Text 4 Alphabet Inc.'s most successful product-the Google search engine-may now be its most problematic.On Tuesday,the European Commission's top antitrust regulator levied a$2.7-billion fine against Alphabet and Google for the way the search engine handles requests for information about products.Specifically,Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said that Google twisted its results to bury links to rival companies'comparison shopping sites while prominently featuring its own service,Google Shopping.Google responded that it's simply trying to give users what they want and denied"favoring ourselves,or any particular site or seller."It has a lot at stake:Google has integrated many different offerings into its search engine,including its mapping and travel services.The principle advanced by Vestager,however,is a good one:Giant online companies shoulcl not be able to take advantage of their dominance in one field to hurt competitors in another.Google's argument is:It integrated Google Shopping,which offers links to products at sites that advertise on Google.into its search engine because that gave users quicker access to the information they were seeking.And in the United States,the key question in antitrust!aw is whether a company's behavior hurts users,not whether it hurts the company's competitors.European regulators focus more on competitors,but they really are two sides of the same coin.If competitors are unfairly closed out,the public can miss out on the very real benefits that vigorous competition provides.At the same time,it's undeniable that the public has welcomed virtual monopolies in search,social media and other services in the Internet era.A large part of the appeal of sites like Facebook and Twitter is that so many people use them.There's a network effect for social media apps in particular-the more people who use the service,the more valuable it becomes to them.Meanwhile,start-ups come out of nowhere to create whole new categories of must-have apps and proclucts online.That means dominant companies have to innovate too,or else they can easily change from today's thing to yesterday's.And often,that innovation involves finding a better way to do something that a competitor is doing.The challenge for regulators is to provide the big companies space to try new things without grossly disrupting the market,closing out other companies and reducing consumer choice,which will ultimately lead to less innovation.A good place to start is by focusing on cases where there is evidence of intentional undermining of competitors-where a dominant company alters the platform it provides not just to feature its own services,but to make it harder to find or use its rivals'.The author argues that regulators should_____A.leave room for dominant companies to innovateB.help small companies enhance competitivenessC.encourage companies to increase product varietyD.prohibit featuring services on company platforms
Text 4 Alphabet Inc.'s most successful product-the Google search engine-may now be its most problematic.On Tuesday,the European Commission's top antitrust regulator levied a$2.7-billion fine against Alphabet and Google for the way the search engine handles requests for information about products.Specifically,Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said that Google twisted its results to bury links to rival companies'comparison shopping sites while prominently featuring its own service,Google Shopping.Google responded that it's simply trying to give users what they want and denied"favoring ourselves,or any particular site or seller."It has a lot at stake:Google has integrated many different offerings into its search engine,including its mapping and travel services.The principle advanced by Vestager,however,is a good one:Giant online companies shoulcl not be able to take advantage of their dominance in one field to hurt competitors in another.Google's argument is:It integrated Google Shopping,which offers links to products at sites that advertise on Google.into its search engine because that gave users quicker access to the information they were seeking.And in the United States,the key question in antitrust!aw is whether a company's behavior hurts users,not whether it hurts the company's competitors.European regulators focus more on competitors,but they really are two sides of the same coin.If competitors are unfairly closed out,the public can miss out on the very real benefits that vigorous competition provides.At the same time,it's undeniable that the public has welcomed virtual monopolies in search,social media and other services in the Internet era.A large part of the appeal of sites like Facebook and Twitter is that so many people use them.There's a network effect for social media apps in particular-the more people who use the service,the more valuable it becomes to them.Meanwhile,start-ups come out of nowhere to create whole new categories of must-have apps and proclucts online.That means dominant companies have to innovate too,or else they can easily change from today's thing to yesterday's.And often,that innovation involves finding a better way to do something that a competitor is doing.The challenge for regulators is to provide the big companies space to try new things without grossly disrupting the market,closing out other companies and reducing consumer choice,which will ultimately lead to less innovation.A good place to start is by focusing on cases where there is evidence of intentional undermining of competitors-where a dominant company alters the platform it provides not just to feature its own services,but to make it harder to find or use its rivals'.
