenge economic orthodoxy. He gives short shrift to the rational decision-makers of economic models, arguing that consumers are myopic creatures easily tempted by the lures of immediate satisfaction. As societies become wealthier, traditions and institutions that bolster commitment and far-sighted behavior are eroded. Individuals increasingly live for today rather than tomorrow. Prudence may have built up affluence, but affluence is no friend of prudence. Professor Offer buttresses his theoretical challenge with a large casebook from America and Britain. Drug addiction, which "shows how choice is fallible" is widespread. Obesity rates have risen alarmingly, in large measure because of the availability of fast food. The swift adoption of television in American homes after the Second World War is contrasted with the slower spread of appliances like dishwashers. This, he says, shows consumers" preference for time-using devices of "sensual arousal" over time-saving investments around the home. Falling saving rates, rising divorce figures and much else besides are yoked to the argument. The book fails to convince, however, both in its challenge to mainstream economics and in its interpretation of the historical evidence. Choices may multiply with the growth of affluence, but there is nothing new in the tension between impatience and prudence. Behavioral economics is now helping to explain the common tendency to procrastinate over decisions such as joining retirement saving plans that would be in individuals" long-term interest. However, this body of work is best understood as a set of exceptions that modifies but leaves intact the canonical model of rational choice, not least since it is irrational to suppose that people in general behave irrationally. Furthermore, there is little reason to believe—and scant evidence to support—the notion that behavior becomes more myopic as societies get richer. Rather, individuals face new and difficult challenges that they succeed, by and large, in meeting. One example is rising enrolment in higher education. By choosing to study rather than to work, students are sacrificing short-term income and greater consumption in order to secure higher living standards in the future. Another example of far-sighted behaviour and self-control is the investment that people make in their own health by adopting new lifestyles. Despite the addictiveness of nicotine, the prevalence of smoking has plunged as consumers have become better informed about its risks. Individuals are also investing in their health through more exercise and better diet. Fast-food chains have stumbled as more and more consumers reject unhealthy meals. Obesity rates among American women have stabilised, an early sign of a turning-point in the great fattening of society. Professor Offer"s broader message of gloom and foreboding is unwarranted. Measures indicating that well-being stalls beyond a certain modest level of affluence take no account of rising expectations, which are a virtue in themselves. Not only is prosperity welcome in itself but it contributes to rising life expectancy, another extraordinary boon, not least because prosperity brings with it improved health care, Equally important, it extends horizons and widens opportunities for more and more people. Affluence may present new challenges but they are a lot better than the alternative.

单选题

单选题Questions 16 to 20 are based on the following talk.

单选题How is it that the louder the calls for "civility," the less civil the behavior? On American campuses today, the call for civility has become the cry of the craven. So basic, so decent, so safe does civility sound that it"s hard to imagine anyone"s opposing it. Until, that is, the uncivilized rise up, at which point—from the University of Missouri to Claremont McKenna and Yale—those in charge either acknowledge their guilt or hurl themselves onto the funeral pyre of resignation prepared for them. As Hillary Clinton alluded to in Saturday night"s Democratic debate, for some Americans the latest student unrest awakens fond memories of the 1960s. In truth those were far more tumultuous times, with the frenzies of the sexual revolution, the civil-rights movement and the Vietnam War all converging on our campuses at about the same time. The more dispiriting comparison with the 1960s, alas, has less to do with the self-indulgence of the young than the learned fecklessness of the older and presumably wiser. Across the country the coddled activists with iPhones have rendered college presidents, chancellors and deans unable or unwilling to challenge the moral superiority of the mob. A pity, because even the 1960s gave us examples worth emulating. Start with 1968 at San Francisco State College. In the teeth of raging protests that had already claimed the scalps of his two immediate predecessors, a linguistics professor, S.I. Hayakawa, became acting president—and a national hero when he climbed atop a sound truck and ripped out wires to the speakers protesters were using to shout him down. Or John Silber. When activists in 1972 tried to block students from meeting with Marine recruiters, the Boston University president showed up with a bullhorn to direct those interfering with their fellow students" right to interview where they should line up to be arrested. Perhaps most successful was the Rev. Theodore Hesburgh of Notre Dame. Though by this time a dove on Vietnam, he believed the universities played an important role in training the nation"s military officers. At one point he prevented protesters from burning down the school"s ROTC building. In November 1968, protesters staged a lie-in aimed at blocking other students from job interviews with Dow Chemical and the CIA. Father Hesburgh was appalled by the idea of forcing a fellow student to walk across your body because you disagree with him. Scarcely three months later, he would issue a letter to the entire campus community—a letter reprinted in this paper and The New York Times . The Hesburgh letter recognized "the validity of protest" but made clear that any group that "substituted force for rational persuasion, be it violent or nonviolent, "would be given 15 minutes to meditate. Students who persisted would have their IDs confiscated and be "suspended from this community." Father Hesburgh went on: "There seems to be a current myth that university members are not responsible to the law, and that somehow the law is the enemy, particularly those whom society has constituted to uphold and enforce the law. I would like to insist here that all of us are responsible to the duly constituted laws of this University community and to all of the laws of the land. There is no other guarantee of civilization versus the jungle or mob rule, here or elsewhere." The Times called his letter "the toughest policy on student disruptions yet by any major American university in the course of recent disorders." An editorial in this paper further noted Father Hesburgh"s warning that if the universities didn"t get their act together, they would invite "unwholesome reactions" from others including government. History has by and large vindicated Father Hesburgh. At the time, it was a different story. A Wall Street Journal news story reported a "majority" of university administrators rejecting Father Hesburgh"s stand and predicting (incorrectly) it would prove a "prescription for disaster." "Confrontation," read the Journal news story, "is what administrators fervently seek to avoid." Then as now, what those avoiding confrontation did not understand is that civility and free expression do not occur in a state of nature: They require ground rules that must be enforced. So where are we today? At Yale, students provoked by a faculty member insufficiently sensitive to potentially offensive Halloween costumes have called for the head of said teacher along with a list of other demands for more diversity, apologies and self-criticism from the top. On cue, Yale President Peter Salovey calls for civility and has repeated Yale"s commitment to free expression. But at a moment when people thirst for a university president who will back up his words, Mr. Salovey, like so many others, apologizes. "We have failed you," he told protestors. Indeed they have failed. Just not in the way they imagine.

