B.LCC.FCD.SLONU的注册过程说法错误的是（）。A.ONU的执行动作：在上电启动或复位时，ONU进入Discovery状态。等待来自OLT的“DiscoveryGate”消息B.ONU的执行动作：如果所收到的消息类型为Discovery，就对此消息做出应答C.OLT的执行动作：OLT以广播方式周期性的发送Discovery检测帧D.响应ONU的注册请求并分配LLID

A:ONU的执行动作：在上电启动或复位时，ONU进入Discovery状态。等待来自OLT的“DiscoveryGate”消息 B:ONU的执行动作：如果所收到的消息类型为Discovery，就对此消息做出应答 C:OLT的执行动作：OLT以广播方式周期性的发送Discovery检测帧 D:响应ONU的注册请求并分配LLID

The discovery of new evidence led to （）.

A:the thief having caught B:catch the thief C:the thief being caught D:the thief to be caught

In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the scientific method to can’y out their work. But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route. We aim to be objective, but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experience. Prior knowledge and interest influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take. Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound.
Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience. Similar to newly staked mining claims, they are lull of potential. But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery. This is the credibility process, through which the individual researcher’s me, here, now becomes the community’s anyone, anywhere, anytime. Objective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point.
Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit. But, unlike with mining claims, the community takes control of what happens next. Within the complex social structure of the scientific community, researchers make discoveries; editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process; other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes; and finally, the public (including other scientists) receives the new discovery and possibly accompanying technology. As a discovery claim works it way through the community, the interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual’s discovery claim into the community’s credible discovery.
Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process. First, scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing Knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect. Little reward accompanies duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed. The goal is new-search, not re-search. Not surprisingly, newly published discovery claims and credible discoveries that appear to be important and convincing will always be open to challenge and potential modification or refutation by future researchers. Second, novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief. Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Azent-Gy6rgyi once described discovery as "seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought." But thinking what nobody else has thought and telling others what they have missed may not change their views. Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated.
In the end, credibility "happens" to a discovery claim—a process that corresponds to what philosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind. "We reason together, challenge, revise, and complete each other’s reasoning and each other’s conceptions of reason./

Which of the following would be the best title of the test（）

A:Novelty as an Engine of Scientific Development B:Collective Scrutiny in Scientific Discovery C:Evolution of Credibility in Doing Science D:Challenge to Credibility at the Gate to Science

Text 3 In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the scientific method to carry out their work. But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route. We aim to be objective, but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experience. Prior knowledge and interest influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take. Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound. Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience. Similar to newly staked mining claims, they are full of potential. But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery. This is the credibility process, through which the individual researcher’s me, here, now becomes the community’s anyone, anywhere, anytime. Objective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point. Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit. But, unlike with mining claims, the community takes control of what happens next. Within the complex social structure of the scientific community, researchers make discoveries; editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process; other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes; and finally, the public (including other scientists) receives the new discovery and possibly accompanying technology. As a discovery claim works it through the community, the interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual’s discovery claim into the community’s credible discovery. Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process. First, scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing Knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect. Little reward accompanies duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed. The goal is new-search, not re-search. Not surprisingly, newly published discovery claims and credible discoveries that appear to be important and convincing will always be open to challenge and potential modification or refutation by future researchers. Second, novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief. Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Azent-Gyorgyi once described discovery as “seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.” But thinking what nobody else has thought and telling others what they have missed may not change their views. Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated. In the end, credibility “happens” to a discovery claim – a process that corresponds to what philosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind. “We reason together, challenge, revise, and complete each other’s reasoning and each other’s conceptions of reason.” Which of the following would be the best title of the test

A:Novelty as an Engine of Scientific Development. B:Collective Scrutiny in Scientific Discovery. C:Evolution of Credibility in Doing Science. D:Challenge to Credibility at the Gate to Science.

The discovery was {{U}}sensational{{/U}}.