The author argues that regulators should_____
The author argues that regulators should_____
A.leave room for dominant companies to innovate
B.help small companies enhance competitiveness
C.encourage companies to increase product variety
D.prohibit featuring services on company platforms
B.help small companies enhance competitiveness
C.encourage companies to increase product variety
D.prohibit featuring services on company platforms
参考解析
解析：[信息锁定]第六段①句指出，监管机构的挑战在于“既给大公司留下尝试新事物的空间（provide the big companies space to try new things）．又不能扰乱市场”，即：监管机构在反对垄断、保护竞争的同时，应给大公司留以创新空间.A.正确。[解题技巧]B.由①句“（公司在给为大公司提供创新空间时）不可导致其他公司／小型公司歇业（without c[osing out other companies）”过度推断出监管机构应“帮助小公司提升竞争力”。C.由①句“（监管机构）不可减少消费者的选择（without reducing consumer choice）”过度推断出监管机构应该“鼓励公司增加产品多样性”。D.源于末句feature its own services，但要禁止的并非是“推广自己的服务”，而是“推广自己服务的同时隐藏对手的服务”。
相关考题：
听力原文： Now European finance ministers are expected to reprimand the Irish government today after they meet in Brussels. They've been alarmed by December's budget in the Irish Republic which cut taxes and increased government spending. The other European countries fear this will stoke up inflation and undermine the stability of the Euro, the single currency.Finance ministers from the European Unions 15 states are holding their regular monthly meeting in Brussels. They've been given the tricky task of handing out some public criticism to the government of the country with the most successful economy, the Irish Republic. In the last five years Ireland has boomed growing by an average eight percent a year, unemployment has reached its lowest level for 20 years and commodity prices in Dublin became more expensive than in London.Why do other European countries criticize Ireland?A．They worry that the Irish Republic's budget plan will undermine the stability of European Unions.B．EU countries fear that Irish Republic's finance plan will cause inflation.C．Other countries will have to cut taxes.D．Other EU countries must increase government spending, too.
Brithish football is the most successful of all European countries, although it is not necessarily the best in the world.() 此题为判断题(对，错)。
How does the writer feel about the business she runs? ( )A．It's the biggest company in the world．B．It wili possibly be more successful．C． It's one of the most successful businesses．D．It is the only company that is growing all around the world．
David Bieber was most probably handcuffed in 。A. the passage B. the man’s roomC. Vicki’s bedroom D. the top floor room
The information commissioner gave Facebook a rap over the knuckles earlier this month,putting the company on notice of likely fines-the equivalent of a few minutes'revenue-for breaches of privacy.On Wednesday the European commission gave Google a vigorous correction,fining it￠4.3 billion for abusing its market dominance with the AndrOJd operating system which powers the overwhelming majority of the world's mobile phones.Google is appealing.The billions of euros at stake aside,it is easy to see why.Google gives most of Android away,not only to the consumers who use it,but to the companies that build their phones around it.As the company points out,there are more than 24,000 competing Android phones available today,from 1,300 companies.How can that possibly constitute a harmful monopoly?Besides,Google has real competition in the smartphone world from Apple.At the same time,these are exactly the factors that make the commission's decision so interesLing and significant.For Google's business to work,it must become as easy as possible for advertisers to reach users.That is the purpose of all the software that Google gives away,from the Android operating system,through to YouTube,Google search on phones and the Chrome browser.This might look like a cross-subsidy,but on the other hand it is the heart of the company's business.The software that Google gives away is not designed to make a profit on its own.This free version does not include the bits that make a phone useful for anything but making telephone calls,and this was the weak spot in Google's defence.None of the enticements-the mail,the search,the maps and the browser-are included.These can only be used with a proprietary chunk of software that Google controls;and manufacturers who want to use the Play store and 11 crucial Google apps must agree not to build so much as a single phone that does not include them.It is all or nothing.This licensing trick is the way in which Google has undoubtedly limited competition.The commission's decision to punish it probably comes too late to undo the damage it has done.All digital businesses tend towards a monopoly,and this is in part because in some important ways they benefit consumers more the larger they grow.Yet as customers we pay for this in other ways and as citizens even more so,not least because the companies fattened by monopoly profits grow too large to fail and too powerful to challenge.There is a public interest in preventing any company from acquiring almost unlimited power.Regulation defends democracy.The author's attitude toward the commcssion's decision isA.cautious.B.ambiguous.C.sarcastic.D.supportive.
