题目内容
All Sumerian cities recognized a number of gods in common, including the sky god, the lord of storms, and the morning and evening star. (1)_____ the Sumerian worshipped the goddess of fertility, love, and war, she was evidently lower (2)_____ status than the male gods, indicating that in a more urbanized society the (3)_____ that the peoples of previous times had paid to the earth mother goddess had (4)_____. The gods seemed hopelessly violent and (5)_____, and one"s life a period of slavery at their easy will. The epic poem The Creation emphasizes that (6)_____ were created to enable the gods to (7)_____ up working. Each city moreover had its own god, who was considered to (8)_____ the temple literally and who was in theory the owner of all property within the city. (9)_____ the priests who interpreted the will of the god and controlled the (10)_____ of the economic produce of the city were favored (11)_____ their supernatural and material functions (12)_____. When, after 3000 B.C., growing warfare among the cities made military leadership (13)_____, the head of the army who became king assumed a(n) (14)_____ position between the god, whose agent he was, and the priestly class, whom he had both to use and to (15)_____. Thus king and priests represented the upper class in a hierarchical society. (16)_____ them were the scribes, the secular attendants of the temple, who (17)_____ every aspect of the city"s economic life and who developed a rough judicial system. (18)_____ the temple officials, society was divided among an elite or (19)_____ group of large landowners and military leaders; a mixed group of merchants, artisans, and craftsmen, free peasants who (20)_____ the majority of the population; and slaves.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
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—indeed, 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, 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 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 best title for the passage might be
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—indeed, 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, 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 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. In the last paragraph, the author suggested that
Search engine Google was aiming to float on Wall Street this week, valued at up to $36 billion. But the Internet company"s advisers are meeting this weekend to discuss possibly delaying the public listing after a sharp fall in share prices in New York on Friday. An insider said last night:" "The float is teetering on the brink—it really is 50/50 at this stage, although many of us are optimistic". The initial public offering (IPO) of shares in Google, which could raise nearly $4bn, will amount to one of the biggest IPOs for years. But many US firms have shelved their IPOs amid volatile market conditions and investors appear unwilling to subscribe to new equity. A Wall Street analyst said that the Google IPO "would be a seminal event for the American stock market" as its real significance was that it would test whether or not the recovery in equity prices since the end of the Iraq war had taken hold. "If this float works, a lot of other companies will be encouraged and come to the market later in the year", the insider added. "But it will be bad news if the IPO is pulled or the shares fall sharply after the company is listed. If that happens, it could kill off the IPO market in America and elsewhere for at least 12 months". Several fund managers have already expressed reservations about Google, in particular its high valuation and the complex way the shares are being sold. Moreover, the Google flotation is taking place at a time when technology companies in the US have been shunned. On Thursday, the IPO hit a technical hitch over the failure of the company to meet its legal obligations concerning its employees" stock option plans. But the company did not think that the disclosure would mean a delay to the IPO, which is due on Tuesday. At the top of the suggested price range, Google would be valued not far short of its rival Internet firm Yahoo!—and this has raised eyebrows within the industry. The auction is being conducted over the Internet, and potential buyers will have to register by signing on to a Google website. But only investors who have brokerage accounts with one of the 28 US banks and brokers underwriting the stock sale, will be able to apply. Google suffered a setback last month after it re-ported an unexpected slowdown in its huge growth rate. But sources close to Google"s founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, said that the tailing-off of growth was due to seasonal factors and would not affect the IPO. By the phrase "raised eyebrows within the industry" (Paragraph 2), we "can learn that Google has
The following paragraphs are given in a wrong order. For Questions 41-45, you are required to reorganize these paragraphs into a coherent article by choosing from the list A-G. Some of the paragraphs have been placed for you. (10 points)A. In our time women have an average lifespan of almost 80 years; double of what it was in the last century. Motherhood can be postponed and in theory marriage can be postponed. Women in the USA are studying more than men and they may become main breadwinner in the near future.B. Many women go through life thinking, consciously or unconsciously, that a man will solve all their problems, "Once we are married, everything will be OK". This attitude only set us up for failure. Men are not princes ready to take any challenge to rescue the princesses, they are human beings with their own needs and fears.C. Carrie was wondering in her bedroom about the comment that her friend, New York socialite Charlotte York, made "Women want to be rescued". Carrie wonders, "Is that true Is that the only thing women want Rescued by whom If the prince did not kiss Snow White, would she have been frozen forever or would she have woken up anyway and moved on" Snow White probably had no other chance, but we do.D. No wonder our society has changed. On the other hand, our values have not changed fast enough and many women, more so Hispanic women, are just waiting to be rescued by the prince. These women have not realized, they no longer need to be rescued; they need a man for other reasons, not to take care of them.E. Women in our society have so many options that we do not need anybody else to rescue us; we are the only ones that can rescue ourselves. If you have areas Of your life that you want to improve, go ahead; do it for you and for you only, or accept yourself as you are. Do not be so naive that you think someone else can take care of all your problems. Life does not work like that. Live life to the fullest, be happy with who you are and you will see that if you are happy with yourself, you will make others happy, including your man.F. Our society has changed in a remarkable way in the last 50 years or so. And there are many reasons for it. At the beginning of the 20th century women"s life span was about 40 years. There-fore, life needed to start earlier if a woman were going to live for only 40 years; motherhood was a priority. Men used to work and women stayed at home and took care of them and their kids. Women could not survive without a man; women needed to be rescued.G. Women are caregivers. We are strong and smart and we have the ability to take care of ourselves; we do not need to be rescued by anyone. When we are giving our power to others in exchange for security, we are also giving up our freedom. Are you waiting to be rescued Do you ever think like thatOrder: C is the first paragraph and G is the last.
微信支付 
支付宝支付