Someone illegally entered the warehouse last night（）.

A:broke away B:saw through C:broke into D:saw into

Text 4
The entertainment industry and technology companies have been warring for years over the dazzling ability of computers and the Internet to copy and transmit music and movies.
A crucial battle ended this week with a ruling by America’s Supreme Court in favour of copyright holder and against two companies that distribute peer-to-peer (P2P) software, which lets users share files online with others. The court’s decision, though ostensibly a victory for content providers, is. nevertheless unlikely to stamp out file sharing—much of which will continue from outside America—or stop the technological innovation that is threatening the current business models of media firms.
The court was asked to decide whether two firms, Grokster and StreamCast, were liable for copyright infringement by their customers. Two lower courts had said that the firms were not liable, citing a 1984 ruling in favour of Sony’s Betamax video recorder. This held that a technology firm is immune from liability so long as the device concerned is "capable of substantial noninfringing uses". The court did not reinterpret the 1984 decision in light of the Internet. Instead the justices ruled that the case raised a far narrower issue: whether Grokster and StreamCast induced users to violate copyrights and chose not to take the simpie steps available to prevent it. Such behaviour would make the firms clearly liable for copyright infringement and end their immunity, even under the Betamax standard. The court reasoned that there were sufficient grounds to believe that inducement occurred, and sent the case back to lower courts for trial.
Although the Grokster decision will probably not squelch innovation as much as many tech firms fear, it should certainly make IT and electronics firms more cautious about how they market their products—and quite right, too. But the Supreme Court’s narrow ruling makes this unlikely—in deed, the justices noted the technology’s widespread legitimate use. Yet their decision will surely embolden the entertainment industry to pursue in court any firms that they can claim knowingly allow in fringement; This could kill off some small innovative start-ups. On the other hand, the ruling could also provide legal cover for tech firms with the wit to plaster their products with warnings not to violate the law.
But judged from a long-term perspective, this week’s victory for copyright holders seems likely to prove a Pyrrhic one. The Internet and file sharing are disruptive technologies that give consumers vastly more ability to use all sorts of media content, copyrighted or not. Surely entertainment firms must devise ways to use this technology to sell their wares that will also allow copyright to be protected.
So long as technology continues to evolve in ways that enable legitimate content sharing, piracy will also probably continue to some degree. Happily, in this case the piracy seems to have prompted content firms to compete by offering better fee-based services. The challenge for content providers is to use new technology to create value for customers, and to make those who use content illegally feel bad about it.

The Grokster decision was based on the evidence that Grokster（）

A:distributed P2P software illegally. B:allowed users sharing without permission. C:violated the copyright of entertainment firms. D:took advantage of Betamax standard.

The entertainment industry and technology companies have been warring for years over the dazzling ability of computers and the Internet to copy and transmit music and movies.
A crucial battle ended this week with a ruling by America’s Supreme Court in favour of copyright holder and against two companies that distribute peer-to-peer (P2P) software, which lets users share files online with others. The court’s decision, though ostensibly a victory for content providers, is nevertheless unlikely to stamp out file sharing -- much of which will continue from outside America -- or stop the technological innovation that is threatening the current business models of media firms.
The court was asked to decide whether two firms, Grokster and StreamCast, were liable for copyright infringement by their customers. Two lower courts had said that the firms were not liable, citing a 1984 ruling in favour of Sony’s Betamax video recorder. This held that a technology firm is immune from liability so long as the device concerned is "capable of substantial noninfringing uses". The court did not reinterpret the 1984 decision in light of the Internet. Instead the justices ruled that the case raised a far narrower issue: whether Grokster and StreamCast induced users to violate copyrights and chose not to take the simple steps available to prevent it. Such behaviour would make the firms clearly liable for copyright infringement and end their immunity, even under the Betamax standard. The court reasoned that there were sufficient grounds to believe that inducement occurred, and sent the case back to lower courts for trial.
Although the Grokster decision will probably not squelch innovation as much as many tech firms fear, it should certainly make IT and electronics firms more cautious about how they market their products --and quite right, too. But the Supreme Court’s narrow ruling makes this unlikely -- in- deed, the justices noted the technology’s widespread legitimate use. Yet their decision will surely embolden the entertainment industry to pursue in court any firms that they can claim knowingly allow infringement. This could kill off some small innovative start-ups. On the other hand, the ruling could also provide legal cover for tech firms with the wit to plaster their products with warnings not to violate the law.
But judged from a long-term perspective, this week’s victory for copyright holders seems likely to prove a Pyrrhic one. The Internet and file sharing are disruptive technologies that give consumers vastly more ability to use all sorts of media content, col0yrighted or not. Surely entertainment firms must devise ways to use this technology to sell their wares that will also allow copyright to be protected.
So long as technology continues to evolve in ways that enable legitimate content sharing, piracy will also probably continue to some degree. Happily, in this case the piracy seems to have prompted content fir-rug to compete by offering better fee-based services. The challenge for content providers is to use new technology to create value for customers, and to make those who use content illegally feel bad about it.
The Grokster decision was based on the evidence that Grokster

A:distributed P2P software illegally. B:allowed users sharing without permission. C:violated the copyright of entertainment firms. D:took advantage of Betamax standard.

