ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 7603|回复: 53

[阅读小分队] 【每日阅读训练第四期——速度越障17系列】【17-07】经管

[复制链接]
发表于 2013-4-11 21:40:11 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
Hi, everyone! It is Thursday again~~小杀妹又来啦!XD
上次大家普遍反映SPEED的文章太长了,所以这次正式计时的部分都较上周缩短了些,每篇基本在300-350字左右~。时间比较有限的筒子可以只做计时部分,时间比较充裕的话可以阅读全文,非timing部分就当休闲啦~~另外,周一撒切尔夫人病逝,对她的评价是目前很热议的话题,于是LZ又找了economist上面一篇关于她的小文章(most popular哦~)做了今天的extensive reading~(文章内容不代表LZ观点)。
和上周一样,1楼是阅读正文,2楼是word list~~
Ready~? GO!

                                                                        【SPEED】                                                                       
Article 1: Google’s Android: Target of New Antitrust Complaint
(Check the title later)
A group of companies led by Microsoft have called on European authorities to launch an antitrust investigation into Google‘s dominance of mobile Internet usage on smartphones.

The “FairSearch” initiative of 17 companies — which includes Microsoft, Nokia, and Oracle — claims Google is acting unfairly by giving away its Android operating system to mobile device companies on the condition that the U.S. online giant’s own software applications like YouTube and Google Maps are installed and prominently displayed.

“Google is using its Android mobile operating system as a Trojan horse to deceive partners, monopolize the mobile marketplace, and control consumer data,” said Thomas Vinje, the group’s Brussels-based lawyer.
(105 words)

                                                                        【TIME 1】                                                                       
Android operating systems are installed on about 70 percent of new smartphones, according to analyst estimates, handing Google the largest market share worldwide, followed by Apple‘s iOS platform. Systems from BlackBerry, Microsoft and others trail far behind.

“Google’s predatory distribution of Android at below-cost makes it difficult for other providers of operating systems to recoup investments in competing with Google’s dominant mobile platform,” FairSearch said in a statement.
The European Commission, the 27-nation bloc’s executive arm and antitrust authority, must at some point decide whether to take up the case or drop it. A spokesman confirmed the complaint had been received.

Google Inc., based in Mountain View, Calif., did not address the complaint’s charges in detail. “We continue to work cooperatively with the European Commission,” said Google spokesman, Al Verney.

The U.S. company is already under investigation by Brussels for practices related to its dominance of online search and advertising markets.

That complaint, launched in 2010, alleges Google unfairly favors its own services in its Internet search results, which enjoy a near-monopoly in Europe. Google has proposed a list of remedies to address the Commission’s concerns to achieve a settlement. The Commission is currently examining the proposed changes.

“We have received some proposals by Google and we will soon launch a market test” of the proposed remedies, said Antoine Colombani, a spokesman for EU Competition Comissioner Joaquin Almunia. He declined to speculate on when the investigation would be concluded.

The EU Commission has often taken a harder line with U.S. tech companies than its American counterpart, the Federal Trade Commission.

Google settled a similar antitrust complaint on its search business with the FTC in January without making any major concessions on how it runs its search engine, the world’s most influential gateway to digital information and commerce.
                                                                      (297 words)                                                                         

[The Rest]
Microsoft Corp., which has been a leading player in the complaints against Google, has had its own protracted run-ins with the EU Commission. It has paid 2.2 billion euros in various fines since a first investigation was launched in 1998.

Google’s new privacy rules, meanwhile, are also attracting European authorities’ scrutiny. Several data privacy regulators have launched an investigation, alleging the company is creating a data goldmine at the expense of unwitting users.

Last year, the company merged 60 separate privacy policies from around the world into one universal procedure. The European authorities complain that the new policy doesn’t allow users to figure out which information is kept, how it is combined by Google services or how long the company retains it.

The policy allows Google to combine data collected from one person as they use Google’s services, from Gmail to YouTube, giving it a powerful tool for targeting users with advertising based on their interests and search history. Advertising is the main way the company makes its money.
(169 words)
Source: TIME
http://business.time.com/2013/04/09/googles-android-target-of-new-antitrust-complaint/#ixzz2Q4Sn4Rsa


Article 2: Financial Independence? Today’s Young People Don’t Expect It Anytime Soon
(Check the title later)

In a mere two years, the proportion of teenagers who expect to be financially dependent on their parents until their mid-20s has doubled. That gives us all another reason to feel sympathy for parents who have teenagers right now.

