资本收益（Capital gain）

Text 2
Virtually every company with a computer is vulnerable to computer abuse, crime and accident. Security of the computer and of the information and assets contained within it are therefore of paramount importance to management. Skilled computer criminals can break into a computer system far more easily than an armed robber can gain access to a bank vault, and usually with far less risk of apprehension and punishment. A slight change in a complex program can bring about the misappropriation of thousands of pounds. Accidental erasure of crucial data can paralyse company’s operations. Anyone familiar with the necessary procedure can gain access to information stored in the computer, no matter how confidential, and utilize it for his own purposes.
Although the actual extent of computer crime is difficult to measure, most experts agree that it is one of the fastest growing areas of illegal activity. The principal reason for both the growth and the lack of accurate measurement is the difficulty in detecting a well-executed theft. Losses per incident thus tend to be higher than in other types of theft. Once the Computer criminal has compromised the system, it is just as easy to steal a great sum as it is to steal a little, and to continue stealing long after the initial theft. Indeed, the computer criminal may find it more difficult to stop his illicit activity than to start it.
Computer criminals are, for the most part, well-educated and highly intelligent. The fact that computer criminals do not fit criminal stereotypes helps them to obtain the positions they require to carry out crimes. Being intelligent, they have fertile imaginations, and the variety of ways in which they use equipment to their advantages is constantly being extended. In addition to direct theft of funds, the theft of data for corporate espionage or extortion is becoming widespread, and can obviously have a substantial effect on a company’s finances. Another lucrative scheme, often difficult to detect, involves accumulating fractions of pence from individual payroll accounts, with electronic transfer of the accumulated amount to the criminal’s payroll. Employers are hardly concerned with pence, much less fractions of pence. In addition, undoubtedly, the company’s payroll is unaffected. But the cumulative value of fractions of pence per employee in a company with a substantial payroll can add up to a useful gain.
Guarding against computer abuse--whether deliberate or accidental--involves attention to the protection of hardware from physical damage as well as protection of software and data. Computer must be isolated from other company facilities, and unauthorized person should never be admitted to the computer area. Event though some risks are reduced through this measure, most damage to software, accidental and intentional, is caused by those whose jobs require at least some access to the computer. The writer of the program is often the one responsible for its misuse. Programs devised exclusively for a particular company are therefore far more valuable to abuse and accident than standard software packages produced by external suppliers.

A:it is very easy B:employers are not concerned with pence C:they can gain more D:the accumulated value can be a useful gain, and it is not easy to be found

Text 2
Well, no gain without pain, they say. But what about pain without gain.’ Everywhere you go in America, you hear tales of corporate revival. What is harder to establish is whether the productivity revolution that businessmen assume they are presiding over is for real.
The official statistics are mildly discouraging. They show that, .if you lump manufacturing and services together, productivity has grown on average by 1.2% since 1987. That is somewhat faster than the average during the previous decade. And since 1991, productivity has in creased by about 2% a year, which are more than twice the 1978 - 1987 averages. The trouble is that part of the recent acceleration is due to the usual rebound that occurs at the point in a business cycle, and so is not conclusive evidence of a revival in the underlying trend. There is, as Robert Rubin, the treasury secretary, says, a "disjunction" between the mass of business anecdote that points to a leap in productivity and the picture reflected by the statistics.
Some of this can be easily explained. New ways of organizing the workplace all that reengineering and downsizing--are only one contribution to the overall productivity of an economy, Which is driven by many other factors such as joint investment in equipment and machinery, new technology, and investment in education and training. Moreover, most of the changes that companies make are intended to keep them profitable, and this need not always mean increasing productivity: switching to new markets or improving quality can matter just as much.
Two other explanations are more speculative. First, some of the business restructuring of recent years may have been ineptly done. Second, even if it wag well done, it may have spread much less widely than people suppose.
Leonard Schlesinger, a Harvard academic and former chief executive of Au Bong Pain, a rapidly growing chain of bakery cafes, says that much "reengineering" has been crude. In many cases, he believes, the loss of revenue has been greater than the reductions in cost. His colleague, Michael Beer, says that far too many companies have applied reengineering in a mechanistic fashion, chopping out costs without giving sufficient thought to long - term profitability. B. B. D. O’ s A1 Rosen shine is blunter. He dismisses a lot of the work of re engineering consultants as mere rubbish--" the worst sort of ambulance cashing."

A:he questions the truth of "no gain without pain" B:he does not think the productivity revolution works C:he wonders if the official statistics are misleading D:he has conclusive evidence for the revival of businesses

The author raises the question "what about pain without gain. because ______.