单选题

单选题 On March 26, 1999, I became a new staff member of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. I committed the rest of my scientific future there despite the allegations of espionage leveled at one of its weapons scientists, Wen Ho Lee, who, notably, has never been and may never be officially charged. I valued the accomplishments of its distinguished scientists and was confident its able leaders would receive the political support they needed from Washington to cope with the potential damage to its programs arising from the scandal. But in the months since then that support has come into question—and the damage has become real. Washington's reaction to the incident has created an atmosphere of suspicion, which, coupled with efforts to restrict scientific interchange and reduce funds for key research, threaten the essence of the lab—its ability to provide the kind of science-based security that has made it a national treasure. Los Alamos burst upon the national consciousness on Aug 6, 1945, the day it was announced that the atomic weapon dropped on Hiroshima had been developed by scientists working at the lab under the direction of Robert Oppenheimer. The secret of their success was an almost magical mix of three key ingredients: the quality and dedication of the researchers, an open scientific environment that promote collaboration and Oppenheimer's brilliant leadership. That excellence, openness and leadership have largely been maintained in the ensuing 54 years under the enlightened management of the University of California. During the cold war, when national security demanded that we have a competitive edge over the Soviets in nuclear weapons and weapons-related research, Los Alamos led the way. When it became evident that science-based national security depended on world leadership in science, the lab rose to the challenge. It developed an outstanding program to attract the best young researchers and established world-class trans-disciplinary centers for pure and applied scientific research. Indeed, what brought me to Los Alamos was the new Institute for Complex Adaptive Matter, established to work on what promises to be the most exciting science of the new millennium— the search for the higher organizing principles in nature that govern emergent behavior in matter. But in the past six months members of Congress and the Washington bureaucracy have put the scientific environment at Los Alamos seriously at risk. With the laudable goal of improving the security of classified research, they have attempted to impose inefficient micromanagement strategies while decreasing funding for vital research. As Sen. Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, wrote recently to a Horse colleague, "The House action is irresponsible." The damage, he said, "would be as serious and more assured than the suspected damage that may have been caused by Wen Ho Lee." Some of that damage has already been done. By my count there's been a 60 percent drop in the number of top researchers accepting postdoctoral fellowships at the lab. Promising young staffers are leaving for university and industry jobs, while leading university scientists have refused to be considered for key administrative positions at Los Alamos. Then, too, there's the loss of the young scientist from China who wanted to come to the lab to work with me this fall. Despite his outstanding record of scientific publication and glowing letters of recommendation, I felt obligated to discourage him from entering the postdoctoral competition. In the current atmosphere, I felt his every move would be monitored. But I wonder whether we've lost a chance to attract to America a major contributor to science—and a potential Nobel laureate. Washington must never forget that science is done by scientists, not by computers. It is vital to build security barriers in physical space and cyberspace to protect classified information. But science is not done in isolation. We must not make it difficult for scientists, including those working on secret projects, to discuss unclassified research with colleagues inside and outside the lab whose expertise they need to solve their problems. Doing so will not only make it impossible for the staff at Los Alamos to do their best work, but will also make it impossible for the lab to compete for the best and brightest researchers of the future. The damage that's been done can be repaired. Scientific openness and support for basic research can be restored. The chill fog of suspicion can be dissipated. But as Congress considers its next steps, the unanimous message from the scientific community is very simple, the scientific environment at Los Alamos has worked extremely well. Don't even think about trying to "fax" it.

单选题In the writer's view, people who qualify as eccentrics ______.

单选题According to the passage, early humans _______.

单选题

单选题 {{B}}Questions 19—22{{/B}}