Text 2 Google or,technically,Alphabet,the holding company that the firm established in 2015,has its fingers in many fields.But the company's main business,which pays for all ofits spending elsewhere,is digital advertising,which in 2017 accounted for more than 86%ofits$lllbn revenue.It may seem odd,then,that Google's latest move is to aid ad-blocking.On February 15th,Chrome,its web browser,which has a 59%market share,switched on code to block certain online advertisements.In doing so it joins an established trend.Third-party ad-blocking software is available already for Chrome but only for its desktop version.As well as being built in and thus on by default,the new blocker will work on smartphones.Web publishers will not welcome another threat to the efficacy of advertising,their main source ofincome.Google at least promises that only pages which display the most annoying ads-those that automatically play videos with sound,for instance-will fall foul ofits new filter.What counts as annoying is defined by the Coalition for Better Ads,a group of advertisers,technology firms and other companies of which Google is a member.The online-ad industry has over the years developed an unusually hostile relationship with those to whom its products are served.In the early days of the internet,jiggling,brightly coloured animations were common.Pop-up advertisements,some of them uncloseable,became so prevalent that browsers such as Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator were modified to try to stop them.Ads may be more sophisticated now but still find ways to irritate.Dodgy ones are a popular delivery route for malware.The ad industry,indeed,is in an arms race with blocker-writers.Many sites now try to detect ad-blockers,and force users to disable them if they want to visit websites.The ad-blockers have retaliated with techniques to dodge the detectors,and so on.Google's move thus looks like an attempt to save online advertising from itself.It is also launching a service called"Funding Choices"that is designed to allow website operators to invite people who use ad-blockers to pay small amounts to view their pages instead.Its new products could land it in trouble.Margrethe Vestager,the European Union's competition chief,tweeted last year that she would be"closely"following the firm's ad-filtering efforts.The worry is that by defining what counts as an acceptable ad Google will amass still more power over online advertising.The European Commission fined it 2.4bn（$2.9bn）in 2017 for giving its price-comparison shopping service preferential treatment in search results over rival offerings.It was unclear that users of such services lost out much.Consumers also have lots to gain if Chrome can help stem the ad onslaught.27.Who will be most threatened by ad-blocking?A.Web publishers.B.A third party.C.Intemet users.D.Sofiware developers.
The information commissioner gave Facebook a rap over the knuckles earlier this month,putting the company on notice of likely fines-the equivalent of a few minutes'revenue-for breaches of privacy.On Wednesday the European commission gave Google a vigorous correction,fining it￠4.3 billion for abusing its market dominance with the AndrOJd operating system which powers the overwhelming majority of the world's mobile phones.Google is appealing.The billions of euros at stake aside,it is easy to see why.Google gives most of Android away,not only to the consumers who use it,but to the companies that build their phones around it.As the company points out,there are more than 24,000 competing Android phones available today,from 1,300 companies.How can that possibly constitute a harmful monopoly?Besides,Google has real competition in the smartphone world from Apple.At the same time,these are exactly the factors that make the commission's decision so interesLing and significant.For Google's business to work,it must become as easy as possible for advertisers to reach users.That is the purpose of all the software that Google gives away,from the Android operating system,through to YouTube,Google search on phones and the Chrome browser.This might look like a cross-subsidy,but on the other hand it is the heart of the company's business.The software that Google gives away is not designed to make a profit on its own.This free version does not include the bits that make a phone useful for anything but making telephone calls,and this was the weak spot in Google's defence.None of the enticements-the mail,the search,the maps and the browser-are included.These can only be used with a proprietary chunk of software that Google controls;and manufacturers who want to use the Play store and 11 crucial Google apps must agree not to build so much as a single phone that does not include them.It is all or nothing.This licensing trick is the way in which Google has undoubtedly limited competition.The commission's decision to punish it probably comes too late to undo the damage it has done.All digital businesses tend towards a monopoly,and this is in part because in some important ways they benefit consumers more the larger they grow.Yet as customers we pay for this in other ways and as citizens even more so,not least because the companies fattened by monopoly profits grow too large to fail and too powerful to challenge.There is a public interest in preventing any company from acquiring almost unlimited power.Regulation defends democracy.In responding to the commission's decision,Google argues thatA.the fine is too heavy Ior the company to pay.B.the smartphone market is highly competitive.C.the company ought to control most of Android.D.Apple is more likely to constitute a monopoly.