People can get emotional about immigration. Bill O’Reilly, a talk-show host, devoted a recent segment to the story of an illegal alien who got drunk and accidentally killed two attractive white girls with his car. If only he had been deported for previous misdemeanours, Mr. O’Reilly raged, those girls would still be alive. Another talk-show host, Geraldo Rivera, during an on-air shout-joust(争吵) with Mr. O’ Reilly, denounced his demagogic choice of story-angle as" a sin".
President George Bush tried again this week to bring a more rational tone to the debate. He urged the new Democratic Congress to revive the immigration reforms that the old Republican Congress killed last year. His proposal was broadly the same as before. He said he wanted to make it harder to enter America illegally, but easier to do so legally, and to offer a path to citizenship for the estimated 12m illegals who have already snuck in.
The first part faces few political hurdles and is already well under way. Mr. Bush expects to have doubled the number of Border Patrol agents by the end of next year. The new recruits are being trained. And to defend against the invading legions of would-be gardeners and hotel cleaners, the frontier is also equipped with high-tech military gizmos(小发明), such as unmanned spy planes with infra-red(红外) cameras. This may be having some effect. Mr. Bush boasted that the number of people caught sneaking over the border had fallen by nearly 30% this year.
And the controversial part of Mr. Bush’s immigration package--allowing more immigrants in and offering those already in America a chance to become legal -- is still just a plan. House Republicans squashed it last year. Mr. Bush senses a second chance with the new Democratic Congress, but Democrats, like Republicans, are split on the issue. Some, notably Ted Kennedy, think America should embrace hard- working migrants. Others fret that hard-working migrants will undercut the wages of the native-born.
Mr. Bush would like to see the pro-immigrant wings of both parties work together to give him a bill he can sign. The Senate is expected to squeeze in a debate next month. The administration is trying to entice law-and-order Republicans on board; a recent leaked memo talked of substantial fines for illegals before they can become legal and" much bigger" fines for employers who hire them before they do.
The biggest hurdle, however, may be the Democrats’ reluctance to co-operate with Mr. Bush. Some figure that, rather than letting their hated adversary share the credit for fixing the immigration system, they should stall until a Democrat is in the White House and then take it all. So there is a selfish as well as a moral argument for making a deal.
Which of the following is proposed by Mr. Bush

A:Making it harder for immigrants to enter America both legally and illegally. B:Carrying out substantial fine for illegals before they can become legal. C:Setting up more Border Patrol agents by the end of this year. D:Allowing more immigrants in and offering them a chance to become legal.

The entertainment industry and technology companies have been warring for years over the dazzling ability of computers and the Internet to copy and transmit music and movies.
A crucial battle ended this week with a ruling by America’s Supreme Court in favour of copyright holder and against two companies that distribute peer-to-peer (P2P) software, which lets users share files online with others. The court’s decision, though ostensibly a victory for content providers, is nevertheless unlikely to stamp out file sharing -- much of which will continue from outside America -- or stop the technological innovation that is threatening the current business models of media firms.
The court was asked to decide whether two firms, Grokster and StreamCast, were liable for copyright infringement by their customers. Two lower courts had said that the firms were not liable, citing a 1984 ruling in favour of Sony’s Betamax video recorder. This held that a technology firm is immune from liability so long as the device concerned is "capable of substantial noninfringing uses". The court did not reinterpret the 1984 decision in light of the Internet. Instead the justices ruled that the case raised a far narrower issue: whether Grokster and StreamCast induced users to violate copyrights and chose not to take the simple steps available to prevent it. Such behaviour would make the firms clearly liable for copyright infringement and end their immunity, even under the Betamax standard. The court reasoned that there were sufficient grounds to believe that inducement occurred, and sent the case back to lower courts for trial.
Although the Grokster decision will probably not squelch innovation as much as many tech firms fear, it should certainly make IT and electronics firms more cautious about how they market their products --and quite right, too. But the Supreme Court’s narrow ruling makes this unlikely -- in- deed, the justices noted the technology’s widespread legitimate use. Yet their decision will surely embolden the entertainment industry to pursue in court any firms that they can claim knowingly allow infringement. This could kill off some small innovative start-ups. On the other hand, the ruling could also provide legal cover for tech firms with the wit to plaster their products with warnings not to violate the law.
But judged from a long-term perspective, this week’s victory for copyright holders seems likely to prove a Pyrrhic one. The Internet and file sharing are disruptive technologies that give consumers vastly more ability to use all sorts of media content, col0yrighted or not. Surely entertainment firms must devise ways to use this technology to sell their wares that will also allow copyright to be protected.
So long as technology continues to evolve in ways that enable legitimate content sharing, piracy will also probably continue to some degree. Happily, in this case the piracy seems to have prompted content fir-rug to compete by offering better fee-based services. The challenge for content providers is to use new technology to create value for customers, and to make those who use content illegally feel bad about it.

