Polo .. 說:YOYOYOYOYO (6分鐘前)
Polo .. 說:YOYOYOYOYO (16分鐘前)
井邊草 說:等級到底是什麼東東啊= =a (36分鐘前)
賀賀賀 說:加加油!加加油!加加油! (38分鐘前)
oiu48.. 說:加油!!!!!!!!!! (1小時前)
毛匆匆 說:與其例行性懊悔,不如再長高一點 (1小時前)
pinan 說:還有很長的路,GO~~ (1小時前)
orz80.. 說:晉級了 就是這樣 喵喵喵 (1小時前)
橘子 說:我晉級幼稚園下開心 邁進一步~~~ (1小時前)
gzmb7.. 說:謝謝謝謝 再感謝!!!!! (1小時前)
yitin.. 說:感謝阿摩線上測驗 !! 感謝阿摩線上測驗 !! 感謝阿摩線上測驗 !! (4小時前)
yitin.. 說:感謝阿摩線上測驗 !! 感謝阿摩線上測驗 !! 感謝阿摩線上測驗 !! (4小時前)
yitin.. 說:感謝阿摩線上測驗 !! 感謝阿摩線上測驗 !! 感謝阿摩線上測驗 !! (4小時前)
關於阿摩
40萬題免費題庫,最詳盡的詳解,是您考試的必備利器!

錯在阿摩,贏在考場!

2010/1/1至今感謝 1600 萬人次蒞臨
錯在阿摩,贏在考場!

10 example of minimal pairs

  • 92

    百位教育代表人物 by Shelly Chen
    教育代表人物彙整一(百位代表人物基本主張大要) 1 俄國巴夫洛夫(Ivan Pavlov)..
  • 110

    常見教育考題人物相關資料 by 馬自達
    1 俄國巴夫洛夫(Ivan Pavlov):提倡「古典制約學習」,將學習時的行為改變,解釋為刺激..
  • 90

    教育代表人物彙整一(百位代表人物基本主張大要) by 潘昱萱
    教育代表人物彙整一(百位代表人物基本主張大要) 1 俄國巴夫洛夫(Ivan Pavlov):提..
  • 175

    教育代表人物 一 (百位代表人物基本主張大要) by Denis Lin
    1、俄國巴夫洛夫(Ivan Pavlov):提倡「古典制約學習」,將學習時的行為改變,解釋為刺激..
  • 145

    教育心理學(三章)歷年部分教甄試題詳解為導向 by 馬自達
    教育心理學(三章)歷年部分教甄試題詳解為導向, 以簡單的表解與完整的試題解析, 讓讀者在最短..
  • 100

    各種效度的比較 by 教甄◆測驗與評量(統計)
    各種效度的比較 構念效度(construct validity) 構念效度就是指測驗能夠測量到理論上的構念或特質的程度。易言之,就是指測驗分數能夠依據某種心理學..
  • 100

