Nowadays we can see American films and TV programs pouring in, fast food restaurants pop p

much is known, it is fairly clear that the model of the logic-machine is not only wrong but mischievous. There are people who profess to believe that man can live by logic alone. If only they say, men developed their reason, looked at all situations and dilemmas logically, and proceeded to devise rational solutions, all human problems would be solved. Be reasonable. Think logically. Act rationally. This line of thought is very persuasive, not to say seductive, 1. It is astonishing, however, how frequently the people most fanatically devoted to logic and reason, to a cold review of the "facts" and a calculated construction of the truth, turn out not only to be terribly emotional in argumentation, but obstinate any "truth" is "proved"——deeply committed to emotional positions that prove reek-resistible to the most massive accumulation of unsympathetic facts and proofs.

2. If man's mind cannot be turned into a logic-machine, neither can it function properly as a great emotional sponge, to be squeezed at will. All of us have known people who gush as a general response to life——who gush in seeing a sunset, who gush in reading a book, who gush in meeting a friend. They may seem to live by emotion alone, but their constant gushing is a disguise for absence of genuine feeling, a torrent rushing to fill a vacuum. It is not uncommon to find beneath the gush a cold, analytic mind that is astonishing in its meticulousness and ruthless in its calculation.

Somewhere between machine and sponge lies the reality of the mind——a blend of reason and emotion, of actuality and imagination, of fact and feeling. 3. The entanglement is so complete, the mixture so thoroughly mixed, that it is probably impossible to achieve pure reason or pure reason or pure emotion, at least for any sustained period of time.

4. It is probably best to assume that all our reasoning is fused with our emotional commitments and beliefs, all our thoughts colored by feelings that lie deep within our psyches. Moreover, it is probably best to assume that this stream of emotion is not a poison, not even a taint, but is a positive life-source, a stream of psychic energy that animates and vitalizes our entire thought process. 5. The roots of reason are embedded in feelings——feelings that have formed and accumulated and developed over a lifetime of personality-shaping. These feelings are not for occasional using but are inescapable. To know what we think, we must know how we feel. It is feeling that shapes belief and forms opinion. It is feeling that directs the strategy of argument. It is our feelings, then, with which we must come to honorable terms.

ions in Some Countries" in no less than 200 words. Your composition should be following outlines:

1. 恐怖活动日益猖獗的表现；

2．分析其猖獗的原因；

3．各国政府应采取的措施；

4．你对我国政府所采取措施的态度或看法。

rarely get caught, because the lies we tell are usually little ones: "I got stuck in traffic." "That color looks good no you." "I was just about to call."

But even the smallest fib may soon be systematically exposed, at least in the virtual World. Researchers at several universities are developing software that can detect lies in online communications such as instant messages e-mails and chatrooms. The ability to spot "digital deception", as researchers call it, has never been more crucial. Today, much of our business and social life is conducted online, making us increasingly vulnerable. White collar criminals, sexual predators, scammers, identity thieves and even terrorists surf the same Web as the rest of us.

Conventional lie detectors look for physiological signs of anxiety--a bead of sweat or a racing pulse--but online systems examine only the liar's words. "When we're looking at Ianguage, we're looking at the tool of the lie," says Jeff Hancock, all assistant professor of communication and a member of the faculty of computing and information science at Cornell University.

Hancock, who recently received a $ 680, 000 grant from the National Science Foundation to study digital deception, says there is a growing body of evidence that the language of dishonest messages is different than that of honest ones. For example, one study led by Hancock and due to be published this spring in Discourse Processes found the deceptive e-mail messages contained 28 percent more words on average and used a higher percentage of words associated with negative emotions than did truthful messages. Liars also tend to use fewer first-person references (such as the pronoun "I") and more third-person references (such as "he" and "they"). This may be the liar's subconscious way of distancing himself from his lie.

More surprising, Hancock and his colleagues have observed that the targets of liars also exhibit distinctive language patterns. For instance, people who are being deceived often use shorter sentences and ask more questions. Even though they may not be aware that they are being lide to, people seem to exhibit subconscious suspicions.

To identify the patterns of deceit, Hancock has developed an instant-messaging system at Cornell that asks users to rate the deceptiveness of each message they send. The system has already collected 10, 000 messages, of which about 6 percent qualify as patently deceptive. Eventually the results will be incorporated into software that analyzes incoming messages.

For now, the Cornell researchers are working only with the kinds of lies told be students and faculty. It remains to be seen whether such a system can be scaled up to handle "big" lies, such as messages sent by con artists and terrorists.

Fortunately, the research so far suggests that people lie less often in e-mail than face-to-face or on the phone. Perhaps this is because people are reluctant to put their lies in writing, Hancock speculates. "An email generates multiple copies," he says. "It will last longer than something carved in rock." So choose your words carefully. The internet may soon be rid not only deceit but also of lame excuses.