The Grokster decision was based on the evidence that Grokster（）

A:distributed P2P software illegally. B:allowed users sharing without permission. C:violated the copyright of entertainment firms. D:took advantage of Betamax standard.

People can get emotional about immigration. Bill O’Reilly, a talk-show host, devoted a recent segment to the story of an illegal alien who got drunk and accidentally killed two attractive white girls with his car. If only he had been deported for previous misdemeanours, Mr. O’Reilly raged, those girls would still be alive. Another talk-show host, Geraldo Rivera, during an on-air shout-joust(争吵) with Mr. O’ Reilly, denounced his demagogic choice of story-angle as" a sin".
President George Bush tried again this week to bring a more rational tone to the debate. He urged the new Democratic Congress to revive the immigration reforms that the old Republican Congress killed last year. His proposal was broadly the same as before. He said he wanted to make it harder to enter America illegally, but easier to do so legally, and to offer a path to citizenship for the estimated 12m illegals who have already snuck in.
The first part faces few political hurdles and is already well under way. Mr. Bush expects to have doubled the number of Border Patrol agents by the end of next year. The new recruits are being trained. And to defend against the invading legions of would-be gardeners and hotel cleaners, the frontier is also equipped with high-tech military gizmos(小发明), such as unmanned spy planes with infra-red(红外) cameras. This may be having some effect. Mr. Bush boasted that the number of people caught sneaking over the border had fallen by nearly 30% this year.
And the controversial part of Mr. Bush’s immigration package--allowing more immigrants in and offering those already in America a chance to become legal -- is still just a plan. House Republicans squashed it last year. Mr. Bush senses a second chance with the new Democratic Congress, but Democrats, like Republicans, are split on the issue. Some, notably Ted Kennedy, think America should embrace hard- working migrants. Others fret that hard-working migrants will undercut the wages of the native-born.
Mr. Bush would like to see the pro-immigrant wings of both parties work together to give him a bill he can sign. The Senate is expected to squeeze in a debate next month. The administration is trying to entice law-and-order Republicans on board; a recent leaked memo talked of substantial fines for illegals before they can become legal and" much bigger" fines for employers who hire them before they do.
The biggest hurdle, however, may be the Democrats’ reluctance to co-operate with Mr. Bush. Some figure that, rather than letting their hated adversary share the credit for fixing the immigration system, they should stall until a Democrat is in the White House and then take it all. So there is a selfish as well as a moral argument for making a deal.

Which of the following is proposed by Mr. Bush（）

A:Making it harder for immigrants to enter America both legally and illegally B:Carrying out substantial fine for illegals before they can become legal C:Setting up more Border Patrol agents by the end of this year D:Allowing more immigrants in and offering them a chance to become legal

When foreigners are sometimes asked what seems most strange about American society, somewhere on the top of the list will be the fact the average citizen is allowed to possess guns.
Although it is true that many people carry guns legally in the United States, it is also known that many who possess guns carry illegally. Others, who don’t have guns, feel that guns can be acquired quite easily. A recent survey indicated that many high school students, especially in the inner cities, can acquire gun with little difficulty.
Although most people would never want to own a gun, others have taken up hunting as a sport and enjoy hunting wild game in season. Hunting for deer and duck in fall and winter is very much a part of the American culture.
Also, some farmers in rural areas who raise cattle and sheep feel they need to protect their animals against wolves that attack their herds and flocks at night. To defend and support their rights to possess firearms the National Rifle Association (NRA) was founded in 1871. The main importance of this organization has been its efforts to prevent strict gun control legislation. The NRA has great political support in small towns and rural areas, especially in the West and the South, where hunting is especially popular. Those who favor the right to possess guns insist that the Constitution provides the right of people "to keep and bear arms". They believe that gun control laws will not solve the problem of crime and violence in America.
Recent events in America, however, have shown that the question of gun possession is now out of control and strong voices have called for immediate action to be taken. In seemingly peaceful schools students have gone into classrooms and opened fire upon their classmates. America has been shocked by such incidents which seem to occur with greater frequency. The periodic deaths of innocent citizens and even foreign visitors from guns have forced legislators to pass laws to stop these senseless killings.
The day may not be far off when America will be transformed from a gun culture to one which controls their use and possession.
What is most unusual about American society

A:Many Americans acquire guns illegally. B:Ordinary people can possess guns legally. C:The average citizen does not try to possess guns. D:Many school children carry guns legally.