A new survey conducted by Junior Achievement, a group that teaches kids about money and jobs, found that 25% of teens think they won’t be able to support themselves until their mid-20s. Two years ago, just 12% of teens surveyed said that they’d have to reach the 25-to 27-year-old age bracket before being able to pay all of their own bills. Correspondingly, the proportion of teens who expect to achieve financial independence by the ages of 18 to 24 has plummeted, from 75% in 2011 to 59% today.

Are these kids just unmotivated? Maybe some of them are, but many more are facing escalating college costs and poor job prospects. An alarming number have a poor understanding of budgeting and basic finance as well.

Plus, the old stigmas attached to relying on one’s parents well into adulthood, and even moving back home after college, seem to have faded. To make ends meet, Generation X crowded in with roommates, ate Ramen and slept on futons. Post-college millennials still have roommates, but they increasingly call them “mom” and “dad.” The number of young adults living with their parents spiked during the Great Recession era. Today’s teens apparently don’t mind the idea of moving back in with the ‘rents, or they at least understand the necessity of making such a move given the state of the economy and the likelihood of large student loans down the road.
(273 words)

                                                                      【TIME 2】                                                                       
Providing a place to live isn’t the only way parents are helping out their adult children. In many families, it’s become the norm for parents to step in and pay bills for smartphones, Internet access, music and TV subscription services like iTunes and Hulu. A survey of parents with adult children up to 35 years old conducted by Harris Interactive for the Wall Street Journal found that more than 40% still pay for their kids’ cell phone service. Nearly 30% keep paying the bill even after their kids are living on their own. (It does get rid of one excuse why Junior never calls home.)

The cost of making sure your 35-year-old offspring can still text, stream Spotify and watch The Big Bang Theory isn’t cheap: Parents spend an average of $108 a month, Harris Interactive found. While this might not break the bank for some families, there’s growing concern that subsidizing adult kids is stretching parents too thin, especially because one in five also provides financial support to an elderly parent. According to a Pew Research study published earlier this year, more than 40% of respondents who help support a parent say they either barely break even or don’t have enough money to meet basic expenses.

About two-thirds of young respondents in the Junior Achievement survey think they’ll be equally or better off financially than their parents. This optimism might be unfounded, though, because today’s young people — like so many young people before them — don’t have a firm grasp of personal finance issues. According to their responses, about a quarter admit they don’t understand budgeting, one in five don’t know how to use credit cards, and roughly a third don’t know how to invest money.

“Part of the reason teens expect to live with parents longer may be because they are unsure about their ability to budget, use credit cards or invest money,” the study suggests.

It’s overly simplistic, though, to think that parents can give their kids a crash course in budgeting and expect them to fly the nest at 18. “The Great Recession and sluggish recovery have taken a disproportionate toll on young adults,” the Pew study points out.
                                                                     (362 words)                                                                     

                                                                     【TIME 3】                                                                    
The cost of college — and the fact that today’s teens are unprepared for it — is one reason they might be living in their old bedroom into their mid 20s. Only 9% of respondents in the Junior Achievement survey say they’re saving for college, and almost half say they don’t know how much they should be saving, although around two-thirds say their parents have talked about it with them.

Currently, the percentage of people who can’t pay back their student loans could be as high as 30%, by some estimates, and the cost of higher education isn’t getting any cheaper: The average amount of loans student borrowers take on has jumped 30% in five years and now hovers near $24,000.

Opting out of higher education isn’t really a viable option, though: Jobs that didn’t used to require a college degree, like security manager, dental hygienist or lab tech, now are out of reach for people without a four-year degree. And that’s if new graduates can even find jobs. As of December, the unemployment rate for Americans in the 20- to 24-year-old age bracket was roughly double the national average.

We’ve already heard plenty about the “boomerang generation,” the 29% of 25-to-34-year-olds who live with their parents because they can’t find a job or make ends meet on their own. According to the Pew study, the percentage of middle-aged parents who are the primary financial support for a child over the age of 18 climbed from 20% to 27% since 2005. An additional 21% percent of parents say they provide “some support” for their adult kids.

What’s sad, and speaks volumes about perceptions concerning the economy and jobs in the future, is that today’s teenagers expect pretty much the same situation in their first decade of adulthood, too.
                                                                   (296 words)                                                                   
Source: TIME
http://business.time.com/2013/04/04/financial-independence-todays-young-people-dont-expect-it-anytime-soon/#ixzz2Q4VM7NOQ


Article 3: Can Housing Power the Economic Recovery?
(Check the title later)

                                                                   【TIME 4】                                                                  
Economic recoveries usually begin at home. Even though the housing construction has historically only accounted for roughly 5% of America’s economic activity, that number tends to rise following recessions, placing a disproportionate burden on the housing sector to lead the economy to recovery.