The information commissioner gave Facebook a rap over the knuckles earlier this month,putting the company on notice of likely fines-the equivalent of a few minutes'revenue-for breaches of privacy.On Wednesday the European commission gave Google a vigorous correction,fining it￠4.3 billion for abusing its market dominance with the AndrOJd operating system which powers the overwhelming majority of the world's mobile phones.Google is appealing.The billions of euros at stake aside,it is easy to see why.Google gives most of Android away,not only to the consumers who use it,but to the companies that build their phones around it.As the company points out,there are more than 24,000 competing Android phones available today,from 1,300 companies.How can that possibly constitute a harmful monopoly?Besides,Google has real competition in the smartphone world from Apple.At the same time,these are exactly the factors that make the commission's decision so interesLing and significant.For Google's business to work,it must become as easy as possible for advertisers to reach users.That is the purpose of all the software that Google gives away,from the Android operating system,through to YouTube,Google search on phones and the Chrome browser.This might look like a cross-subsidy,but on the other hand it is the heart of the company's business.The software that Google gives away is not designed to make a profit on its own.This free version does not include the bits that make a phone useful for anything but making telephone calls,and this was the weak spot in Google's defence.None of the enticements-the mail,the search,the maps and the browser-are included.These can only be used with a proprietary chunk of software that Google controls;and manufacturers who want to use the Play store and 11 crucial Google apps must agree not to build so much as a single phone that does not include them.It is all or nothing.This licensing trick is the way in which Google has undoubtedly limited competition.The commission's decision to punish it probably comes too late to undo the damage it has done.All digital businesses tend towards a monopoly,and this is in part because in some important ways they benefit consumers more the larger they grow.Yet as customers we pay for this in other ways and as citizens even more so,not least because the companies fattened by monopoly profits grow too large to fail and too powerful to challenge.There is a public interest in preventing any company from acquiring almost unlimited power.Regulation defends democracy.The phrase"a rap over the knuckles"（I.ine l.Para.1）is closest in meaning toA.a not-very-severe punishment.B.a nol-very-correci explanaiion.C.a heavy fine.D.a false charge.
The information commissioner gave Facebook a rap over the knuckles earlier this month,putting the company on notice of likely fines-the equivalent of a few minutes'revenue-for breaches of privacy.On Wednesday the European commission gave Google a vigorous correction,fining it￠4.3 billion for abusing its market dominance with the AndrOJd operating system which powers the overwhelming majority of the world's mobile phones.Google is appealing.The billions of euros at stake aside,it is easy to see why.Google gives most of Android away,not only to the consumers who use it,but to the companies that build their phones around it.As the company points out,there are more than 24,000 competing Android phones available today,from 1,300 companies.How can that possibly constitute a harmful monopoly?Besides,Google has real competition in the smartphone world from Apple.At the same time,these are exactly the factors that make the commission's decision so interesLing and significant.For Google's business to work,it must become as easy as possible for advertisers to reach users.That is the purpose of all the software that Google gives away,from the Android operating system,through to YouTube,Google search on phones and the Chrome browser.This might look like a cross-subsidy,but on the other hand it is the heart of the company's business.The software that Google gives away is not designed to make a profit on its own.This free version does not include the bits that make a phone useful for anything but making telephone calls,and this was the weak spot in Google's defence.None of the enticements-the mail,the search,the maps and the browser-are included.These can only be used with a proprietary chunk of software that Google controls;and manufacturers who want to use the Play store and 11 crucial Google apps must agree not to build so much as a single phone that does not include them.It is all or nothing.This licensing trick is the way in which Google has undoubtedly limited competition.The commission's decision to punish it probably comes too late to undo the damage it has done.All digital businesses tend towards a monopoly,and this is in part because in some important ways they benefit consumers more the larger they grow.Yet as customers we pay for this in other ways and as citizens even more so,not least because the companies fattened by monopoly profits grow too large to fail and too powerful to challenge.There is a public interest in preventing any company from acquiring almost unlimited power.Regulation defends democracy.Which of the following is true of Google's licensing trick?A.It is of great use to some users,but of little use to others.B.It offers many enticing functions to Android users for free.C.It imposes a restriction on manufacturers'choice of appsD.It may help Google escape punishment from the commission.
