题目内容
Imagine you found out that ideas invented by a computer were rated higher by independent experts than ideas created by a group of humans asked to perform the same task. Would you praise the designer of the "creative computer" for a great achievement or would you question why human talent -- usually so potent in coping with complex cognitive challenges -- created such poor ideas Or maybe you would question your view of the notion of creativity. In fact, such a scenario was played out when we used a simple computerized routine to generate ideas and compared them as superior to human ideas when they performed the same taskCreativity is considered the ultimate human activity, a highly complex process, difficult to formalize and to control. Although there is a general agreement regarding the distinctive nature of the creative product( idea, painting, poem, and so on). there is a controversy over the nature of the creative process. Some researchers hold that the creative thinking process is qualitatively different from "ordinary" day-to-day thinking, and involves a leap that cannot be formulated, analyzed, or reconstructed --the creative spark. Others adopt a reductionism view that creative products and the outcome of ordinary thinking, only quantitatively different from everyday thinking.Because creative ideas are different from those that normally arise, people often believe that such ideas require conditions dramatically different from the usual. The notion goes that, in order to overcome mental barriers and reach creative idem, total freedom is necessary -- no directional guidance, constraints, criticism, of thinking within bounded scope. Then ideas can be drawn and contemplated from an infinite space during the creativity process. This view prompted the emergence of various idea-generating methods: brainstorming, synectics, lateral thinking, random stimulation, and so on, all of which consist of withholding judgement and relying on analogies from other members in the group of on randomly selected analogies. This family of methods relies on the assumption that enhancing randomness, breaking roles and paradigms, and generating anarchy of thought increase the probability of creative idea emergence.Do these methods work A number of researchers indicate that they do not. Ideas suggested by individuals working a- lone are superior to ideas suggested in brainstorming sessions and the performance of problem solvers instructed to "break the rules, get out of the square, and change paradigms" was not better than that of individuals who were not given any instruction at all.The failure of these methods to improve creative outcomes has been explained by the unstructured nature of the task. Reitman observed that many problems that lack a structuring framework are ill-defined in that the representations of one or more of the basic components -- the initial state, the operators and constraints, and the goal -- are seriously incomplete, and the search space is exceedingly large. Indeed, many ill-defined problems seem difficult, not because we are swamped by the enormous number of alternative possibilities, but because we have trouble thinking even of one idea worth pursuing. According to this passage, ideas invented by a computer ().
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
You might think they would have learned their lesson by now. At the end of 2005 Republicans in the House of Representatives passed a bill that cracked down on illegal immigration, while doing nothing to regularise the position of the 12m or so people, mostly of Hispanic origin, who were living and working inside the United States without the proper papers, or to create a mechanism for allowing in people from Mexico and other southern neighbours to work with temporary permits. The bill never became law, but its one-sided nature helped stamp the Republicans (92% of whom voted for it in the House) as an anti-immigrant party. In April 2006 Latinos organised a day of protests in more than 100 cities; more than 500,000 people marched in Los Angeles alone. In the 2008 election 67% of Hispanics voted for Barack Obama.Now it is all happening again. Until now, the detection of illegal immigrants has invariably been a matter for the federal authorities.Republican-governed Arizona has just enacted a tough new law of its own: it requires state police to check the papers of anyone whose immigration status they have "reasonable" cause to doubt. Opponents say this is sure to lead to racial profiling. The bill is popular with angry white locals, so much so that the previously reform-minded John McCain, who is running for re-election to the Senate in Arizona, has not dared to oppose it. But in a country that is turning Hispanic at a rapid rate (by mid-century white Anglos will be another minority), the Republicans are once again hellbent on being on the wrong side of demography. The backlash will surely last longer than any bump in popularity gained by looking tough. The marches have begun again: on May 1st, up to a million people across the country took to the streets, by no means all of them Hispanic.For those who yearn for America to have a sensible immigration policy, the Arizona bill is a reason for both despair and hope. The first is easier to spell out. By any measure, Arizona’s offering is deeply illiberal. It would require all non-U. S. citizens to carry documents proving their immigration status, and would require police to check those papers in any contact with anyone who might be illegal. The obvious danger is that it would lead to the systematic harassment of brown-skinned people, including legal immigrants. As for illegals, it would simply drive even more of them underground. It would also criminalise anyone who shelters or helps illegals. Even the plan’s fans acknowledge that this is the toughest such bill ever passed in America.Paradoxically, the reason for hope is much the same. The bill is such a shocker that it is restarting the national debate. The Arizona law passed largely because the government is failing to do its job. The border is not secure; employers can and do hire people who have no legal right to be in America; and cross-border crime is on the rise. Better enforcement is needed. But on both political and moral grounds, better enforcement can only he part of a comprehensive immigration reform. The 12m illegals cannot be wished away, but must be given a chance to earn their citizenship; a guest-worker programme is needed to match the demands of employers with the desire of Mexicans and others to work. Mr. Obama’s administration has talked a lot about an immigration bill. It is now long past time that they produced one. Otherwise, expect to see more Arizonas. According to the passage, the author()Republicans’ move on illegal immigration.