Why is this? There are several reasons. First of all, since a new home is usually the biggest purchase any of us will make, we tend not to do it during recessions. Recessions cause housing demand to become pent up and then released once a recovery begins. Secondly, investment in a new home usually necessitates many other big ticket purchases like furnishing and appliances. Finally, construction is a a great source of relatively high-paying jobs for lower-skilled workers — the sorts of jobs that we’ve been sorely missing since the financial crisis. And just as housing construction creates demands for different consumables, it also has a trickle-down effect on employment, creating the need for real estate brokers, landscapers, and lawyers, just to name a few.

But the 2008-2009 recession was different. Housing didn’t come roaring back as it did after the 2001 and 1991 recessions. In fact, the housing sector continued to be a drag on the overall economy until last year. Not that this is surprising given the genesis of the recession was a real estate bubble — one that wiped out trillions in wealth and severely damaged the financial system.

But over the past year, the housing market has begun to recover. On Tuesday the analytics firm Core Logic announced that in February, home prices increased 10.2% year over year — the largest increase since 2006 — marking 12 straight months of year-over-year national home price increases. And the job market is starting to reflect these gains. Earlier this month, the Labor Department announced that the construction sector added 48,000 jobs in February and 151,000 total jobs since September. So we’re making progress, and housing seems to be a big factor.
                                                                   (322 words)                                                                   

[The Rest]
But this doesn’t mean we should expect a housing boom any time soon, or that we can rely on construction to bring the economy back to full strength, and here’s why:

1. The latest reports are only positive in comparison: Sure we’ve had almost a year of rising home prices, but that comes after more than three years of nearly uninterrupted home price declines, which reached a magnitude of 18% in some months.
2. Unemployment remains high and wages stagnant: Despite the recent gains in the job market, there are still 3 million fewer jobs in America than before the recession, while the average American’s income has fallen 7.3% since December of 2007. Since home price appreciation is driven by growth in employment and growth in income, we need to see more progress in these areas before we can expect a more robust housing recovery.
3. Americans are forming fewer households: The Census department defines a household as any group of people living together. From 1997 to 2007, Americans formed roughly 1.5 million households per year, but during the recession that rate fell to 500,000, according to Timothy Dunne, vice president of the Cleveland Federal Reserve Bank. While this number has crept up back above 1 million once again, there is still a big question as to what the “new normal” will be going forward.

Will young Americans continue to spend their twenties living with their parents, or will they strike out on their own the instant they have the opportunity, regardless of how difficult it is to make ends meet? Frankly, this question is impossible to answer. What is certain however, is that even if the economy continues to improve, many young people today are starting their careers with large student loan burdens and jobs that don’t pay particularly well. And for the time being, the recovery in the housing market is being driven by investors who are snapping up cheap properties rather than first-time buyers — as the National Association of Realtors has reported that first-time buyers purchased just 30% of buyers last month, as opposed to a more-normal 40%. But investors aren’t going to continue to drive price increases unless they believe there will be demand for rentals coming from — you guessed it — household formation.

This is not to say that the housing market isn’t playing a big role in our recent gains. But lets remember that the latest economic news, whether its GDP growth, job growth, or wage gains, has been only modestly positive. Our economic performance over the past year would be excellent during normal times, but it frankly hasn’t been anywhere near good enough to bring us out of the massive hole the recession caused. The fact that the housing recovery has begun is great news, but we’ll need more than a stable housing market to bring the American economy back to fighting weight.
(479 words)
Source: TIME
http://business.time.com/2013/04/04/can-housing-power-the-economic-recovery/#ixzz2Q4WpoB6B


Article 4: Will we care about online privacy in 20 years?
(Check the title later)

                                                                   【TIME 5】                                                                  
The launch of the Facebook Home apphas reignited the privacy debate over whether the social networking site is becoming too integrated in our lives.

Unveiled last week, Home integrates all of the social network's services into the operating system of Android phones. Instead of having to download apps to use Instagram, Facebook Messenger, and Facebook Camera, access to these features is consolidated into Facebook Home, which appears on the user's home screen.