Text 2 Google or,technically,Alphabet,the holding company that the firm established in 2015,has its fingers in many fields.But the company's main business,which pays for all ofits spending elsewhere,is digital advertising,which in 2017 accounted for more than 86%ofits$lllbn revenue.It may seem odd,then,that Google's latest move is to aid ad-blocking.On February 15th,Chrome,its web browser,which has a 59%market share,switched on code to block certain online advertisements.In doing so it joins an established trend.Third-party ad-blocking software is available already for Chrome but only for its desktop version.As well as being built in and thus on by default,the new blocker will work on smartphones.Web publishers will not welcome another threat to the efficacy of advertising,their main source ofincome.Google at least promises that only pages which display the most annoying ads-those that automatically play videos with sound,for instance-will fall foul ofits new filter.What counts as annoying is defined by the Coalition for Better Ads,a group of advertisers,technology firms and other companies of which Google is a member.The online-ad industry has over the years developed an unusually hostile relationship with those to whom its products are served.In the early days of the internet,jiggling,brightly coloured animations were common.Pop-up advertisements,some of them uncloseable,became so prevalent that browsers such as Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator were modified to try to stop them.Ads may be more sophisticated now but still find ways to irritate.Dodgy ones are a popular delivery route for malware.The ad industry,indeed,is in an arms race with blocker-writers.Many sites now try to detect ad-blockers,and force users to disable them if they want to visit websites.The ad-blockers have retaliated with techniques to dodge the detectors,and so on.Google's move thus looks like an attempt to save online advertising from itself.It is also launching a service called"Funding Choices"that is designed to allow website operators to invite people who use ad-blockers to pay small amounts to view their pages instead.Its new products could land it in trouble.Margrethe Vestager,the European Union's competition chief,tweeted last year that she would be"closely"following the firm's ad-filtering efforts.The worry is that by defining what counts as an acceptable ad Google will amass still more power over online advertising.The European Commission fined it 2.4bn（$2.9bn）in 2017 for giving its price-comparison shopping service preferential treatment in search results over rival offerings.It was unclear that users of such services lost out much.Consumers also have lots to gain if Chrome can help stem the ad onslaught.28.What does Google's new blocker refer to?A.The smartphone.B.Coalition for Better Ads.C.The new filter.D.Chrome.
The information commissioner gave Facebook a rap over the knuckles earlier this month,putting the company on notice of likely fines-the equivalent of a few minutes'revenue-for breaches of privacy.On Wednesday the European commission gave Google a vigorous correction,fining it￠4.3 billion for abusing its market dominance with the AndrOJd operating system which powers the overwhelming majority of the world's mobile phones.Google is appealing.The billions of euros at stake aside,it is easy to see why.Google gives most of Android away,not only to the consumers who use it,but to the companies that build their phones around it.As the company points out,there are more than 24,000 competing Android phones available today,from 1,300 companies.How can that possibly constitute a harmful monopoly?Besides,Google has real competition in the smartphone world from Apple.At the same time,these are exactly the factors that make the commission's decision so interesLing and significant.For Google's business to work,it must become as easy as possible for advertisers to reach users.That is the purpose of all the software that Google gives away,from the Android operating system,through to YouTube,Google search on phones and the Chrome browser.This might look like a cross-subsidy,but on the other hand it is the heart of the company's business.The software that Google gives away is not designed to make a profit on its own.This free version does not include the bits that make a phone useful for anything but making telephone calls,and this was the weak spot in Google's defence.None of the enticements-the mail,the search,the maps and the browser-are included.These can only be used with a proprietary chunk of software that Google controls;and manufacturers who want to use the Play store and 11 crucial Google apps must agree not to build so much as a single phone that does not include them.It is all or nothing.This licensing trick is the way in which Google has undoubtedly limited competition.The commission's decision to punish it probably comes too late to undo the damage it has done.All digital businesses tend towards a monopoly,and this is in part because in some important ways they benefit consumers more the larger they grow.Yet as customers we pay for this in other ways and as citizens even more so,not least because the companies fattened by monopoly profits grow too large to fail and too powerful to challenge.There is a public interest in preventing any company from acquiring almost unlimited power.Regulation defends democracy.Google gives away certain software toA.respond actively io the commission's decision.B.make itself easily accessible to advertisers.C.draw people into its advertising ecosystem.D.avoid distractions from its core business.
