题目内容
Text 4 There will eventually come a day when The New York Times ceases to publish stories on newsprint. Exactly when that day will be is a matter of debate. “Sometime in the future”, the paper’s publisher said back in 2010. Nostalgia for ink on paper and the rustle of pages aside, there’s plenty of incentive to ditch print. The infrastructure required to make a physical newspaper — printing presses, delivery trucks — isn’t just expensive; it’s excessive at a time when online-only competitors don’t have the same set of financial constraints. Readers are migrating away from print away. And though print ad sales still dwarf their online and mobile counterparts, revenue from print is still declining. Overhead may be high and circulation lower, but rushing to eliminate its print edition would be a mistake, says BuzzFeed CEO Joah Peretti. Peretti says the Times shouldn’t waste time getting out of the print business, but only if they go about doing it the right way.” Fighting out a way to accelerate that transition would make sense of them,” he said, “but if you discontinue it, you’re going to have your most loyal customers really upset with you.” Sometimes that’s worth making a change anyway. Peretti gives the example seen as a blunder,” he said. The move turned out to be foresighted. And if Peretti would raise prices and make it into more of a legacy product.” The most loyal customers would still get the product they favor, the idea goes, and they’d feel like they were helping sustain the quality of something they believe in. “So if you’re overpaying for print, you could feel like you were helping,”Peretti said. “Then increase it at a higher rate each year and essentially try to generate additional revenue.”In other words, if you’re going to make a print product ,make it for the people who are already obsessed with it. Which way be what the Times is doing already. Getting the print edition seven days a week costs $500 a year — more than twice as much as a digital-only subscription. “It’s a really hard thing to do and it’s a tremendous luxury that BuzzFeed doesn’t have a legacy business,”Peretti remarked. “But we’re going to have questions like that where we have things we’re doing that don’t make sense when the market changes and the world changes. In those situations, it’s better to be more aggressive than less aggressive. ” Peretti suggests that, in face of the present situation, the Times should
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Text 4 There will eventually come a day when The New York Times ceases to publish stories on newsprint. Exactly when that day will be is a matter of debate. “Sometime in the future”, the paper’s publisher said back in 2010. Nostalgia for ink on paper and the rustle of pages aside, there’s plenty of incentive to ditch print. The infrastructure required to make a physical newspaper — printing presses, delivery trucks — isn’t just expensive; it’s excessive at a time when online-only competitors don’t have the same set of financial constraints. Readers are migrating away from print away. And though print ad sales still dwarf their online and mobile counterparts, revenue from print is still declining. Overhead may be high and circulation lower, but rushing to eliminate its print edition would be a mistake, says BuzzFeed CEO Joah Peretti. Peretti says the Times shouldn’t waste time getting out of the print business, but only if they go about doing it the right way.” Fighting out a way to accelerate that transition would make sense of them,” he said, “but if you discontinue it, you’re going to have your most loyal customers really upset with you.” Sometimes that’s worth making a change anyway. Peretti gives the example seen as a blunder,” he said. The move turned out to be foresighted. And if Peretti would raise prices and make it into more of a legacy product.” The most loyal customers would still get the product they favor, the idea goes, and they’d feel like they were helping sustain the quality of something they believe in. “So if you’re overpaying for print, you could feel like you were helping,”Peretti said. “Then increase it at a higher rate each year and essentially try to generate additional revenue.”In other words, if you’re going to make a print product ,make it for the people who are already obsessed with it. Which way be what the Times is doing already. Getting the print edition seven days a week costs $500 a year — more than twice as much as a digital-only subscription. “It’s a really hard thing to do and it’s a tremendous luxury that BuzzFeed doesn’t have a legacy business,”Peretti remarked. “But we’re going to have questions like that where we have things we’re doing that don’t make sense when the market changes and the world changes. In those situations, it’s better to be more aggressive than less aggressive. ” The New York Times is considering ending its print edition partly due to
Text1 France，which prides itself as the global innovator of fashion, has decided its fashion industry has lost an absolute right to define physical beauty for women. Its lawmakers gave preliminary approval last week to a law that would make it a crime to employ ultra-thin models on runways. The parliament also agreed to ban websites that “incite excessive thinness” by promoting extreme dieting. Such measures have a couple of uplifting motives. They suggest beauty should not be defined by looks that end up impinging on health. That’s a start. And the ban on ultra-thin models seems to go beyond protecting models from starving themselves to death –as some have done. It tells the fashion industry that it must take responsibility for the signal it sends women, especially teenage girls, about the social tape-measure they must use to determine their individual worth. The bans, if fully enforced, would suggest to women (and many men) that they should not let others be arbiters of their beauty. And perhaps faintly, they hint that people should look to intangible qualities like character and intellect rather than dieting their way to size zero or wasp-waist physiques. The French measures, however, rely too much on severe punishment to change a culture that still regards beauty as skin-deep-and bone-showing. Under the law, using a fashion model that does not meet a government-defined index of body mass could result in a $85,000 fine and six months in prison. The fashion industry knows it has an inherent problem in focusing on material adornment and idealized body types. In Denmark, the United States, and a few other countries, it is trying to set voluntary standards for models and fashion images that rely more on peer pressure for enforcement. In contrast to France’s actions, Denmark’s fashion industry agreed last month on rules and sanctions regarding the age, health, and other characteristics of models. The newly revised Danish Fashion Ethical Charter clearly states:”We are aware of and take responsibility for the impact the fashion industry has on body ideals, especially on young people”. The charter’s main tool of enforcement is to deny access for designers and modeling agencies to Copenhagen Fashion Week (CFW), which is run by the Danish Fashion Institute. But in general it relies on a name-and -shame method of compliance. Relying on ethical persuasion rather than law to address the misuse of body ideals may be the best step. Even better would be to help elevate notions of beauty beyond the material standards of a particular industry. According to the first paragraph，what would happen in France
有如下类定义： Class AA{ int a： PubliC： AA(int n=O)：a(n){}}； Class BB：publiC AA{ publiC： BB(int n)}； 其中横线处的缺失部分是（ ）。
判断char型变量c是否为小写字母的正确表达式是（ ）。
微信支付 
支付宝支付