Typically for a Facebook launch, it has attracted fierce criticism. CNN contributor Andrew Keen, an expert in the digital economy, said: "Facebook wants to know everything we do, so they can sell more advertising. It shows that Facebook has absolutely no respect for our privacy."

"They are by definition creepy, untrustworthy and they've proven that time and time again," he added.

Facebook has responded to the criticism following the launch in a blog post to say that the data Home would collect is no different from what the social networking site already tracks and that it is used internally to improve the user experience.

For tech-savvy digital natives, who share personal information frequently and tend to see value in such personal disclosures, the polemic around Home could be seen as a non-issue.

It also could be argued that privacy is a long-dead illusion that is fast becoming an outdated concept.

David Rowan, editor of technology magazine "Wired," thinks so. "Our concept of privacy is very much a 20th century idea," he told CNN at Names not Numbers, an idea-sharing and networking conference held in the UK recently.

"All that personal data you are giving to these private companies they are making money on and they decide how it's going to be used. You lose control of that data."

Commentators say that we should be asking tougher questions about that information is being used.

In his upcoming book "Who Owns the Future?" digital pioneer Jaron Lanier discusses how the world's biggest online services such as Google and Facebook are not in fact "free" because in return we are duly handing over information about ourselves that can be turned into big money.
                                                                   (352 words)                                                                   

[The Rest]
But can we really move beyond privacy? Keen thinks that if we don't act soon, we could. In his latest book, "Digital Vertigo", he argues that in California's Silicon Valley there are people who "have already discarded privacy as if it's like gas lighting -- an archaic thing which humans will move beyond."

Keen urges us to consider what privacy really means in the "Big Data Age."

He talks in apocalyptic terms about a "scary, nightmarish, dystopian future," where we live in a world of "radical transparency".

Technology seems to be moving ever closer to a world where every aspect of our existence is recorded, both at our will and not, and Keen argues that humans are not ready for this, this ability "to press the rewind button on your life".

"The internet needs to learn how to forget. All it knows is how to remember. That's not very human," he says, arguing that forgetting is as essential to the human condition as remembering.

But, in today's world, the documentation of our every move and every desire is becoming increasingly inescapable. According to Rowan, "anybody who is using any kind of electronic device is giving up the practical ability to be untrackable."

So pervasive is the power of internet giants that the U.S. government launched an official "National Data Privacy Day" -- a drive to raise awareness among teenagers and young adults about the importance of maintaining what little privacy they may have left.

Keen draws similarities between the negative impacts of the industrial revolution and those of the digital world order, which, he says, "is in some ways more profound and far-reaching".

Just as "the downside of industrialization was pollution, data distribution and the invasion of our privacy is the pollution of the big data age."
(305 words)
Source: CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/09/tech/privacy-outdated-digital-age/index.html?hpt=ibu_c1


                                            【OBSTACLE】                                          
Article 5: Murder mysteries
Official figures showing a sharp drop in China’s murder rate are misleading
(Check the title later)

FOR a country under so many social stresses, with millions of rural migrants pouring every year into cities and a widening gap between rich and poor, China boasts a remarkable achievement: a sharp fall since the turn of the century in murders and gun crimes. Official surveys suggest citizens feel increasingly safe from violence. Reality is a bit more complicated.

Last May a newspaper run by the Ministry of Public Security said China’s murder rate had fallen below those of Switzerland and Japan, countries which it said were “acknowledged to have the best public order in the world”. In fact, figures compiled by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) show that in 2009, the latest year with data from all three countries, China had a murder rate of 1.1 per 100,000 people, compared with 0.7 in Switzerland and 0.4 in Japan. Yet even by the UN agency’s count, China outperforms Australia and Britain (1.2 in 2009) and, easily, America (5.0).

Official figures show that the number of murder cases rose from fewer than 10,000 in 1981 to more than 28,000 in 2000. Since then it has dropped almost every year, to about 12,000 in 2011. China’s statistics bureau does not disclose which crimes are included in its murder data. Chinese scholars say that a single case might include several deaths, and that some killings which occur in the course of other violent crimes such as rape or robbery might be excluded. In a 2006 report, the World Health Organisation estimated that in 2002, when 26,300 murder cases were recorded in China, 38,000 people died from “homicide-related injuries”.