Text 2 Google or,technically,Alphabet,the holding company that the firm established in 2015,has its fingers in many fields.But the company's main business,which pays for all ofits spending elsewhere,is digital advertising,which in 2017 accounted for more than 86%ofits$lllbn revenue.It may seem odd,then,that Google's latest move is to aid ad-blocking.On February 15th,Chrome,its web browser,which has a 59%market share,switched on code to block certain online advertisements.In doing so it joins an established trend.Third-party ad-blocking software is available already for Chrome but only for its desktop version.As well as being built in and thus on by default,the new blocker will work on smartphones.Web publishers will not welcome another threat to the efficacy of advertising,their main source ofincome.Google at least promises that only pages which display the most annoying ads-those that automatically play videos with sound,for instance-will fall foul ofits new filter.What counts as annoying is defined by the Coalition for Better Ads,a group of advertisers,technology firms and other companies of which Google is a member.The online-ad industry has over the years developed an unusually hostile relationship with those to whom its products are served.In the early days of the internet,jiggling,brightly coloured animations were common.Pop-up advertisements,some of them uncloseable,became so prevalent that browsers such as Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator were modified to try to stop them.Ads may be more sophisticated now but still find ways to irritate.Dodgy ones are a popular delivery route for malware.The ad industry,indeed,is in an arms race with blocker-writers.Many sites now try to detect ad-blockers,and force users to disable them if they want to visit websites.The ad-blockers have retaliated with techniques to dodge the detectors,and so on.Google's move thus looks like an attempt to save online advertising from itself.It is also launching a service called"Funding Choices"that is designed to allow website operators to invite people who use ad-blockers to pay small amounts to view their pages instead.Its new products could land it in trouble.Margrethe Vestager,the European Union's competition chief,tweeted last year that she would be"closely"following the firm's ad-filtering efforts.The worry is that by defining what counts as an acceptable ad Google will amass still more power over online advertising.The European Commission fined it 2.4bn（$2.9bn）in 2017 for giving its price-comparison shopping service preferential treatment in search results over rival offerings.It was unclear that users of such services lost out much.Consumers also have lots to gain if Chrome can help stem the ad onslaught.29.Which of the following is true about Paragraphs 3 and 4?A.Animations and pop-up ads were acceptable in the past.B.The uncloseability of ads goes beyond the limits of browsers.C.Ad-blockers fight back with dodging techniques against blocking detectors.D.Google launches"Funding Choices"to stop the race with web-users.
