2013考研英语一真题

　　Text 2

　　An old saying has it that half of all advertising budgets are wasted-the trouble is, no one knows which half . In the internet age, at least in theory ,this fraction can be much reduced . By watching what people search for, click on and say online, companies can aim “behavioural” ads at those most likely to buy.

　　In the past couple of weeks a quarrel has illustrated the value to advertisers of such fine-grained information: Should advertisers assume that people are happy to be tracked and sent behavioural ads? Or should they have explicit permission?

　　In December 2010 America's Federal Trade Cornmission (FTC) proposed adding a "do not track "(DNT) option to internet browsers ,so that users could tell adwertisers that they did not want to be followed .Microsoft's Internet Explorer and Apple's Safari both offer DNT ;Google's Chrome is due to do so this year. In February the FTC and Digltal Adwertising Alliance (DAA) agreed that the industry would get cracking on responging to DNT requests.

　　On May 31st Microsoft Set off the row: It said that Internet Explorer 10,the version due to appear windows 8, would have DNT as a default.

　　It is not yet clear how advertisers will respond. Geting a DNT signal does not oblige anyone to stop tracking, although some companies have promised to do so. Unable to tell whether someone really objects to behavioural ads or whether they are sticking with Microsoft’s default, some may ignore a DNT signal and press on anyway.

　　Also unclear is why Microsoft has gone it alone. Atter all, it has an ad business too, which it says will comply with DNT requests, though it is still working out how. If it is trying to upset Google, which relies almost wholly on default will become the norm. DNT does not seem an obviously huge selling point for windows 8-though the firm has compared some of its other products favourably with Google's on that count before. Brendon Lynch, Microsoft's chief privacy officer, bloggde:"we believe consumers should have more control." Could it really be that simple?

　　26. It is suggested in paragraph 1 that “behavioural” ads help advertisers to:

　　[A] ease competition among themselves

　　[B] lower their operational costs

　　[C] avoid complaints from consumers

　　[D] provide better online services

　　27. “The industry” (Line 6,Para.3) refers to:

　　[A] online advertisers(考|研教育网整理)

　　[B] e-commerce conductors

　　[C] digital information analysis

　　[D] internet browser developers

　　28. Bob Liodice holds that setting DNT as a default

　　[A] many cut the number of junk ads

　　[B] fails to affect the ad industry

　　[C] will not benefit consumers

　　[D] goes against human nature

　　29. which of the following is ture according to Paragraph.6?

　　[A] DNT may not serve its intended purpose

　　[B] Advertisers are willing to implement DNT

　　[C] DNT is losing its popularity among consumers

　　[D] Advertisers are obliged to offer behavioural ads

　　30. The author's attitude towards what Brendon Lynch said in his blog is one of:

　　[A] indulgence

　　[B] understanding

　　[C] appreciaction

　　[D] skepticism

　　Text 3

　　Now utopia has grown unfashionable, as we have gained a deeper appreciation of the range of threats facing us, from asteroid strike to pandemic flu to climate change. You might even be tempted to assume that humanity has little future to look forward to.

　　But such gloominess is misplaced. The fossil record shows that many species have endured for millions of years - so why shouldn't we? Take a broader look at our species' place in the universe, and it becomes clear that we have an excellent chance of surviving for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years (see "100,000 AD: Living in the deep future"). Look up Homo sapiens in the IUCN's "Red List" of threatened species, and you will read: "Listed as Least Concern as the species is very widely distributed, adaptable, currently increasing, and there are no major threats resulting in an overall population decline."

　　So what does our deep future hold? A growing number of researchers and organisations are now thinking seriously about that question. For example, the Long Now Foundation, based in San Francisco, has created a forum where thinkers and scientists are invited to project the implications of their ideas over very long timescales. Its flagship project is a mechanical clock, buried deep inside a mountain in Texas, that is designed to still be marking time thousands of years hence.

　　Then there are scientists who are giving serious consideration to the idea that we should recognise a new geological era: the Anthropocene. They, too, are pulling the camera right back and asking what humanity's impact will be on the planet - in the context of stratigraphic time.

　　Perhaps perversely, it may be easier to think about such lengthy timescales than about the more immediate future. The potential evolution of today's technology, and its social consequences, is dazzlingly complicated, and it's perhaps best left to science-fiction writers and futurologists to explore the many possibilities we can envisage. That's one reason why we have launched Arc, a new publication dedicated to the near future.

　　But take a longer view and there is a surprising amount that we can say with considerable assurance. As so often, the past holds the key to the future: we have now identified enough of the long-term patterns shaping the history of the planet, and our species, to make evidence-based forecasts about the situations in which our descendants will find themselves.

　　This long perspective makes the pessimistic view of our prospects seem more likely to be a passing fad. To be sure, the future is not all rosy: while our species may flourish, a great many individuals may not. But we are now knowledgeable enough to mitigate many of the risks that threatened the existence of earlier humans, and to improve the lot of those to come. Thinking about our place in deep time is a good way to focus on the challenges that confront us today, and to make a future worth living in.