But some of China’s other crime statistics appear to bolster the claim that murders have been much reduced. Robberies are down more than 40% since 2002, and rapes by nearly 18% from a peak in 2001. Gun-related crimes fell from around 5,000 cases in 2000 to a mere 500 in 2011, and bombings from 4,000 to about 200 over the same period. Gun ownership has long been tightly controlled in China. But the authorities have difficulty policing porous borders, such as the one with Myanmar, across which guns (and drugs) are often smuggled. If accurate, the data point to surprising success by the police in preventing these weapons from being used for criminal purposes.

The numbers also seem to counter what many would expect in a country undergoing such rapid social change. As China began to cast off the economic shackles of Maoism in the late 1970s, crime rates rose rapidly. Greater freedom of movement and rising unemployment appear to be factors. But since the early years of this century, China appears to buck a tendency observed by the UNODC in a global study of murder published in 2011: that countries with high levels of income inequality have much higher murder rates than more equal societies. China’s wealth gap is not far off that of some of Latin America’s most crime-ridden countries.

The data, however, are so suspect that it is difficult to say with certainty what the trends really are. Some Chinese scholars believe the murder numbers are indeed falling, though not as dramatically as the official figures appear to show. If they are right, it might help disprove the widely held notion in China that executions act as deterrent: it is generally believed that China has become more cautious in recent years in applying the death penalty.

Figures about murder are especially prone to manipulation by local governments. This is because of political pressure to solve such crimes. A campaign launched in 2004 demanded, at the very least, an 85% success rate in murder cases in the first year, and higher rates from then on. The central government’s motive was commendable. Local police forces had begun to pay more attention to solving crimes involving money, in the hope of getting a share of any recovered cash. But the campaign boosted incentives to falsify results. By 2005 more than two-fifths of China’s counties were claiming 100% success rates in solving new murders. Even the official media carried reports of police forces failing to register murder cases unless they were confident of cracking them, or had already done so. Only registered cases are recorded in the published statistics.

Not so fast, wise guy

The campaign made wrongful arrests and torture even more common. “Wouldn’t it be even more persuasive if we were to announce the number of unjust and fabricated cases that have been overturned at the same time as we announce the rate at which murder cases are solved?” asked Southern Daily, a newspaper, in 2007. Its rare plea went unheeded.

Local governments continue to issue claims of high murder-solving rates. Last year Zhengzhou, the capital of Henan province in central China, reported that it had solved 98.9% of its murders, a record high for the city (including rural hinterland) of more than 7m people.

Such apparent achievements have helped bolster the government’s claims to be creating a “harmonious society”, an objective declared by China’s then-president, Hu Jintao, in 2005. Government researchers have produced many surveys purporting to show that citizens feel safer than ever before (even as sellers of home-security equipment appear to be doing a roaring trade, and the incidence of non-fatal violence has continued to rise). The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences said in December that the citizens of Lhasa, the capital of Tibet, felt happier and safer than those of any other city in China. The omnipresence of armed troops has seemingly helped boost their joy. The port city of Shanghai came in second.

Scepticism about the authorities’ handling of murder cases has been fuelled by the most notorious one in recent years: the killing in November 2011 of Neil Heywood, a British businessman, in a hotel in Chongqing in south-western China. The wife of Chongqing’s Communist Party chief, Bo Xilai, was given a suspended death-sentence last August for her role in this. But had a police chief not tried to defect to America, her connections might easily have helped her get away with it. The trial of Mr Bo, expected soon, is likely to reinforce the public’s cynicism.
                                                                  (1023 words)                                                                  
Source: ECONOMIST
http://www.economist.com/news/china/21575767-official-figures-showing-sharp-drop-chinas-murder-rate-are-misleading-murder-mysteries


                                    【EXTENSIVE READING】                                    
The lady who changed the world
Apr 8th 2013, 12:35 by Economist.com


ONLY a handful of peace-time politicians can claim to have changed the world. Margaret Thatcher, who died this morning, was one. She transformed not just her own Conservative Party, but the whole of British politics. Her enthusiasm for privatisation launched a global revolution and her willingness to stand up to tyranny helped to bring an end to the Soviet Union. Winston Churchill won a war, but he never created an “ism”.

The essence of Thatcherism was to oppose the status quo and bet on freedom—odd, since as a prim control freak, she was in some ways the embodiment of conservatism. She thought nations could become great only if individuals were set free. Her struggles had a theme: the right of individuals to run their own lives, as free as possible from the micromanagement of the state.

