单项选择题
单项选择题
For the past two years in Silicon Valley, the centre of America’s technology industry, conference-goers have entertained themselves playing a guessing game: how many times will a speaker mention the phrase "long tail" It is usually a high number, thanks to the influence of the long-tail theory, which was first developed by Chris Anderson, the editor of Wired magazine, in an article in 2004. Though technologists and bloggers chuckle at how every business presentation now has to have its long-tail section, most are envious of Mr. Anderson, whose brainwave quickly became the most fashionable business idea around.
Whether a blockbuster film, a bestselling novel, or a chart-topping rap song, popular culture idolises the hit. Companies devote themselves to creating them because the cost of distribution and the limits of shelf space in physical shops mean that profitability depends on a high volume of sales. But around the beginning of this century a group of internet companies realised that with endless shelves and a national or even international audience online they could offer a huge range of products—and make money at the same time.
The niche, the obscure and the specialist, Mr. Anderson argues, will gain ground at the expense of the hit. As evidence, he points to a drop in the number of companies that traditionally calculate their revenue/sales ratio according to the 80/20 rule—where the top fifth of products contribute four-fifths of revenues. Ecast, a San Francisco digital jukebox company, found that 98% of its 10000 albums sold at least one track every three months. Expressed in the language of statistics, the experiences of Ecast and other companies such as Aragon, an online bookseller, suggest that products down in the long tail of a statistical distribution, added together, can be highly profitable. The internet helps people find their way to relatively obscure material with recommendations and reviews by other people, (and for those willing to have their artistic tastes predicted by a piece of software) computer programs which analyse past selections.
Long-tail enthusiasts argue that the whole of culture will benefit, not just commercial enterprises. Television, film and music are such bewitching media in their own right that many people are quite happy to watch and listen to what the mainstream provides. But if individuals have the opportunity to pick better, more ideally suited entertainment from a far wider selection, they will take it, according to the theory of the long tail. Some analysts reckon that entire populations might become happier and wiser once they have access to thousands of documentaries, independent films and subgenres of every kind of music, instead of being subjected to what Mr. Anderson calls the tyranny of lowest-common-denominator fare. That might be taking things a bit far. But the long tail is certainly one of the internet’s better gifts to humanity.
Who will be benefited the least according to the theory
A:Sub-genre media. B:Big companies. C:Whole of culture. D:Individuals.
For the past two years in Silicon Valley, the centre of America’s technology industry, conference-goers have entertained themselves playing a guessing game: how many times will a speaker mention the phrase "long tail" It is usually a high number, thanks to the influence of the long-tail theory, which was first developed by Chris Anderson, the editor of Wired magazine, in an article in 2004. Though technologists and bloggers chuckle at how every business presentation now has to have its long-tail section, most are envious of Mr. Anderson, whose brainwave quickly became the most fashionable business idea around.
Whether a blockbuster film, a bestselling novel, or a chart-topping rap song, popular culture idolises the hit. Companies devote themselves to creating them because the cost of distribution and the limits of shelf space in physical shops mean that profitability depends on a high volume of sales. But around the beginning of this century a group of internet companies realised that with endless shelves and a national or even international audience online they could offer a huge range of products—and make money at the same time.
The niche, the obscure and the specialist, Mr. Anderson argues, will gain ground at the expense of the hit. As evidence, he points to a drop in the number of companies that traditionally calculate their revenue/sales ratio according to the 80/20 rule—where the top fifth of products contribute four-fifths of revenues. Ecast, a San Francisco digital jukebox company, found that 98% of its 10000 albums sold at least one track every three months. Expressed in the language of statistics, the experiences of Ecast and other companies such as Aragon, an online bookseller, suggest that products down in the long tail of a statistical distribution, added together, can be highly profitable. The internet helps people find their way to relatively obscure material with recommendations and reviews by other people, (and for those willing to have their artistic tastes predicted by a piece of software) computer programs which analyse past selections.
Long-tail enthusiasts argue that the whole of culture will benefit, not just commercial enterprises. Television, film and music are such bewitching media in their own right that many people are quite happy to watch and listen to what the mainstream provides. But if individuals have the opportunity to pick better, more ideally suited entertainment from a far wider selection, they will take it, according to the theory of the long tail. Some analysts reckon that entire populations might become happier and wiser once they have access to thousands of documentaries, independent films and subgenres of every kind of music, instead of being subjected to what Mr. Anderson calls the tyranny of lowest-common-denominator fare. That might be taking things a bit far. But the long tail is certainly one of the internet’s better gifts to humanity.