A:he questions the truth of "no gain without pain" B:he does not think the productivity revolution works C:he wonders if the official statistics are misleading D:he has conclusive evidence for the revival of businesses

Well, no gain without pain, they say. But what about pain without gain Everywhere you go in America, you hear tales of corporate revival. What is harder to establish is whether the productivity revolution that businessmen assume they are presiding over is for real. 　　The official statistics are mildly discouraging. They show that, if you lump manufacturing and services together, productivity has grown on average by 1.2% since 1987. That is somewhat faster than the average during the previous decade. And since 1991, productivity has increased by about 2% a year, which is more than twice the 1978―1987 average. The trouble is that part of the recent acceleration is due to the usual rebound that occurs at this point in a business cycle, and so is not conclusive evidence of a revival in the underlying trend. There is, as Robert Rubin, the treasury secretary, says, a" disjunction" between the mass of business anecdote that points to leap in productivity and the picture reflected by the statistics. 　　Some of this can be easily explained. New ways of organizing the workplace―all that reengineering and downsizing―are only one contribution to the overall productivity of an economy, which is driven by many other factors such as joint investment in equipment and machinery, new technology, and investment in education and training. Moreover, most of the changes that companies make are intended to keep them profitable, and this need not always mean increasing productivity: switching to new markets or improving quality can matter just as much. 　　Two other explanations are more speculative. First, some of the business restructuring of recent years may have been ineptly done. Second, even if it was well done, it may have spread much less widely than people suppose. 　　Leonard Schlesinger, a Harvard academic and former chief executive of Au Bon Pain, a rapidly growing chain of bakery cafes, says that much" re-engineering" has been crude. In many cases, he believes, the loss of revenue has been greater than the reductions in cost. His colleague, Michael Beer, says that far too many companies have applied re-engineering in a mechanistic fashion, chopping out costs without giving sufficient thought to long-term profitability. BBDO’’s AI Rosenshine is blunter. He dismisses a lot of the work of re-engineering consultants as mere rubbish―" the worst sort of ambulance-chasing." The author raises the question" what about pain without gain" Because ____________.

A:he questions the truth of "no gain without pain" B:he does not think the productivity revolution works C:he wonders if the official statistics are misleading D:he has conclusive evidence for the revival of businesses

The author raises the question "what about pain without gain" because ______.

A:he questions the truth of "no gain without pain" B:he does not think the productivity revolution works C:he wonders ff the official statistics are misleading D:he has conclusive evidence for the revival of businesses

In this game you are in a tank and the screen shows your outside view. You gain points by shooting enemy tanks, supertanks, missiles(导弹) and saucers(飞碟).
Experts gain scores of around 150,000 points at this game. To get a high score you have to destroy twenty tanks as quickly as possible. After this the supertanks, missiles and saucers appear. These are worth far more points than the ordinary tanks. (The number of tanks you have to destroy before the supertanks appear is various on different machines. )
Try to get near an enemy tank from the side or back so it cannot shoot at you. Then when you get close, turn to it, line it up in your sights and fire before it turns to shoot at you. If your missiles are too slow, quickly get away by moving out of the enemy’s line of life. You can then move around the enemy and come in from another side.
When a supertank appears, try to destroy it. Then wait safely behind an obstacle(障碍物)for a missile or a flying saucer. The cubes are useful objects to hide behind as you can fire over them without exposing yourself to danger. The missiles will fly straight at you, but they are difficult to hit. So do not shoot at them until they are quite close. The saucers are much easier to hit, but do not chase(追逐)them as you will be open to shoot from enemy’s tanks.
If you want to get a high score you must first______.

A:gain the skills of using your guns B:wipe out a score tanks C:hunt a number of enemy’s saucers D:kill some supertanks or missiles

In this game you are in a tank and the screen shows your outside view. You gain points by shooting enemy tanks, supertanks, missiles(导弹) and saucers(飞碟).
Experts gain scores of around 150,000 points at this game. To get a high score you have to destroy twenty tanks as quickly as possible. After this the supertanks, missiles and saucers appear. These are worth far more points than the ordinary tanks. (The number of tanks you have to destroy before the supertanks appear is various on different machines. )
Try to get near an enemy tank from the side or back so it cannot shoot at you. Then when you get close, turn to it, line it up in your sights and fire before it turns to shoot at you. If your missiles are too slow, quickly get away by moving out of the enemy’s line of life. You can then move around the enemy and come in from another side.
When a supertank appears, try to destroy it. Then wait safely behind an obstacle(障碍物)for a missile or a flying saucer. The cubes are useful objects to hide behind as you can fire over them without exposing yourself to danger. The missiles will fly straight at you, but they are difficult to hit. So do not shoot at them until they are quite close. The saucers are much easier to hit, but do not chase(追逐)them as you will be open to shoot from enemy’s tanks.
If you want to get a high score you must first______.

A:gain the skills of using your guns B:wipe out a score tanks C:hunt a number of enemy’s saucers D:kill some supertanks or missiles