    「經驗主義」 by 教甄◆教育哲學
    經驗主義 empiricism 「經驗主義」詞彙來自於哲學領域,由洛克(John Locke, 1632-1704)提出。 基本上,經驗主義是作為與理性主義(idealism)的一..
1. Part II Reading Comprehension (Skimming and Scanning) (15 minutes) Directions: In this part, you will have 15 minutes to go over the passage quickly and answer thequestions on Answer Sheet 1. For questions 1-7, choose the best answer from the four choices marked A, B, Cand D. For questions 8-10, complete the sentences with the information given in the passage. Google's Plan for World's Biggest Online Library: Philanthropy Or Act of Piracy? In recent years, teams of workers dispatched by Google have been working hard to make digital copies of books. So far, Google has scanned more than 10 million titles from libraries in America and Europe - including half a million volumes held by the Bodleian in Oxford. The exact method it uses is unclear; the company does not allow outsiders to observe the process. Why is Google undertaking such a venture? Why is it even interested in all those out-of-printlibrary books, most of which have been gathering dust on forgotten shelves for decades? Thecompany claims its motives are essentially public-spirited. Its overall mission, after all, is to "organise the world's information", so it would be odd if that information did not include books. The company likes to present itself as having lofty aspirations. "This really isn't about making money. We are doing this for the good of society." As Santiago de la Mora, head of Google Books for Europe, puts it: "By making it possible to search the millions of books that exist today, we hope to expand the frontiers of human knowledge." Dan Clancy, the chief architect of Google Books, does seem genuine in his conviction that thisis primarily a philanthropic (慈善的) exercise. "Google's core business is search and find, soobviously what helps improve Google's search engine is good for Google," he says. "But we havenever built a spreadsheet (电子数据表) outlining the financial benefits of this, and I have neverhad to justify the amount I am spending to the company's founders." It is easy, talking to Clancy and his colleagues, to be swept along by their missionary passion. But Google's book-scanning project is proving controversial. Several opponents have recently emerged, ranging from rival tech giants such as Microsoft and Amazon to small bodies representing authors and publishers across the world. In broad terms, these opponents have levelled two sets of criticisms at Google. First, they have questioned whether the primary responsibility for digitally archiving the world's books should be allowed to fall to a commercial company. In a recent essay in the New YorkReview of Books, Robert Darnton, the head of Harvard University's library, argued that because such books are a common resource – the possession of us all – only public, not-for-profit bodiesshould be given the power to control them. The second related criticism is that Google's scanning of books is actually illegal. This allegation has led to Google becoming mired in (陷入) a legal battle whose scope and complexity makes the Jarndyce and Jarndyce case in Charles Dickens' Bleak House look straightforward. At its centre, however, is one simple issue: that of copyright. The inconvenient fact about most books, to which Google has arguably paid insufficient attention, is that they are protected by copyright. Copyright laws differ from country to country, but in general protection extends for the duration of an author's life and for a substantial period afterwards, thus allowing the author's heirs to benefit. (In Britain and America, this post-death period is 70 years.) This means, of course, that almost all of the books published in the 20th century are still under copyright – and the last century saw more books published than in all previous centuries combined. Of the roughly 40 million books in US libraries, for example, an estimated 32 million are in copyright. Of these, some 27 million are out of print. Outside the US, Google has made sure only to scan books that are out of copyright and thus in the "public domain" (works such as the Bodleian's first edition of Middlemarch, which anyone canread for free on Google Books Search). But, within the US, the company has scanned both in-copyright and out-of-copyright works. Inits defence, Google points out that it displays only small segments of books that are in copyright– arguing that such displays are "fair use". But critics allege that by making electronic copies of these books without first seeking the permission of copyright holders, Google has committed piracy. "The key principle of copyright law has always been that works can be copied only once authors have expressly given their permission," says Piers Blofeld, of the Sheil Land literary agency in London. "Google has reversed this – it has simply copied all these works without bothering toask." In 2005, the Authors Guild of America, together with a group of US publishers, launched aclass action suit (集团诉讼) against Google that, after more than two years of negotiation, endedwith an announcement last October that Google and the claimants had reached an out-of-courtsettlement. The full details are complicated - the text alone runs to 385 pages– and trying tosummarise it is no easy task. "Part of the problem is that it is basically incomprehensible," saysBlofeld, one of the settlement's most vocal British critics. Broadly, the deal provides a mechanism for Google to compensate authors and publishers whose rights it has breached (including giving