单项选择题

Wild Bill Donovan would have loved the Intemet. The American spymaster who built the Office of Strategic Services in World War Ⅱ and later laid the roots for the (CIA) was fascinated with information. Donovan believed in using whatever tools came to hand in the "great game" of espionage--spying as a "profession." These days the Net, which has already re-made such everyday pastimes as buying books and sending mail, is reshaping Donovan’’ s vocation as well. The latest revolution isn’’ t simply a matter of gentlemen reading other gentlemen’’ s e-mail. That kind of electronic spying has been going on for decades. In the past three or four years, the World Wide Web has given birth to a whole industry of point-and-click spying. The spooks call it "open- source intelligence," and as the Net grows, it is becoming increasingly influential. In 1995 the CIA held a contest to see who could compile the most data about Bumndi. The winner, by a large margin, was a tiny Virginia company called Open Source Solutions, whose clear advantage was its mastery of the electronic world. Among the firms making the biggest splash in this new world is Straifford, Inc., a private intelligence-analysis firm based in Austin, Texas. Straifford makes money by selling the results of spying (covering nations from Chile to Russia) to corporations like energy-services firm McDermott International. Many of its predictions are available online at www. straitford, com. Straifford President George Friedman says he sees the online world as a kind of mutually reinforcing tool for both information collection and distribution, a spymaster’’ s dream. Last week his firm was busy vacuuming up data bits from the far comers of the world and predicting a crisis in Ukraine. "As soon as that report runs, we’’ II suddenly get 500 new Intemet singe-ups from Ukraine," says Friedman, a former political science professor. "And we’’ 11 hear back from some of them." Open- source spying does have its risks, of course, since it can be difficult to tell good information from bad. That’’ s where Straifford earns its keep. Fridman relies on a lean staff of 20 in Austin.Several of his staff members have military- intelligence backgrounds. He sees the firm’’s outsider status as the key to its success. Straifford’’ s briefs don’’t sound like the usual Washington back-and-forthing, whereby agencies avoid dramatic declarations on the chance they might be wrong. Straitford, says Friedman, takes pride in its independent voice. Donovan’’ s story is mentioned in the text to

A． introduce the topic of online spying.
B．show how he fought for the U.S.
C．give an episode of the information war.
D．honor his unique services to the CIA.

<上一题目录下一题>

热门试题

单项选择题

To make your humor work, you should

A．take advantage of different kinds of audience.
B．make fun of the disorganized people.
C． address different problems to different people.
D． show sympathy for your listeners.

填空题

Do animals have rights This is how the question is usually put. It sounds like a useful, ground- clearing way to start. 71. Actually, it isn’’t, because it assumes that there is an agreed account of human fights, which is something the world does not have.On one view of rights, to be sure, it necessarily follows that animals have none. 72. Some philosophers argue that rights exist only within a social contract, as part of an exchange of duties and entitlements. Therefore, animals cannot have rights. The idea of punishing a tiger that kills somebody is absurd ,for exactly the same reason, so is the idea that tigers have rights. However, this is only one account ,and by no means an uncontested one. It denies rights not only to animals but also to some people―for instance, to infants, the mentally incapable and future generations. In addition, it is unclear what force a contract can have for people who never consented to it: how do you reply to somebody who says I don’’t like this contract The point is this: without agreement on the rights of people, arguing about the rights of animals is fruitless. 73. It leads the discussion to extremes at the outset: it invites you to think that animals should be treated either with the consideration humans extend to other humans, or with no consideration at all. This is a false choice. Better to start with another, more fundamental, question: is the way we treat animals a moral issue at allMany deny it. 74. Arguing from the view that humans are different from animals in every relevant respect, extremists of this kind think that animals lie outside the area of moral choice. Any regard for the suffering of animals is seen at a mistake―a sentimental displacement of feeling that should properly be directed to other humans.This view, which holds that torturing a monkey is morally equivalent to chopping wood, may seem bravely logical . In fact it is simply shallow: the confused centre is right to reject it. The most elementary form of moral reasoning―the ethical equivalent of learning to crawl―is to weigh other’’s interests against one’’s own. This in turn requires sympathy and imagination: without which there is no capacity for moral thought. To see an animal in pain is enough, for most, to engage sympathy. 75. When that happens, it is not a mistake: it is mankind’’s instinct for moral reasoning in action, an instinct that should be encouraged rather than laughed at.