A:Sub-genre media. B:Big companies. C:Whole of culture. D:Individuals.
I am not sure that I can draw an exact line between wit and humor (perhaps the distinction is so subtle that only those persons can decide who have long white beards), but even an ignorant person may express an opinion in this matter.
I am quite positive that humor is the more comfortable and livable quality. Humorous persons, if their gift is genuine and not a mere shine upon the surface, are always agreeable companions. They have pleasant mouths turned up at the corners, to which the great master of Marionettes (牵线木偶) has fixed the strings and he holds them in his nimblest (灵巧的) fingers to twitch them at the slightest jest (笑话). But the mouth of a merely witty man is hard and sour. Nor is the flash from a witty man always comforting, but a humorous man radiates a general pleasure.
I admire wit, but l have no real liking for it; it has been too often employed against me, whereas humor is always an ally; it never points an impertinent (不礼貌的) finger into my defects. A wit’s tongue, however, is as sharp as a donkey’s stick—I may gallop the faster for its prodding (刺戳) , but the touch behind is too persuasive for any comfort.
Wit is a lean creature with a sharp inquiring nose, whereas humor has a kindly eye and a comfortable girth. Wit has a better voice in a solo, but humor comes into the chorus best.
Wit keeps the season’s fashions and is precise in the phrases and judgments of the day, but humor is concerned with homely eternal things.
A:permanently eliminate the confusion of them B:express his personal opinion of them C:reveal their similarities D:deprecate the quality of wit
I am not sure that I can draw an exact line between wit and humor (perhaps the distinction is so subtle that only those persons can decide who have long white beards), but even an ignorant person may express an opinion in this matter.
I am quite positive that humor is the more comfortable and livable quality. Humorous persons, if their gift is genuine and not a mere shine upon the surface, are always agreeable companions. They have pleasant mouths turned up at the corners, to which the great master of Marionettes (牵线木偶) has fixed the strings and he holds them in his nimblest (灵巧的) fingers to twitch them at the slightest jest (笑话). But the mouth of a merely witty man is hard and sour. Nor is the flash from a witty man always comforting, but a humorous man radiates a general pleasure.
I admire wit, but l have no real liking for it; it has been too often employed against me, whereas humor is always an ally; it never points an impertinent (不礼貌的) finger into my defects. A wit’s tongue, however, is as sharp as a donkey’s stick—I may gallop the faster for its prodding (刺戳) , but the touch behind is too persuasive for any comfort.
Wit is a lean creature with a sharp inquiring nose, whereas humor has a kindly eye and a comfortable girth. Wit has a better voice in a solo, but humor comes into the chorus best.
Wit keeps the season’s fashions and is precise in the phrases and judgments of the day, but humor is concerned with homely eternal things.
A:Humor is always genuine B:Humorous persons have pleasant faces C:Wit is more nimble than humor D:Humor comes by more naturally than wit
A fall in a pit, a gain in your wit.
{{B}}第三篇{{/B}}
| ?{{B}} ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Changes in the American
Family{{/B}} ? ?How much change has really occurred in the American family and what are the implications of these changes? First, the household size has changed greatly since 1790. From 1790 to 1978 the mean family size was cut in half from 5.79 persons to 2.81 persons. In 1790 almost 63 percent of all persons lived in the households of five or more people. By 1978 the size accounted for a little over 14 percent of all households. ? ?By the end of the 19th century a majority of Americans were living in urban areas, and the family was very much influenced By the rapid development of industrialization. With the arrival of immigrants, the urban population was increasingly heterogeneous(由不同成分组成的). This challenges the exclusiveness of any single family pattern. ? ?In the 20th century, the ideal American family consisted of a husband and wife living with dependent children. They lived in a household of their own provided for by the husband’s earnings. ?The wife was responsible for emotional maintenance of the marriage and for raising the children and running the household. ? ?The major change in the family in this century has been due to married women entering the work force. This, at least for periods of time, has taken the woman out of her full-time involvement in the home. Of all husband and wife families about 40% have both in the work force at any given time. ? ?In the past the identity of the individual was submerged in the family. In general, reputation in the community came from the family. Today, however, whatever individuals achieve is usually assessed on its own merit, and family has little relevance. Individuals make it or don’t make it essentially on their own. ? ?A sociologist describes another way in which the American family has changed. Today, in the Western world, the major burdens that are a part of the family system are emotional ones. But in the 19th century the family was much more involved with economic needs and tasks; family and relatives were valued for providing assistance during crisis. |
A:An individual makes his own living or does not do it. B:An individual is solely responsible for his success or failure. C:Individuals work separately and produce their own things. D:Individuals succeed or fail depending on their families.
