I read somewhere that we spend a full third of our lives waiting. But where are we doing all of this waiting, and what does it mean to an impatient society like ours? To understand the issue, let’s take a look at three types of “waits”.
The very purest form of waiting is the Watched-Pot Wait. It is without doubt the most annoying of all. Take filling up the kitchen sink(洗碗池) as an example. There is absolutely nothing you can do while this is going on but keep both eyes fixed on the sink until it’s full. During these waits, the brain slips away from the body and wanders about until the water runs over the edge of the counter and onto your socks. This kind of wait makes the waiter helpless and mindless.
A cousin to the Watched-Pot Wait is the Forced Wait. This one requires a bit of discipline. Properly preparing packaged noodle soup required a Forced Wait. Directions are very specific. “Bring three cups of water to boil, add mix, simmer three minutes, remove from heat, let stand five minutes.”I have my doubts that anyone has actually followed the procedures strictly. After all, Forced Waiting requires patience.
Perhaps the most powerful type of waiting is the Lucky-Break Wait. This type of wait is unusual in that it is for the most part voluntary. Unlike the Forced Wait, which is also voluntary, waiting for your lucky break does not necessarily mean that it will happen.
Turning one’s life into a waiting game requires faith and hope, and is strictly for the optimists among us. On the surface it seems as ridiculous as following the directions on soup mixes, but the Lucky-Break Wait well serves those who are willing to do it. As long as one doesn’t come to rely on it, wishing for a few good things to happen never hurts anybody.
We certainly do spend a good deal of our time waiting. The next time you’re standing at the sink waiting for it to fill while cooking noodle soup that you’ll have to eat until a large bag of cash falls out of the sky, don’t be desperate. You’re probably just as busy as the next guy.
1.While doing a Watched-Pot Wait, we tend to ___________.
A.keep ourselves busy
B.get absent-minded
C.grow anxious
D.stay focused
2.What is the difference between the Forced Wait and the Watched-Pot Wait?\
A.The Forced Wait requires some self-control.
B.The Forced Wait makes people passive.
C.The Watched-Pot Wait needs directions.
D.The Watched-Pot Wait engages body and brain.
3.What can we learn about the Lucky-Break Wait?
A.It is less voluntary than the Forced Wait.
B.It doesn’t always bring the desired result.
C.It is more fruitful than the Forced Wait.
D.It doesn’t give people faith and hope.
4.What does the author advise us to do the next time we are waiting?
A.Take it seriously.
B.Don’t rely on others.
C.Do something else.
D.Don’t lose heart.
5.The author supports his view by _________.
A.exploring various causes of “waits”.
B.describing detailed processes of “waits”.
C.analyzing different categories of “waits”
D.revealing frustrating consequences of “waits”
This month, Germany’s transport minister, Alexander Dobrindt, proposed the first set of rules for autonomous vehicles(自主驾驶车辆). They would define the driver’s role in such cars and govern how such cars perform in crashes where lives might be lost.
The proposal attempts to deal with what some call the “death valley” of autonomous vehicles: the grey area between semi-autonomous and fully driverless cars that could delay the driverless future.
Dobrindt wants three things: that a car always chooses property(财产) damage over personal injury; that it never distinguishes between humans based on age or race; and that if a human removes his or her hands from the driving wheel — to check email, say — the car’s maker is responsible if there is a crash.
“The change to the road traffic law will permit fully automatic driving,” says Dobrindt. It will put fully driverless cars on an equal legal footing to human drivers, he says.
Who is responsible for the operation of such vehicles is not clear among car makers, consumers and lawyers. “The liability(法律责任) issue is the biggest one of them all,” says Natasha Merat at the University of Leeds, UK.
An assumption behind UK insurance for driverless cars, introduces earlier this year, insists that a human “ be watchful and monitoring the road” at every moment.
But that is not what many people have in mind when thinking of driverless cars. “When you say ‘driverless cars’, people expect driverless cars.”Merat says. “You know — no driver.”
Because of the confusion, Merat thinks some car makers will wait until vehicles can be fully automated without operation.
Driverless cars may end up being a form of public transport rather than vehicles you own, says Ryan Calo at Stanford University, California. That is happening in the UK and Singapore, where government-provided driverless vehicles are being launched.
That would go down poorly in the US, however. “The idea that the government would take over driverless cars and treat them as a public good would get absolutely nowhere here,” says Calo.
1.What does the phrase “death valley” in Paragraph 2 refer to?
A. A place where cars often break down.
B. A case where passing a law is impossible.
C. An area where no driving is permitted.
D. A situation where drivers’ role is not clear.
2.The proposal put forward by Dobrindt aims to __________.
A. stop people from breaking traffic rules
B. help promote fully automatic driving
C. protect drivers of all ages and races
D. prevent serious property damage
3.What do consumers think of the operation of driverless cars?
A. It should get the attention of insurance companies.
B. It should be the main concern of law makers.
C. It should not cause deadly traffic accidents.
D. It should involve no human responsibility.
4.Driverless vehicles in public transport see no bright future in __________.
A. Singapore
B. the UK
C. the US
D. Germany
5.What could be the best title for passage?