them a share of any future revenue it generates fromtheir works). In exchange for this, the rights holders agree not to sue Google in future. This settlement hands Google the power - but only with the agreement of individual rights holders – to exploit its database of out-of-print books. It can include them in subscription deals sold to libraries or sell them individually under a consumer licence. It is these commercial provisions that are proving the settlement's most controversial aspect. Critics point out that, by giving Google the right to commercially exploit its database, thesettlement paves the way for a subtle shift in the company's role from provider of information to seller. "Google's business model has always been to provide information for free, and sell advertising on the basis of the traffic this generates," points out James Grimmelmann, associate professor at New York Law School. Now, he says, because of the settlement's provisions, Google could become a significant force in bookselling. Interest in this aspect of the settlement has focused on "orphan" works, where there is noknown copyright holder – these make up an estimated 5-10% of the books Google has scanned. Under the settlement, when no rights holders come forward and register their interest in a work, commercial control automatically reverts to Google. Google will be able to display up to 20% oforphan works for free, include them in its subscription deals to libraries and sell them to individual buyers under the consumer licence. It is by no means certain that the settlement will be enacted (执行) – it is the subject of afairness hearing in the US courts. But if it is enacted, Google will in effect be off the hook as far as copyright violations in the US are concerned. Many people are seriously concerned by this - and the company is likely to face challenges in other courts around the world. No one knows the precise use Google will make of the intellectual property it has gained byscanning the world's library books, and the truth, as Gleick, an American science writer and member of the Authors Guild, points out, is that the company probably doesn't even know itself. But what is certain is that, in some way or other, Google's entrance into digital bookselling will have a significant impact on the book world in the years to come. 注意:此部分试题请在答题卡1上作答。 Google claims its plan for the world's biggest online library is _____. A) to serve the interest of the general public B) to encourage reading around the world C) to save out-of-print books in libraries D) to promote its core business of searching
答案:B
難度:適中
書單:沒有書單,新增
標籤: 編輯
1. Part II Reading Comprehension (Skimming and Scanning) (15 minutes) Directions: In this part, you will have 15 minutes to go over the passage quickly and answer thequestions on Answer Sheet 1. For questions 1-7, choose the best answer from the four choices marked A, B, Cand D. For questions 8-10, complete the sentences with the information given in the passage. Google's Plan for World's Biggest Online Library: Philanthropy Or Act of Piracy? In recent years, teams of workers dispatched by Google have been working hard to make digital copies of books. So far, Google has scanned more than 10 million titles from libraries in America and Europe - including half a million volumes held by the Bodleian in Oxford. The exact method it uses is unclear; the company does not allow outsiders to observe the process. Why is Google undertaking such a venture? Why is it even interested in all those out-of-printlibrary books, most of which have been gathering dust on forgotten shelves for decades? Thecompany claims its motives are essentially public-spirited. Its overall mission, after all, is to "organise the world's information", so it would be odd if that information did not include books. The company likes to present itself as having lofty aspirations. "This really isn't about making money. We are doing this for the good of society." As Santiago de la Mora, head of Google Books for Europe, puts it: "By making it possible to search the millions of books that exist today, we hope to expand the frontiers of human knowledge." Dan Clancy, the chief architect of Google Books, does seem genuine in his conviction that thisis primarily a philanthropic (慈善的) exercise. "Google's core business is search and find, soobviously what helps improve Google's search engine is good for Google," he says. "But we havenever built a spreadsheet (电子数据表) outlining the financial benefits of this, and I have neverhad to justify the amount I am spending to the company's founders." It is easy, talking to Clancy and his colleagues, to be swept along by their missionary passion. But Google's book-scanning project is proving controversial. Several opponents have recently emerged, ranging from rival tech giants such as Microsoft and Amazon to small bodies representing authors and publishers across the world. In broad terms, these opponents have levelled two sets of criticisms at Google. First, they have questioned whether the primary responsibility for digitally archiving the world's books should be allowed to fall to a commercial company. In a recent essay in the New YorkReview of Books, Robert Darnton, the head of Harvard University's library, argued that because such books are a common resource – the possession of us all – only public, not-for-profit bodiesshould be given the power to control them. The second related criticism is that Google's scanning of books is actually illegal. This allegation has led to Google becoming mired in (陷入) a legal battle whose scope and complexity makes the Jarndyce and Jarndyce case in Charles Dickens' Bleak House look straightforward. At its centre, however, is one simple issue: that of copyright. The inconvenient fact about most books, to which Google has arguably paid insufficient attention, is that they are protected by copyright. Copyright laws differ from country to country, but in general protection extends for the duration of an author's life and for a substantial period afterwards, thus allowing the author's heirs to benefit. (In Britain and America, this post-death period is 70 years.) This means, of course, that almost all of the books published in the 20th century are still under copyright – and the last century saw more books published than in all previous centuries combined. Of the roughly 40 million books in US libraries, for example, an estimated 32 million are in copyright. Of these, some 27 million are out of print. Outside the US, Google has made sure only to scan books that are out of copyright and thus in the "public domain" (works such as the Bodleian's first edition of Middlemarch, which anyone canread for free on Google Books Search). But, within the US, the company has scanned both in-copyright and out-of-copyright works. Inits defence, Google points out that it displays only small segments of books that are in copyright– arguing that such displays are "fair use". But critics allege that by making electronic copies of these books without first seeking the permission of copyright holders, Google has committed piracy. "The key principle of copyright law has always been that works can be copied only once authors have expressly given their permission," says Piers Blofeld, of the Sheil Land literary agency in London. "Google has reversed this – it has simply copied all these works without bothering toask." In 2005, the Authors Guild of America, together with a group of US publishers, launched aclass action suit (集团诉讼) against Google that, after more than two years of negotiation, endedwith an announcement last October that Google and the claimants had reached an out-of-courtsettlement. The full details are complicated - the text alone runs to 385 pages– and trying tosummarise it is no easy task. "Part of the problem is that it is basically incomprehensible," saysBlofeld, one of the settlement's most vocal British critics. Broadly, the deal provides a mechanism for Google to compensate authors and publishers whose rights it has breached (including giving them a share of any future revenue it generates fromtheir works). In exchange for this, the rights holders agree not to sue Google in future. This settlement hands Google the power - but only with the agreement of individual rights holders – to exploit its database of out-of-print books. It can include them in subscription deals sold to libraries or sell them individually under a consumer licence. It is these commercial provisions that are proving the settlement's most controversial aspect. Critics point out that, by giving Google the right to commercially exploit its database, thesettlement paves the way for a subtle shift in the company's role from provider of information to seller. "Google's business model has always been to provide information for free, and sell advertising on the basis of the traffic this generates," points out James Grimmelmann, associate professor at New York Law School. Now, he says, because of the settlement's provisions, Google could become a significant force in bookselling. Interest in this aspect of the settlement has focused on "orphan" works, where there is noknown copyright holder – these make up an estimated 5-10% of the books Google has scanned. Under the settlement, when no rights holders come forward and register their interest in a work, commercial control automatically reverts to Google. Google will be able to display up to 20% oforphan works for free, include them in its subscription deals to libraries and sell them to individual buyers under the consumer licence. It is by no means certain that the settlement will be enacted (执行) – it is the subject of afairness hearing in the US courts. But if it is enacted, Google will in effect be off the hook as far as copyright violations in the US are concerned. Many people are seriously concerned by this - and the company is likely to face challenges in other courts around the world. No one knows the precise use Google will make of the intellectual property it has gained byscanning the world's library books, and the truth, as Gleick, an American science writer and member of the Authors Guild, points out, is that the company probably doesn't even know itself. But what is certain is that, in some way or other, Google's entrance into digital bookselling will have a significant impact on the book world in the years to come. 注意:此部分试题请在答题卡1上作答。 Google claims its plan for the world's biggest online library is _____. A) to serve the interest of the general public B) to encourage reading around the world C) to save out-of-print books in libraries D) to promote its core business of searching
答案:B
難度:適中
書單:沒有書單,新增
標籤: 編輯
10. Some people use _____ devices to help them remember details; for example, one way to remember that dessert is spelled with a double s is to recall that dessert is something extra at the end of a meal.
(A) animated
(B) optical
(C) provocative
(D) mnemonic
答案:D
難度:適中
書單:沒有書單,新增
標籤: 編輯

1F
Aita Chung 小六下 (2014/04/18 15:19):
A) animated 活生生的,栩栩如生的
(B) optical 眼睛的;視力的
(C) provocative 氣人的;挑撥的
(D) mnemonic[niˋmɑnɪk]有助於記憶的;記憶的