A curious election will take place in St Louis on April 3rd. Seven candidates will compete for two seats on the city’s school board. The polls will open at 6am and stay open until 7pm. Staffing the polling stations and counting the electronic ballots will cost taxpayers at least $260,000. Two happy candidates will celebrate and take office-just in time to have the state of Missouri complete the takeover of the district’s schools and give them and the other board members nothing to do for several years. This election to nothing comes after years of falling test scores, revolving superintendents, screaming matches between board members at public meetings and a growing dissatisfaction with every aspect of public education. The state board of education voted on March 22nd to take over the school district, effective in mid-June. Some prominent figures endorsed this course, including the mayor of St Louis, and even some members of the St Louis school board. Others in the city, though, are deeply opposed and ready to fight about it.
Although the city schools overall have an amply deserved reputation for low standards, there are some good schools and many good students. The best students have the most to lose, fearing that the turmoil could damage their chances of getting into good universities. When the state education board voted on the takeover, a group of angry students, teachers and other members of the public tried to disrupt the meeting. Protesters are still trying to use the courts to stop the action, and the teachers’ union has threatened a strike.
Under Missouri law the city’s schools will now be placed under a three-member board appointed by the governor, the mayor and the president of the board of aldermen. Governor Matt Blunt’s choice of Rick Sullivan, the head of a building firm, has already been attacked because of Mr Sullivan’s lack of experience in education and because he lives in one of the wealthiest suburbs outside the city.
Mr Sullivan and the other members, who have yet to be appointed, have an almost impossible task before them. The district, which in the past five years has turned a $52m surplus into a $24.5m deficit, has already closed schools, cut services and squeezed spending hard. But as its critics point out, the elected school board still found plenty of money for tours and public relations.
The trickle of voters turning out for the pointless board election will pass banners celebrating the new season of the world baseball champions. St Louis has made huge progress in attracting a new generation of young professionals to its downtown area, building new business developments and installing new infrastructure. The great failure in its schools puts all that in danger.
The underlined word "curious" (Line 1, Paragraph 1) most probably implies that ______

A:the election is very eager to understand the unknown world. B:the election is extremely careful and significant. C:the election is strange for its expensive cost and pointless result: D:the election is held by children who are curious of the world.

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.

A:undeserving, B:unacceptable. C:pointless. D:unreasonable.

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 word "Pyrrhic"(Line 2, Para. 5) can be substituted by

A:undeserving, B:unacceptable. C:pointless. D:unreasonable.

A curious election will take place in St Louis on April 3rd. Seven candidates will compete for two seats on the city’s school board. The polls will open at 6am and stay open until 7pm. Staffing the polling stations and counting the electronic ballots will cost taxpayers at least $260,000. Two happy candidates will celebrate and take office-just in time to have the state of Missouri complete the takeover of the district’s schools and give them and the other board members nothing to do for several years. This election to nothing comes after years of falling test scores, revolving superintendents, screaming matches between board members at public meetings and a growing dissatisfaction with every aspect of public education. The state board of education voted on March 22nd to take over the school district, effective in mid-June. Some prominent figures endorsed this course, including the mayor of St Louis, and even some members of the St Louis school board. Others in the city, though, are deeply opposed and ready to fight about it.
Although the city schools overall have an amply deserved reputation for low standards, there are some good schools and many good students. The best students have the most to lose, fearing that the turmoil could damage their chances of getting into good universities. When the state education board voted on the takeover, a group of angry students, teachers and other members of the public tried to disrupt the meeting. Protesters are still trying to use the courts to stop the action, and the teachers’ union has threatened a strike.
Under Missouri law the city’s schools will now be placed under a three-member board appointed by the governor, the mayor and the president of the board of aldermen. Governor Matt Blunt’s choice of Rick Sullivan, the head of a building firm, has already been attacked because of Mr Sullivan’s lack of experience in education and because he lives in one of the wealthiest suburbs outside the city.
Mr Sullivan and the other members, who have yet to be appointed, have an almost impossible task before them. The district, which in the past five years has turned a $52m surplus into a $24.5m deficit, has already closed schools, cut services and squeezed spending hard. But as its critics point out, the elected school board still found plenty of money for tours and public relations.
The trickle of voters turning out for the pointless board election will pass banners celebrating the new season of the world baseball champions. St Louis has made huge progress in attracting a new generation of young professionals to its downtown area, building new business developments and installing new infrastructure. The great failure in its schools puts all that in danger.

A:the election is very eager to understand the unknown world. B:the election is extremely careful and significant. C:the election is strange for its expensive cost and pointless result: D:the election is held by children who are curious of the world.

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.

A:undeserving, B:unacceptable. C:pointless. D:unreasonable.

The word "Pyrrhic"(Line 2, Para. 5) can be substituted by

A:undeserving, B:unacceptable. C:pointless. D:unreasonable.

Many factory workers find their jobs tiresome.

A:difficult B:pointless C:profitable D:boring

Many factory workers find their jobs tiresome.

A:difficult B:pointless C:profitable D:boring