A. Autonomous Driving: Whose Liability?
B. Fully Automatic Cars: A New Breakthrough
C. Autonomous Vehicles: Driver Removed
D. Driverless Cars: Root of Road Accidents
Suppose you’re in a rush, feeling tired, not paying attention to your screen, and you send an email that could get you in trouble.
Realisation will probably set in seconds after you’ve clicked “send”. You freeze in horrors and burn with shame.
What to do? Here are four common email accidents, and how to recover.
Clicking “send” too soon
Don’t waste your time trying to find out if the receivers has read it yet. Write another email as swiftly as you can and send it with a brief explaining that this is the correct version and the previous version should be ignored.
Writing the wrong time
The sooner you notice, the better. Respond quickly and briefly, apologizing for your mistake. Keep the tone measured: don’t handle it too lightly, as people can be offered, especially if your error suggests a misunderstanding of their culture(I.e. incorrect ordering of Chinese names).
Clicking “reply all” unintentionally
You accidentally reveal(透露)to entire company what menu choices you would prefer at the staff Christmas dinner, or what holiday you’d like to take. In this instance, the best solution is to send a quick, light-hearted apology to explain your awkwardness. But it can quickly rise to something worse, when everyone starts hitting “reply all” to join in a long and unpleasant conversation. In this instance, step away from your keyboard to allow everyone to calm down.
Sending an offensive message to it’s subject
The most awkward email mistake is usually committed in anger. You write an unkind message about someone, intending to send it to a friend, but accidentally send it to the person you’re discussing. In that case, ask to speak in person as soon as possible and say sorry. Explain your frustrations calmly and sensibly—see it as an opportunity tic hear up any difficulties you may have with this person.
1.After realizing an email accident, you are likely to feel _______.
A. curious B. tired
C. awful D. funny
2.If you have written the wrong name in an email, it is best to ________.
A. apologise in a serious manner
B. tell the receiver to ignore the error
C. learn to write the name correctly
D. send a short notice to everyone
3.What should you do when an unpleasant conversation is started by your “reply all” email?
A. Try offering other choices.
B. Avoid further involvement.
C. Meet other staff members.
D. Make a light-hearted apology.
4.How should you deal with the problem caused by an offensive email?
A. By promising not to offend the receiver again.
B. By seeking support from the receiver’s friends.
C. By asking the receiver to control his anger.
D. By talking to the receiver face to face.
5.What is the passage mainly about?
A. Defining email errors.
B. Reducing email mistakes.
C. Handling email accidents.
D. Improving email writing.
A new commodity brings about a highly profitable, fast-growing industry, urging antitrust(反垄断) regulators to step in to check those who control its flow. A century ago, the resource in question was oil. Now similar concerns are being raised by the giants(巨头) that deal in data, the oil of the digital age. The most valuable firms are Google, Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft. All look unstoppable.
Such situations have led to calls for the tech giants to be broken up. But size alone is not a crime. The giants’ success has benefited consumers. Few want to live without search engines or a quick delivery. Far from charging consumers high prices, many of these services are free (users pay, in effect, by handing over yet more data). And the appearance of new-born giants suggests that newcomers can make waves, too.
But there is cause for concern. The internet has made data abundant, all-present and far more valuable, changing the nature of data and competition. Google initially used the data collected from users to target advertising better. But recently it has discovered that data can be turned into new services: translation and visual recognition, to be sold to other companies. Internet companies’ control of data gives them enormous power. So they have a "God’s eye view" of activities in their own markets and beyond.
This nature of data makes the antitrust measures of the past less useful. Breaking up firms like Google into five small ones would not stop remaking themselves: in time, one of them would become great again. A rethink is required — and as a new approach starts to become apparent, two ideas stand out.
The first is that antitrust authorities need to move from the industrial age into the 21st century. When considering a merger(兼并), for example, they have traditionally used size to determine when to step in. They now need to take into account the extent of firms’ data assets(资产) when assessing the impact of deals. The purchase price could also be a signal that an established company is buying a new-born threat. When this takes place, especially when a new-born company has no revenue to speak of, the regulators should raise red flags.
The second principle is to loosen the control that providers of on-line services have over data and give more to those who supply them. Companies could be forced to reveal to consumers what information they hold and how much money they make from it. Governments could order the sharing of certain kinds of data, with users’ consent.
Restarting antitrust for the information age will not be easy. But if governments don’t want a data economy controlled by a few giants, they must act soon.
1.Why is there a call to break up giants?
A.They have controlled the data market.
B.They collect enormous private data.
C.They no longer provide free services.
D.They dismissed some new-born giants.
2.What does the technological innovation in Paragraph 3 indicate?
A.Data giants’ technology is very expensive.
B.Google’s idea is popular among data firms.
C.Data can strengthen giants’ controlling position.
D.Data can be turned into new services or products.
3.By paying attention to firms’ data assets, antitrust regulators could .
A.kill a new threat
B.avoid the size trap
C.favour bigger firms
D.charge higher prices
4.What is the purpose of loosening the giants’ control of data?
A.Big companies could relieve data security pressure.