已知IN2.DAT中存有200个4位数，并已调用读函数readDat()把这些数存入数组a中，请编制一函数jsVal()，其功能是：依次从数组a中取出一个数，如果该4位数连续大于该4位数以后的5个数且该数是奇数，则统计出满足此条件的数的个数cnt，并把这些4位数按从小到大的顺序存入数组b中，最后调用写函数writeDat()把结果ent及数组b中符合条件的4位数输出到OUT2.DAT文件中。 注意：部分源程序已给出。 程序中定义数组：a[200]，b[200],已定义变量：cnt。 请勿改动主函数main()、读函数readDat()和写函数writeDat()的内容。 试题程序： #include＜stdio.h＞ #define MAX 200 int a[MAX],b[MAX],cnt=0; void writeDat(); void jsVal() void readDat() int i; FILE *fp; fp=fopen("IN2.DAT","r"); for(i=0;i＜MAX;i++) fseanf(fp,"%d",&a[i]); fclose(fp); void main() int i; readDat(); jsVal(); printf("满足条件的数=%d\n",cnt); for(i=0;i＜cnt;i++)printf("%d",b[i]); printf("\n"); writeDat(); void writeDat() FILE *fp; int i; rp=fopen("OUT2.DAt","w"); fprintf(fp,"%d\n",cnt); for(i=0;i＜cnt;i++)fprintf(fp,"%d\n",b[i]); fclose(fp);
案例二[背景资料]某建筑工程建筑面积205000m2，混凝土现浇结构，筏板式基础，地下三层，地上十二层，基础埋深12.4m，该项工程位于繁华市区，施工场地狭小。工程所在地区地势北高南低，地下水流从北向南。施工单位的降水方案计划在基坑南边布置单排轻型井点。基坑开挖到设计标高后，施工单位和监理单位对基坑进行验槽，并对基底进行了钎探，发现地基东南角有约350m2软土区，监理工程师随即指令施工单位进行换填处理。工程主体结构施工时，二层现浇钢筋混凝土阳台在拆模时沿阳台根部发生断裂，经检查发现是由于施工人员将受力主筋位置布置错误所造成的。事故发生后，业主立即组织了质量大检查，发现一层大厅粱柱节点处有露筋；已绑扎完成的楼板钢筋位置与设计图纸不符；施工人员对钢筋绑扎规范要求不清楚。工程进入外墙面装修阶段后，施工单位按原设计完成了965m2的外墙贴面砖工作，业主认为原设计贴面砖与周边环境不协调，要求更换为大理石贴面，施工单位按业主要求进行了更换。[问题] 工程质量事故和业主检查出的问题反映出施工单位质量管理中存在哪些主要问题？
You might think they would have learned their lesson by now. At the end of 2005 Republicans in the House of Representatives passed a bill that cracked down on illegal immigration, while doing nothing to regularise the position of the 12m or so people, mostly of Hispanic origin, who were living and working inside the United States without the proper papers, or to create a mechanism for allowing in people from Mexico and other southern neighbours to work with temporary permits. The bill never became law, but its one-sided nature helped stamp the Republicans (92% of whom voted for it in the House) as an anti-immigrant party. In April 2006 Latinos organised a day of protests in more than 100 cities; more than 500,000 people marched in Los Angeles alone. In the 2008 election 67% of Hispanics voted for Barack Obama.Now it is all happening again. Until now, the detection of illegal immigrants has invariably been a matter for the federal authorities.Republican-governed Arizona has just enacted a tough new law of its own: it requires state police to check the papers of anyone whose immigration status they have "reasonable" cause to doubt. Opponents say this is sure to lead to racial profiling. The bill is popular with angry white locals, so much so that the previously reform-minded John McCain, who is running for re-election to the Senate in Arizona, has not dared to oppose it. But in a country that is turning Hispanic at a rapid rate (by mid-century white Anglos will be another minority), the Republicans are once again hellbent on being on the wrong side of demography. The backlash will surely last longer than any bump in popularity gained by looking tough. The marches have begun again: on May 1st, up to a million people across the country took to the streets, by no means all of them Hispanic.For those who yearn for America to have a sensible immigration policy, the Arizona bill is a reason for both despair and hope. The first is easier to spell out. By any measure, Arizona’s offering is deeply illiberal. It would require all non-U. S. citizens to carry documents proving their immigration status, and would require police to check those papers in any contact with anyone who might be illegal. The obvious danger is that it would lead to the systematic harassment of brown-skinned people, including legal immigrants. As for illegals, it would simply drive even more of them underground. It would also criminalise anyone who shelters or helps illegals. Even the plan’s fans acknowledge that this is the toughest such bill ever passed in America.Paradoxically, the reason for hope is much the same. The bill is such a shocker that it is restarting the national debate. The Arizona law passed largely because the government is failing to do its job. The border is not secure; employers can and do hire people who have no legal right to be in America; and cross-border crime is on the rise. Better enforcement is needed. But on both political and moral grounds, better enforcement can only he part of a comprehensive immigration reform. The 12m illegals cannot be wished away, but must be given a chance to earn their citizenship; a guest-worker programme is needed to match the demands of employers with the desire of Mexicans and others to work. Mr. Obama’s administration has talked a lot about an immigration bill. It is now long past time that they produced one. Otherwise, expect to see more Arizonas. The Arizona bill is believed to be().
微信支付 
支付宝支付