如果结果不匹配，请 
更多“韩国运营商关注的use case是AR/VR等B2C业务以及…”相关的问题
A. pattern
B. sign
C. pronunciation
D. use
According to the author, which of the following is NOT necessarily the case？
A．What is presented to the jury is unobstructed truth.
B．Without defense attorneys, innocent people would go to jail.
C．Attorneys will use all methods at their disposal to make the facts and laws favor their clients.
D．The adversarial process yields fair and unbiased presentation and evaluation of facts.
A、Even though
B、In case
C、Now that
D、If only
Which of the following is NOT the reason why Chinese consumers prefer to save？
A．To secure their health-care in case of diseases.
B．To prepare for their life after retirement.
C．To use this as a way of investment due to high interest rate.
D．Insufficient coverage of social welfare.
A.重点描述我司产品特性
B.只写客户关注的、人无我有、人有我优的独特价值
C.展示我方亮点的同时，打击该项目的目标竞争对手
D.展示运营商自己的项目收益
A.检查各端口状态，工作端口处于物理、协议均UP状态。
B.各模块运行状态，包括电源、风扇。
C.系统指示灯、端口指示灯是否正常。
D.检查网线配置，根据集团规范，CE对接AR时，需要关闭协商。
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 simpie 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—in deed, 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 in fringement; 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 firms 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 ruling of America's Supreme Court
A．indeed hit the piracy industry hard.
B．has little impact on content sharing.
C．may prevent tech firms from innovating.
D．can lead to a flourish of entertainment industry.
Part A
Directions: Read the following four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. (40 points)
It is evident that there is a close connection between the capacity to use language and the capacities covered by the verb" to think". Indeed, me writers have identified thinking with using words: Plato coined the saying, "In thinking the soul is talking to itself"; J. B. Watson reduced thinking to inhibited speech located in the minute movements or tensions of the physiological mechanisms involved in speaking; and although Ryle is careful to point out that there are many senses in which a person is said to think in which words are not in evidence, he has also said that saying something in a specific frame. of mind is thinking a thought.
Is thinking reducible to, or dependent upon, language habits？ It would seem that many thinking situations are hardly distinguishable from the skilful use of language, although there are some others in which language is not involved. Thought cannot be simply identified with running language. It may be the case, of course, that the non-linguistic skills involved in thought can only be acquired and developed if the learner is able to use and understand language. However, this question is one which we cannot hope to answer in this book. Obviously being able to use language makes for a considerable development in all one's capacities but how precisely this comes about we cannot say.
At the common-sense level it appears that there is often a distinction between thought and the words we employ to communicate with other people. We often have to struggle hard to find words to capture what our thinking has already grasped, and when we do find words we sometimes feel that they fail to do their job properly. Again when we report or describe our thinking to other people we do not merely report unspoken words and sentences. Such sentences do not always occur in thinking, and when they do they axe merged with vague imagery and the hint of unconscious or subliminal activities going on just out of range. Thinking, as it happens, is more like struggling, striving, or searching for something than it is like talking or reading. Words do play their part but they are rarely the only feature of thought. This observation is supported by the experiments of the Wurzburg psychologists reported in Chapter Eight who showed that intelligent adaptive responses can occur in problem solving situations without the use of either words or images of any kind; ",Set" and "determining tendencies" operate without the actual use of language in helping us to think purposefully and intelligently.
Again the Study of speech disorders due to brain injury or disease suggest that patients can think without having adequate control over their language, some patients, for example, fail to find the names of objects presented to them and are unable to describe simple events which they witness; they even find it difficult to interpret long written notices. But they succeed in playing games of chess or draughts. They can use the concepts needed for chess playing or draughts playing but are unable to use many of the concepts in ordinary language. How they manage to do this we do not know. Yet animals such as Kohler's chimpanzees can solve problems by working out strategies such as the invention of implements or Climbing aids when such animals have not language beyond a few warning cries. Intelligent or "insightful" behavior. is not dependent in the case of monkeys on language skills: presumably human beings have various capacities for thinking situations which are likewise independent of language.
According to the theory of "thought" devised by J. B. Watson, thinking is______.
A．talking to the soul
B．suppressed speech
C．speaking nonverbally
D．nonlinguistic behavior