B.Governments could relieve their financial pressure.
C.Consumers could better protect their privacy.
D.Small companies could get more opportunities.
If you want to disturb the car industry, you'd better have a few billion dollars: Mom-and-pop carmakers are unlikely to beat the biggest car companies. But in agriculture, small farmers can get the best of the major players. By connecting directly with customers, and by responding quickly to changes in the markets as well as in the ecosystems(生态系统）, small farmers can keep one step ahead of the big guys. As the co-founder of the National Young Farmers Coalition (NYFC, 美国青年农会）and a family farmer myself. I have a front-row seat to the innovations among small farmers that are transforming the industry.
For example, take the Quick Cut Greens Harvester, a tool developed just a couple of years ago by a young farmer, Jonathan Dysinger, in Tennessee, with a small loan from a local Slow Money group. It enables small-scale farmers to harvest 175 pounds of green vegetables per hour—a huge improvement over harvesting just a few dozen pounds by hand—suddenly making it possible for the little guys to compete with large farms of California. Before the tool came out, small farmers couldn't touch the price per pound offered by California farms. But now, with the combination of a better price point and a generally fresher product, they can stay in business.
The sustainable success of small farmers, though, won't happen without fundamental changes to the industry. One crucial factor is secure access to land. Competition from investors. developers, and established large farmers makes owning one's own land unattainable for many new farmers.
From 2004 to 2013, agricultural land values doubled, and they continue to rise in many regions.
Another challenge for more than a million of the most qualified farm workers and managers is a non-existent path to citizenship — the greatest barrier to building a farm of their own. With farmers over the age of 65 outnumbering(多于）farmers younger than 35 by six to one, and with two-thirds of the nation's farmland in need of a new farmer, we must clear the path for talented people willing to grow the nation's food.
There are solutions that could light a path toward a more sustainable and fair farm economy, but farmers can't clumsily put them together before us. We at the NYFC need broad support as we urge Congress to increase farmland conservation, as we push for immigration reform, and as we seek policies that will ensure the success of a diverse and ambitious next generation of farms from all backgrounds. With a new farm bill to be debated in Congress, consumers must take a stand with young farmers.
1.The author mentions car industry at the beginning of the passage to introduce .
A.the progress made in car industry
B.a special feature of agriculture
C.a trend of development in agriculture
D.the importance of investing in car industry
2.What does the author want to illustrate with the example in paragraph 2?
A.Loans to small local farmers are necessary.
B.Technology is vital for agricultural development.
C.Competition between small and big farms is fierce
D.Small farmers may gain some advantages over big ones.
3.What is the difficulty for those new famers?
A.To gain more financial aid.
B.To hire good farm managers.
C.To have fans of their own.
D.To win old farmers’ support.
4.What should farmers do for a more sustainable and fair farm economy?
A.Seek support beyond NYFC.
B.Expand farmland conservation.
C.Become members of NYFC.
D.Invest more to improve technology.
In the 1760s, Mathurin Roze opened a series of shops that boasted(享有）a special meat soup called consomme. Although the main attraction was the soup, Roze's chain shops also set a new standard for dining out, which helped to establish Roze as the inventor of the modern restaurant.
Today, scholars have generated large amounts of instructive research about restaurants. Take visual hints that influence what we eat: diners served themselves about 20 percent more pasta(意大利面食）when their plates matched their food. When a dark-colored cake was served on a black plate rather than a white one, customers recognized it as sweeter and more tasty.
Lighting matters, too. When Berlin restaurant customers ate in darkness, they couldn't tell how much they'd had: those given extra-large shares ate more than everyone else, but were none the wiser—they didn’t feel fuller, and they were just as ready for dessert.
Time is money, but that principle means different things for different types of restaurants. Unlike fast-food places. fine dining shops prefer customers to stay longer and spend. One way to encourage customers to stay and order that extra round: put on some Mozart(莫扎特）.When classical, rather than pop, music was playing, diners spent more. Fast music hurried diners out.
Particular scents also have an effect: diners who got the scent of lavender(薰衣草）stayed longer and spent more than those who smelled lemon, or no scent.
Meanwhile, things that you might expect to discourage spending—"bad" tables, crowding. high prices — don't necessarily. Diners at bad tables — next to the kitchen door, say — spent nearly as much as others but soon fled. It can be concluded that restaurant keepers need not "be overly concerned about ‘bad' tables," given that they're profitable. As for crowds, a Hong Kong study found that they increased a restaurant's reputation, suggesting great food at fair prices. And doubling a buffet's price led customers to say that its pizza was 11 percent tastier.
1.The underlined phrase "none the wiser" in paragraph 3 most probably implies that the customers were .
A.not aware of eating more than usual
B.not willing to share food with others
C.not conscious of the food quality
D.not fond of the food provided
2.How could a fine dining shop make more profit?
A.playing classical music.
B.Introducing lemon scent.
C.Making the light brighter,
D.Using plates of larger size.
3.What does the last paragraph talk about?
A.Tips to attract more customers.
B.Problems restaurants are faced with.
C.Ways to improve restaurants' reputation.
D.Common misunderstandings about restaurants.