The digital polygraph conducts testing based on ______ .

usted kids? Wrong again. The fact is we are terrible at predicting the source of joy. And whatever choices we do make, we likely later decide it was all for the best.

These are insights from happiness economics, perhaps the hottest field in what used to be called the dismal science. Happiness is everywhere--on the best-seller lists, in the minds of policymakers, and front and center for economists--yet it remains elusive. The golden role of economics has always been that well-being is a simple function of income. That's why nations and people alike strive for higher incomes-money gives us choice and a measure of freedom. After a certain income can, we simply don't get any happier. And it isn't what we have, but whether we have more than our neighbor, that really matters. So the news last week that in 2006 top hedge-fund managers took home $ 240 million, minimum, probably didn't make them any happier, it just made the rest of us less so.

Now policymakers are racing to figure out what makes people happy, and just how they should deliver it. Countries as diverse as Bhutan, Australia, China, Thailand and the U. IC are coming up with "happiness indexer," to be used alongside GDP as a guide to society's progress. In Britain, the "politics of happiness" will likely figure prominently in next year's elections. Never mind that the world's top happiness researchers recently gathered at a conference in Rome to debate whether joy is even measurable.

Why is this all happening now? only in the last decade have economists, psychologists, biologists and philosophers begun cross-pollinating in such a way to arrive at "happiness studies". Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert humorously sums up much of the new wisdom in his book "Stumbling on Happiness". He says 24-hour television and the Internet have allowed us all to see more seemingly happy people than ever before. "We're surrounded by the lifestyles of the rich and famous," says Gilbert, "rubbing our noses in the fact that others have more."

of course, the idea that money isn't the real key to happiness isn't new. The 18th-centry British Enlightenment thinker Jeremy Bentham argued that public policy should try to. maximize happiness, and many prominent economists agreed but could not quite embrace the idea. There was just no way to measure happiness objectively.

one of the early revelations of happiness research, from Richard Easterlin at the University of Southern

California, was that while the rich are typically happier than the poor, the happiness boost from extra cash isn't that great once one rises above the poverty line. The reason, says Easterlin, is the "hedonic cycle": we get used to being richer dam quick, and take it for granted or compare it to what others have, not what we used to have. Tums out, keeping up with the Joneses is hard-wired into our brains, thanks to our pack-creature roots.

Though many happiness researchers say "work less, play more" is the formula for happiness, Ruut Veenhoven, a professor at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, suggests otherwise. Hard-working Americans ranks 17th on his list; the hard-vacationing French 39th. Human beings do want a European-style. safety net, but also want freedom and opportunity.

And perhaps our intuitions about happiness should triumph over the fuzzy data, anyway. The economics of happiness has given us a couple of fairly hard and fast roles about well-being-being truly poor is bad, and time with friends and family are good. The good news is that whatever choices we make individually and as societies in the pursuit of happiness there's good chance that they'll seem better in hindsight. Yet another truism of happiness is that "we all wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to our past decision-making," says Gilbert. Today's dreadfu

象是一个冷静地收集数据、不带任何偏见、寻找真理的人。在辩论中，不管谈的是关于智力、学校教育、偏见，还是能量，通常说一声“科学上是这么说的”，对方就不作声了。

但是，很久以来，科学界一直承认“欺骗因素”的存在，即许多科学家倾向于将数据加工以获取想要得到的结果。在当今科学界的几乎每一个有争议的领域，种族与智力的论战，核能的辩论等等，都可以见到这种倾向。

因此，我们既要倾听“科学”对事物的看法，又不能毫不怀疑地接受。

light, soaps up a washcloth, and begins cleaning her friend's face. Is Anie an extremely devoted companion? Yes! Allie is a capuchin monkey who helps her disabled friend perform. everyday tasks.

Monkeys like Allie are just one of many kinds of animals that help improve--or even save--human lives. But not all animals are suited to do every job. Certain animals are "hired" for specific jobs based on their traits, or characteristics. By using different methods of conditioning (training animals to act in a particular way in response to a stimulus, or signal), humans can teach animals toper form. extraordinary tasks.

Throughout history, humans have relied on animals' traits to get certain jobs done. For example, compared with humans, dogs are "far superior at tracking down odors", says Marian Bailey, an animal behaviorist at Henderson State University in Arkansas. That's because dogs have million of olfactory receptors, or smell nerves, in their noses.

For that reason, hunters used dogs to track down prey even in ancient Egypt. Today, dogs my be employed to sniff out illegal substances in school lockers or earthquake victims buried beneath the rabble of the collapsed building or highway.