In Britain her battles with the left—especially the miners—gave her a reputation as a blue-rinse Boadicea. But she was just as willing to clobber her own side, sidelining old-fashioned Tory “wets” and unleashing her creed on conservative strongholds, notably the “big bang” in the City of London. Many of her pithiest putdowns were directed towards her own side: “U turn if you want to”, she told the Conservatives as unemployment passed 2m, “The lady’s not for turning.”

Paradoxes abound. Mrs Thatcher was a true Blue Tory who marginalised the Tory Party for a generation. The Tories ceased to be a national party, retreating to the south and the suburbs and all but dying off in Scotland, Wales and the northern cities. Tony Blair profited more from the Thatcher revolution than John Major, her successor: with the trade unions emasculated and the left discredited, he was able to remodel his party and sell it triumphantly to Middle England. His huge majority in 1997 ushered in 13 years of New Labour rule.

Yet her achievements cannot be gainsaid. She reversed what her mentor, Keith Joseph, liked to call “the ratchet effect”, whereby the state was rewarded for its failures with yet more power. With the brief exception of the emergency measures taken in the wake of the financial crisis of 2007-08, there have been no moves to renationalise industries or to resume a policy of picking winners. Thanks to her, the centre of gravity of British politics moved dramatically to the right. The New Labourites of the 1990s concluded that they could rescue the Labour Party from ruin only by adopting the central tenets of Thatcherism. “The presumption should be that economic activity is best left to the private sector,” declared Mr Blair. Neither he nor his successors would dream of reverting to the days of nationalisation and unfettered union power.

On the world stage, too, Mrs Thatcher continues to cast a long shadow. Her combination of ideological certainty and global prominence ensured that Britain played a role in the collapse of the Soviet Union that was disproportionate to its weight in the world. Mrs Thatcher was the first British politician since Winston Churchill to be taken seriously by the leaders of all the major powers. She was a heroine to opposition politicians in eastern Europe. Her willingness to stand shoulder to shoulder with “dear Ronnie” to block Soviet expansionism helped to promote new thinking in the Kremlin. But her insistence that Mikhail Gorbachev was a man with whom the West could do business also helped to end the cold war.

The post-communist countries embraced her revolution heartily: by 1996 Russia had privatised some 18,000 industrial enterprises. India dismantled the licence Raj—a legacy of British Fabianism—and unleashed a cavalcade of successful companies. Across Latin America governments embraced market liberalisation. Whether they managed well or badly, all of them looked to the British example.

But today, the pendulum is swinging dangerously away from the principles Mrs Thatcher espoused. In most of the rich world, the state’s share of the economy has grown sharply in recent years. Regulations—excessive, as well as necessary—are tying up the private sector. Businessmen are under scrutiny as they have not been for 30 years. Demonstrators protest against the very existence of the banking industry. And with the rise of China, state control, not economic liberalism, is being hailed as a model for emerging countries.

For a world in desperate need of growth, this is the wrong direction to head in. Europe will never thrive until it frees up its markets. America will throttle its recovery unless it avoids over-regulation. China will not sustain its success unless it starts to liberalise. This is a crucial time to hang on to Margaret Thatcher’s central perception—that for countries to flourish, people need to push back against the advance of the state. What the world needs now is more Thatcherism, not less.
                                                                     (793 words)                                                                   
Source: ECONOMIST
http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2013/04/margaret-thatcher?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709

PS:LZ找完文章后忧伤的发现…虽然正式timing的部分短了些…总量貌似还是有点大的…TT…如果大家觉得“撑”到了,在跟帖里面说明就好~~~LZ会尝试缩短非timing部分~。如果有其他建议也欢迎提粗!BOW~

本帖子中包含更多资源

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?立即注册

x
 楼主| 发表于 2013-4-11 21:40:21 | 显示全部楼层

WORD LIST

今天的word list看上去比较长,不过大部分单词应该还比较常用,所以难度应该不太大~~大家加油!XD

SPEED
Article 1
1.      antitrust  英[æntɪ'trʌst] 美[,æntɪ'trʌst]  adj. 反垄断的;反托拉斯的
2.      Prominently adv. 显著地
3.      predatory  英['predət(ə)rɪ] 美['prɛdətɔri]  adj. 掠夺的,掠夺成性的;食肉的;捕食生物的
4.      recoup  英[rɪ'kuːp] 美  vt. 收回;恢复;偿还;扣除  vi. 获得补偿;请求扣除
5.      remedy  英['remɪdɪ] 美['rɛmədi]  vt. 补救;治疗;纠正  n. 补救;治疗;赔偿
6.      protract  英[prə'trækt] 美[pro'trækt]  vt. 绘制;延长;伸展
7.      run-in  英['rʌnin] 美  n. 试车;插入部分;争论
8.      scrutiny  英['skruːtɪnɪ] 美['skrutəni]  n. 详细审查;监视;细看;选票复查
9.      unwitting  英[ʌn'wɪtɪŋ] 美[ʌn'wɪtɪŋ]  adj. 不知情的;不知不觉的,无意的  v. 使精神错乱;使丧失智能(unwit的ing形式)