A businessman who has launched a legal bid to remove some search results about his criminal conviction in the first"right to be forgotten"case in the English courts should not be allowed to rewrite history,lawyers for Google have said The claimant,referred to only as NTI f tor legal reasons,was convicted of conspiracy to account falsely in the late 1990s and wants google to remove results that mention his case,including web pages published by a national newspaper.Representing NTl,Hugh Tomlinson QC,chairman of the press regulation campaign Hacked Off,told the high court that the presence of the articles caused"distress and upset”.In 2014 the European Union's court of justice ruled that"irrelevant'"and outdated data should be erased on request.Since then,Google has received requests to remove at least 2.4m links from search results.Search engines can reject applications if they believe the public interest in accessing the information outweighs a right to privacy But Antony White QC,representing Google,said the right to be forgotten"ruling was"not a right to rewrite history or.tailor your past if that's what this claimant would like to use it for".White said the business malpractice that gave rise to NTl's conviction was"serious and sustained".White told the court the businessman had portrayed himself as a"respected businessman"with a successful career on social media and in a series of blog posts,on a blog containing information about his business and financial background.The posts create a"false picture"and if his right to be forgotten claim succeeds he would continue to“mislead”Tomlinson told the court the businessman was not a public figure and now made a living on commercial lending and funding a property developer.Before anyone meets a new person these days they Google them,"Tomlinson told the court.He said"many people engage in misdeeds when they are young or in the past"and if the misdeeds are"constantly brought to the attention of others then they will permanently have a negative effect".The conviction is now spent,Tomlinson said,and the law is designed to allow for the rehabilitation of offenders so they can go on to lead normal lives The high court case,which is expected to last five days,will be monitored by convicted criminals and others who want embarrassing stories erased from the web Google's refusal to erase two links to newspaper articles referencing the businessman's conviction led to Tuesday's hearing.The businessman who is represented by the law firm Carter-Ruck,gave evidence to the court on Tuesday about the founding of the controversial property company which he had an interest in.The company was subject to a regulatory sanction before being wound upWhat will be Google's reaction to the businessman's legal bid?A.Deleting the relevant informationB.Rejecting the businessman's requestC.Reconfirming the truth of the caseD.Seeking help from the court
Text 2 Google or,technically,Alphabet,the holding company that the firm established in 2015,has its fingers in many fields.But the company's main business,which pays for all ofits spending elsewhere,is digital advertising,which in 2017 accounted for more than 86%ofits$lllbn revenue.It may seem odd,then,that Google's latest move is to aid ad-blocking.On February 15th,Chrome,its web browser,which has a 59%market share,switched on code to block certain online advertisements.In doing so it joins an established trend.Third-party ad-blocking software is available already for Chrome but only for its desktop version.As well as being built in and thus on by default,the new blocker will work on smartphones.Web publishers will not welcome another threat to the efficacy of advertising,their main source ofincome.Google at least promises that only pages which display the most annoying ads-those that automatically play videos with sound,for instance-will fall foul ofits new filter.What counts as annoying is defined by the Coalition for Better Ads,a group of advertisers,technology firms and other companies of which Google is a member.The online-ad industry has over the years developed an unusually hostile relationship with those to whom its products are served.In the early days of the internet,jiggling,brightly coloured animations were common.Pop-up advertisements,some of them uncloseable,became so prevalent that browsers such as Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator were modified to try to stop them.Ads may be more sophisticated now but still find ways to irritate.Dodgy ones are a popular delivery route for malware.The ad industry,indeed,is in an arms race with blocker-writers.Many sites now try to detect ad-blockers,and force users to disable them if they want to visit websites.The ad-blockers have retaliated with techniques to dodge the detectors,and so on.Google's move thus looks like an attempt to save online advertising from itself.It is also launching a service called"Funding Choices"that is designed to allow website operators to invite people who use ad-blockers to pay small amounts to view their pages instead.Its new products could land it in trouble.Margrethe Vestager,the European Union's competition chief,tweeted last year that she would be"closely"following the firm's ad-filtering efforts.The worry is that by defining what counts as an acceptable ad Google will amass still more power over online advertising.The European Commission fined it 2.4bn（$2.9bn）in 2017 for giving its price-comparison shopping service preferential treatment in search results over rival offerings.It was unclear that users of such services lost out much.Consumers also have lots to gain if Chrome can help stem the ad onslaught.26.Technically speaking,the author would agree thatA.Google is a holding company that set up by Alphabet in 2015.B.Google's holding company benefits from lots ofbusinesses.C.Google's business is mainly in the field of digital advertising.D.Google has given up blocking certain online ads recently.