Primates may not be good sinffers, but they can certainly lend a helping hand--or two. Monkeys are perfect helpmates for quadriplegics, people paralyzed from the neck down who are unable to use their own hands (and legs). Like humans, explains Bailey monkeys have opposable thumbs--thumbs that face the hand's other fingers--so monkeys can pick up objects. Capuchins learn to open doors, clean up spills, and unscrew bottle tops. They can even get a sandwich out of the refrigerator and load your favorite tape into the VCR.

And speaking of VCRs, animals are even helping scientists make a videotape. Jennifer Hurley, an animal researcher at the Long Marine Lab in Santa Cruz, California, is training two sea lions to carry video cameras on their backs to record the natural behavior. of whales.

So how do you get an animal employee to do its job? The answer, career-training. Trainers teach the animals to obey their instructions through a process called conditioning.

Most trainers condition animals by using positive reinforcement, rewarding an animal for doing something correctly, says animal behaviorist Bailey. For example, trainers teach their dogs how to sniff out drugs by hiding a towel with the smell of drags. "Dogs love to retrieve objects so the towel becomes a reward", says Morris Berkowitz, who heads up a canine drug-sniffing program in New York.

After repeating this game of hide-and-seek many times, the dog begins to "associate the odor with a reward", says Berkowitz. When he gives the command, or stimulus, the dog seeks cot drags (it's like learning to study hard for a tests in order to get a good grade as a reward.)

At "Helping Hands--Monkey Helpers for the Disabled", capuchin monkeys are trained twice before being teamed with a disabled human. First, monkeys are placed with a foster family to become socialized to people. For five years, families help the monkeys adapt to a human environment, so the monkeys will trust and enjoy being around people.

Taking the monkeys in when they're four to six weeks old is important, says Bailey. "That's when monkeys normally become socialized to other monkeys," she says.

Second, trainers at Helping Hands train the monkeys to perform. specific tasks to assist a particular person. For example, a monkey may be trained to scratch an itch, or slip a floppy disc into a computer dive. Trainers reward the monkeys by using positive reinforcement, such as food, drinks.

Allie is a capuchin【16】who helps her disabled friend perform. everyday tasks. Allie is a(n)【17】of ma

City in no less than 200 words. Your composition should be based on the following outline:

1．这个城市现在存在的主要问题。

2．假如我是市长的话，如何解决这些问题。

3．问题解决后的城市前景。

仅是世界上最重要的人物，而且在他眼里，他是唯一活在世界上的人。他认为自己是世界上最伟大戏剧家之一、最伟大的思想家之一、最伟大的作曲家之一。听听他的谈话，仿佛他就是莎士比亚、贝多芬、柏拉图，集三人于一身。想要听到他的高论十分容易，他是世上最能使人精疲力竭的健谈者之一。同他度过一个夜晚，就是听他一个人滔滔不绝地讲一个晚上。有时，他才华横溢；有时，他又令人极其厌烦。但无论是妙趣横生还是枯燥无味，他的谈话只有一个主题：他自己，他的所思所为。

2．他狂妄地认为自己总是正确的。任何人在最无足轻重的问题上露出丝毫的异议，都会激起他的谴责。他可能会一连好几个小时滔滔不绝，千方百计地证明自己如何如何正确。有了这种使人耗尽心力的雄辩本事，听者最后都被他弄得头昏脑胀，耳朵发聋，为了图个清净，只好同意他的说法。

originally used by people who wanted to sound particularly well-educated. It was the desire to be scholarly that brought【53】a wave of Latin terms which appeared in the 16th century【54】the Humanist movement brought new impetus to learning throughout Europe.【55】such as, e. g. (from the Latin meaning a voluntary example); PS (meaning" added after the latter has been written" ); a.m. and【56】( meaning "before noon" and" after noon" ) came into the language at this time. Nowadays they are【57】common that most people don't even know【58】the letters actually stand for and there's certainly nothing learned about using them today !

In addition to the words brought to English【59】foreigners, there are plenty of words which the British have collected from the countries they have settled in all【60】the world. There are even a few Chinese words, which I’m sure a Chinese speaker would recognize from the way we pronounce them:" typhoon" is a great wind; "to kow-tow" is to bow down low; a "sampan" is a small wooden boat. Over 5,000 of the words in common use in English today are words of foreign【61】. Some of them are clearly recognizable【62】foreign like "au pair" or "rendezvous";【63】now look so English that only a language historian knows【64】they came from.

So English is in a state of permanent development. Both in Britain and abroad it is gaining【65】words and expressions, and dropping and changing old【66】. Words changes their meaning, and they go in and out of fashion【67】hairstyles. Nobody knows all the four million words that are said to exist; a well-educated person probably【68】under 20,000. So don't be surprised if you never encounter some of the expressions that still appear in school textbook; and next time you hear somebody using a strange word you haven't heard【69】, you can comfort yourself that there may well be a native speaker somewhere who doesn't know it【70】.

(51)