Article 2
1.      bracket  英['brækɪt] 美['brækɪt]  n. 支架;括号;墙上凸出的托架  vt. 括在一起;把…归入同一类;排除
2.      plummet  英['plʌmɪt] 美['plʌmɪt]  n. [测] 铅锤,坠子  vi. 垂直落下;(价格、水平等)骤然下跌
3.      escalate  英['eskəleɪt] 美['ɛskəlet]  vi. 逐步增强;逐步升高  vt. 使逐步上升
4.      stigma  英['stɪgmə] 美['stɪɡmə]  n. [植] 柱头;耻辱;污名;烙印;特征
5.      ramen[ramən]  n. 拉面;面条
6.      futon  英['fuːtɒn]  n. 蒲团;日式床垫
7.      spike  英[spaɪk] 美[spaɪk]  n. 长钉,道钉;钉鞋;细高跟  vt. 阻止;以大钉钉牢;用尖物刺穿
8.      subsidize  美['sʌbsə'daɪz]  vt. 资助;给与奖助金;向…行贿
9.      stretch  英[stretʃ] 美[strɛtʃ]  vt. 伸展,张开  vi. 伸展  adj. 可伸缩的  n. 伸展,延伸
10.   sluggish  英['slʌgɪʃ] 美['slʌɡɪʃ]  adj. 萧条的;迟钝的;行动迟缓的;懒惰的  n. 市况呆滞;市势疲弱
11.   hover  英['hɒvə] 美['hʌvɚ]  vi. 盘旋,翱翔;徘徊  n. 徘徊;盘旋;犹豫  vt. 孵;徘徊在…近旁
12.   hygienist  英['haɪdʒiːnɪst] 美[haɪ'dʒinɪst]  n. 卫生学者;保健专家

Article 3
1.      pent  英[pent] 美[pɛnt]  adj. 被关闭的;郁积的  n. 单斜顶棚  v. 把…关于围栏;把…关起来;囚禁(pen的过去分词)
2.      pent up  抑制;幽禁
3.      consumable  英[kən'sjuːməb(ə)l] 美[kən'suməbl]  n. 消费品;消耗品  adj. 可消耗的;可消费的
4.      trickle  英['trɪk(ə)l] 美['trɪkl]  vi. 滴;细细地流;慢慢地移动  vt. 使…滴;使…淌;使…细细地流  n. 滴,淌;细流
5.      genesis  英['dʒenɪsɪs] 美['dʒɛnəsɪs]  n. 发生;起源
6.      magnitude  英['mægnɪtjuːd] 美['mæɡnɪtud]  n. 大小;量级;[地震] 震级;重要;光度
7.      stagnant  英['stægnənt] 美['stægnənt]  adj. 停滞的;不景气的;污浊的;迟钝的

Article 4
1.      reignite[,ri:iɡ'nait]  vt. 再次点燃;重新激起…;再点火
2.      unveil  英[ʌn'veɪl] 美[,ʌn'vel]  vt. 使公诸于众,揭开;揭幕  vi. 除去面纱;显露
3.      consolidate  英[kən'sɒlɪdeɪt] 美[kən'sɑlɪdet]  vt. 巩固,使固定;联合  vi. 巩固,加强
4.      creepy  英['kriːpɪ] 美['kripi]  adj. 令人毛骨悚然的;爬行的
5.      savvy  英['sævɪ] 美['sævi]  n. 悟性;理解能力;懂行(的人)  vt. 理解;懂  vi. 理解;知道
6.      polemic  英[pə'lemɪk] 美[pə'lɛmɪk]  n. 争论;辩论者  adj. 好争论的
7.      duly  英['djuːlɪ] 美['dʊli]  adv. 适当地;充分地;按时地
8.      vertigo  英['vɜːtɪgəʊ] 美['vɝtɪɡo]  n. 晕头转向,[临床] 眩晕
9.      apocalyptic  美[ə'pɑkə'lɪptɪk]  adj. 启示录的;天启的
10.   dystopian[dis'təupiən]  adj. 反面假想国的;反面乌托邦的  n. 反面乌托邦的鼓吹者
11.   pervasive  英[pə'veɪsɪv] 美[pɚ'vesɪv]  adj. 普遍的;到处渗透的