Natural selection describes the biological process in which the differences of individuals within a population influences their abilities to survive and reproduce in an environment. The differences in individuals is a result of their genetic inheritance from their parents. In a population, any characteristic which blocks reproduction success tends to decrease generation by generation. In time, the ill-adapted die out. On the other hand,the individuals who do survive and reproduce will tend to produce offspring which are better adapted to the environment. Natural selection tends to promote adaptations that will increase the organism’s ability to survive in an environment.
Natural selection can serve to stabilize a population if the new traits, called mutations, are eliminated when they appear because they are not as well-adapted to the environment. The opposite effect is obtained when a new trait is introduced which allows individuals to adapt better over time, the species will change as this mutation becomes more widespread in the population. In human beings, increased brain size helped individuals to adapt better, and so brain size increased gradually in the species. Changes in the overall genetic makeup of a population are normal when there are environmental changes, especially sever environmental disruptions. Specialized adaptations to specific environments can lead, over time, to the development of subpopulation of individuals, ones who are better adapted to particular soil conditions food sources and so on. Given
enough time, these subpopulations may develop into separate species, such as zebras and horses, living in distinct environments and not interbreeding.
A:the ancestors of horses and zebras were once members of the same species B:the greatest biological change occurs in stable environments C:individuals mutate when they need to adapt to a new environment D:we can control population size by adapting new traits
{{B}}第三篇{{/B}}
| {{B}}? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? Changes in the American Family{{/B}} ? ?How much change has really occurred in the American family and what are the implications of these changes? First, the household size has changed greatly since 1790. From 1790 to 1978 the mean family size was cut in half from 5.79 persons to 2.81 persons. In 1790 almost 63 percent of all persons lived in the households of five or more people. By 1978 the size accounted for a little over 14 percent of all households. ? ?By the end of the 19th century a majority of Americans were living in urban areas, and the family was very much influenced by the rapid development of industrialization. With the arrival of immigrants, the urban population was increasingly heterogeneous(由不同成分组成的). This challenges the exclusiveness of any single family pattern. ? ?In the 20th century, the ideal American family consisted of a husband and wife living with dependent children. They lived in a household of their own provided for by the husband’s earnings. The wife was responsible for emotional maintenance of the marriage and for raising the children and running the household. ? ?The major change in the family in this century has been due to married women entering the work force. This, at least for periods of time. has taken the woman out of her full-time involvement in the home. Of all husband and wife families about 40% have both in the work force at any given time. ? ?In the past the identity of the individual was submerged in the family. In general, reputation in the community came from the family. Today, however, whatever individuals achieve is usually assessed on its own merit, and family has little relevance. Individuals make it or don’t make it essentially on their own. ? ?A sociologist describes another way in which the American family has changed. Today, in the Western world, the major burdens that are a part of the family system are emotional ones. But in the 19th century the family was much more involved with economic needs and tasks; family and relatives were valued for providing assistance during crisis. |
A:An individual makes his own living or does not do it. B:An individual is solely responsible for his success or failure. C:Individuals work separately and produce their own things. D:Individuals succeed or fail depending on their families.
第一篇 How Americans See Themselves Americans do not usually see themselves, when they are in the United States, as representatives of their country. They see themselves as individuals who are different from all other individuals, whether those others are Americans or foreigners. Americans may say they have no culture, since they often think of culture as an overlay of customs to be found only in other countries. Individual Americans may think they chose their own values, rather than having had their value forced on them by the society in which they were born. If you ask them to tell you something about “American culture”, they may be unable to answer and they may even deny that there is an “American culture”. Because they think they are responsible as individuals for having chosen their basic values and their way of life, many Americans don’t like generalizations others make about them. Generalizations disturb Americans. They may be unhappy with the thought that they hold certain ideas and act in certain way simply because they were born and raised in the U.S, and not because they had consciously thought about those ideas and ways of doing things and chosen the ones they preferred. At the same time, Americans will readily generalize about various subgroups within their own country. Northerners have fixed views about Southerners, and vice versa. There are fixed views of people from the country and people from the city; people from the coasts and people from inland; people from the Midwest; minority ethnic groups; Texans; New Yorkers; Californians; lowans and so on. Therefore, Americans see few generalizations that can safely be made about them in part because they are “so individualistic” and in part because they think regional and other kinds of differences clearly distinguish Americans of various groups from each other.
A:representatives of their country B:people different from person to person C:individuals much the same as foreigners D:individuals that share the same values and way of life.