A:sexy B:surprising C:exceptional D:exciting

? ?The word science is heard so often in modern times that almost everybody has some notion of its meaning. On the other hand, its definition is difficult for many people. The meaning of the term is confusing, but everyone should understand its meaning and objectives. Just to make the explanation as simple as possible, suppose science is defined as classified knowledge (facts).
? ?Even in the true sciences distinguishing fact from fiction is not always easy. For this reason great care should be taken to distinguish between beliefs and truths. There is no danger as long as a clear difference is made between temporary and proved explanations. For example, hypotheses (假设) and theories are attempts to explain natural phenomena. From these positions the scientist continues to experiment and observe until they are proved or discredited (使不相信). The exact status of any explanation should be clearly labeled to avoid confusion.
? ? The objectives of science are primarily the discovery and the subsequent understanding of the unknown. Man cannot be satisfied with recognizing that secrets exist in nature or that questions are unanswerable; he must solve them. Toward that end specialists in the field of biology and related fields of interest are directing much of their time and energy.
? ? Actually, two basic approaches lead to the discovery of new information. One, aimed at satisfying curiosity, is referred to as pure science. The other is aimed at using knowledge for specific purposes-for instance, improving health, raising standards of living, or creating new consumer products. In this case knowledge is put to economic use. Such an approach is referred to as applied science.
? ?Sometimes practical-minded people miss the point of pure science in thinking only of its immediate application for economic rewards. Chemists responsible for many of the discoveries could hardly have anticipated that their findings would one day result in applications of such a practical nature as those directly related to life and death. The discovery of one bit information opens the door to the discovery of another. Some discoveries seem so simple that one is amazed they were not made years ago; however, one should remember that the construction of the microscope had to precede the discovery of the cell. The host of scientists dedicating their lives to pure science are not apologetic (抱歉) about ignoring the practical side of their discoveries; they know from experience that most knowledge is eventually applied.

Pure science, leading to the construction of a microscope,______.

A:may lead to antiscientific, "impure" results B:necessarily precedes applied science, leading to the discovery of a cell C:is not always as pure as we suppose D:necessarily results from applied science and the discovery of a cell

The largest shark known to us, Megalodon, is extinct. Or is it Carcharodon Megalodon, commonly known as Megalodon, is believed to have lived between 1 million and 5 million years ago and thought to have been 52 feet long. It is (or was) a shark that had a jaw 7 or more feet wide. Fairly recently, there has been some speculation about whether it is extinct or just out of reach. But few people believe that Megalodon has found a home deep in the ocean.
There are many known "Living Fossils": Coelacanth, Sea Cucumbers, Sea Urchins, Lobsters, Sea Stars. The common ones like lobsters and sea urchins are not really looked on as anything amazing. They’ve been around for thousands of years or more, and are easily accessible to us. What if they weren’t accessible and yet still existed We would label them extinct. The discovery of a live Coelacanth, a fish long believed extinct, challenged some scientists’ long-held beliefs on extinction. There have been recent discoveries of incredibly large squid, and deep-sea fish never before seen by scientists.
In the 1960s the U.S. Navy set up underwater microphones around the world to track Soviet submarines. The network, known as the Sound Surveillance System, still lies deep below the ocean’s surface in a layer of water known as the "deep sound channel". The temperature and pressure of the channel allow sound waves to travel undisturbed. NOAA’s Acoustic Monitoring Project has been using the Sound Surveillance System to listen for changes in ocean structure like ocean currents or volcanic activity. Most of the sounds recorded are common and of no concern. One sound, identified in 1977 by U.S. Navy "spy" sensors, was odd. It was obviously a marine animal but the call was more powerful than any of the calls made by any other reported sea creature. It was too big for a whale. Could it be a deep-sea monster One possibility was a giant squid, but no one is sure. It was named "Bloop". Could it be Megalodon If Megalodon is still alive down in the bottom of the ocean, we may some day soon discover it. Then what Deep sea diving will never be the same, that’s for sure!
What makes scientists doubt about the belief that Megalodon is extinct

A:The discovery of many "Living Fossils". B:The discovery of the fossils of lobsters. C:The discovery of a live Coelacanth. D:The discovery of the fossils of sea urchins.

The discovery was {{U}}sensational{{/U}}.

A:sexy B:surprising C:exceptional D:exciting