OBSTACLE
1.      compile  英[kəm'paɪl] 美[kəm'paɪl]  vt. 编译;编制;编辑;汇编
2.      bolster  英['bəʊlstə] 美['bolstɚ]  n. 支持;长枕  vt. 支持;支撑
3.      porous  英['pɔːrəs] 美['pɔrəs]  adj. 多孔渗水的;能渗透的;有气孔的
4.      shackles['ʃæklz]  n. 手铐,脚镣;塞古
5.      deterrent  英[dɪ'ter(ə)nt] 美[dɪ'tɝənt]  adj. 遏制的,威慑的;制止的  n. 威慑;妨碍物;挽留的事物
6.      commendable  美[kə'mɛndəbl]  adj. 值得赞美的;很好的;可推荐的
7.      fabricate  英['fæbrɪkeɪt] 美['fæbrɪket]  vt. 制造;伪造;装配
8.      plea  英[pliː] 美[pli]  n. 恳求,请求;辩解,辩护;借口,托辞
9.      unheeded  英[ʌn'hiːdɪd] 美[ʌn'hidɪd]  adj. 被忽视的;未被注意的
10.   purport  英[pə'pɔːt] 美['pɝpɔt]  vt. 声称;意图;意指;打算  n. 意义,主旨;意图
11.   omnipresence[,ɑmnɪ'prɛzns]  n. 遍在;无所不在
12.   notorious  英[nə(ʊ)'tɔːrɪəs] 美[no'tɔrɪəs]  adj. 声名狼藉的,臭名昭著的
13.   defect  英['diːfekt; dɪ'fekt] 美[dɪ'fɛkt]  n. 缺点,缺陷;不足之处  vi. 变节;叛变
14.   cynicism  英['sɪnɪsɪz(ə)m] 美  n. 玩世不恭,愤世嫉俗;犬儒主义;冷嘲热讽
 楼主| 发表于 2013-4-11 21:40:40 | 显示全部楼层
自己的沙发必须占!XD

1 - 01:48
2 - 01:43
3 - 01:24
4 - 01:49
5 - 02:00
obstacle - 06:03
发表于 2013-4-11 21:49:06 | 显示全部楼层
占座~!继续给今天的排版点赞!
发表于 2013-4-11 23:42:30 | 显示全部楼层
ZHANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
发表于 2013-4-11 23:45:17 | 显示全部楼层
今天文章实在太多。。所以只看了前面的和越障。贴下时间:
0‘50
1’59
0‘59
1’26
2‘15
1’18
6‘09
发表于 2013-4-12 00:52:02 | 显示全部楼层
小杀辛苦了〜排版很赞+1〜
深更半夜来占座〜
发表于 2013-4-12 01:39:13 | 显示全部楼层
1'34
1'43
1'21
1'42
1'38

obstacle
with the widening gap between rich and poor and migrants pooring into cities, China claims to have a lower rate than Japan and Switzerland, being the most safe country in the world, which is really in doubt
the China's statistics burea does not disclouse which kind of crimes are included, although the guns are controlled in China, but there are still smuggles
it is weird that with such gap between the rich and poor, crime rates are still low in China
campaign is launched for solving the crimes, which leads to more torture and wrongful arrests
发表于 2013-4-12 07:00:21 | 显示全部楼层
看到这样的颜色好舒服呀~早晨起来读一读~
小杀妹~早上好~
2’5‘’
2‘13’‘
1’47‘’
1‘49’‘
1’55‘’
最近读得愈来愈慢了 也不知怎么搞的 唉唉唉
发表于 2013-4-12 08:41:32 | 显示全部楼层
占座~啦啦啦
LZ辛苦了!排版真美腻!
142 143 127 132 148 546
Obstacle
Official survey in Chins claims that the murder rate in China had fallen. However, the figure from UNDOC told a different story.
Why this happen? Why the two figures are so different? 1. The different ways to calculate. 2. some of the crimes are not counted in.
Did the figure really fallen? 1. income inequality increase will lead to the increase of the murder rate. 2. China's gov more cautious in using the death panelty. 3. Political pressure to solve the murders.
The murder rate maybe fallen but there are still some crimes hiden from us due to political reasons.

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-3-28 20:44
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部