Text 2 Google or,technically,Alphabet,the holding company that the firm established in 2015,has its fingers in many fields.But the company's main business,which pays for all ofits spending elsewhere,is digital advertising,which in 2017 accounted for more than 86%ofits$lllbn revenue.It may seem odd,then,that Google's latest move is to aid ad-blocking.On February 15th,Chrome,its web browser,which has a 59%market share,switched on code to block certain online advertisements.In doing so it joins an established trend.Third-party ad-blocking software is available already for Chrome but only for its desktop version.As well as being built in and thus on by default,the new blocker will work on smartphones.Web publishers will not welcome another threat to the efficacy of advertising,their main source ofincome.Google at least promises that only pages which display the most annoying ads-those that automatically play videos with sound,for instance-will fall foul ofits new filter.What counts as annoying is defined by the Coalition for Better Ads,a group of advertisers,technology firms and other companies of which Google is a member.The online-ad industry has over the years developed an unusually hostile relationship with those to whom its products are served.In the early days of the internet,jiggling,brightly coloured animations were common.Pop-up advertisements,some of them uncloseable,became so prevalent that browsers such as Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator were modified to try to stop them.Ads may be more sophisticated now but still find ways to irritate.Dodgy ones are a popular delivery route for malware.The ad industry,indeed,is in an arms race with blocker-writers.Many sites now try to detect ad-blockers,and force users to disable them if they want to visit websites.The ad-blockers have retaliated with techniques to dodge the detectors,and so on.Google's move thus looks like an attempt to save online advertising from itself.It is also launching a service called"Funding Choices"that is designed to allow website operators to invite people who use ad-blockers to pay small amounts to view their pages instead.Its new products could land it in trouble.Margrethe Vestager,the European Union's competition chief,tweeted last year that she would be"closely"following the firm's ad-filtering efforts.The worry is that by defining what counts as an acceptable ad Google will amass still more power over online advertising.The European Commission fined it 2.4bn（$2.9bn）in 2017 for giving its price-comparison shopping service preferential treatment in search results over rival offerings.It was unclear that users of such services lost out much.Consumers also have lots to gain if Chrome can help stem the ad onslaught.30.From the last paragraph we knowA.Google has got into trouble.B.Google is punished due to its partiality.C.users of Google's new services suffered a great loss.D.Google got greater power by controlling online advertising.
A businessman who has launched a legal bid to remove some search results about his criminal conviction in the first"right to be forgotten"case in the English courts should not be allowed to rewrite history,lawyers for Google have said The claimant,referred to only as NTI f tor legal reasons,was convicted of conspiracy to account falsely in the late 1990s and wants google to remove results that mention his case,including web pages published by a national newspaper.Representing NTl,Hugh Tomlinson QC,chairman of the press regulation campaign Hacked Off,told the high court that the presence of the articles caused"distress and upset”.In 2014 the European Union's court of justice ruled that"irrelevant'"and outdated data should be erased on request.Since then,Google has received requests to remove at least 2.4m links from search results.Search engines can reject applications if they believe the public interest in accessing the information outweighs a right to privacy But Antony White QC,representing Google,said the right to be forgotten"ruling was"not a right to rewrite history or.tailor your past if that's what this claimant would like to use it for".White said the business malpractice that gave rise to NTl's conviction was"serious and sustained".White told the court the businessman had portrayed himself as a"respected businessman"with a successful career on social media and in a series of blog posts,on a blog containing information about his business and financial background.The posts create a"false picture"and if his right to be forgotten claim succeeds he would continue to“mislead”Tomlinson told the court the businessman was not a public figure and now made a living on commercial lending and funding a property developer.Before anyone meets a new person these days they Google them,"Tomlinson told the court.He said"many people engage in misdeeds when they are young or in the past"and if the misdeeds are"constantly brought to the attention of others then they will permanently have a negative effect".The conviction is now spent,Tomlinson said,and the law is designed to allow for the rehabilitation of offenders so they can go on to lead normal lives The high court case,which is expected to last five days,will be monitored by convicted criminals and others who want embarrassing stories erased from the web Google's refusal to erase two links to newspaper articles referencing the businessman's conviction led to Tuesday's hearing.The businessman who is represented by the law firm Carter-Ruck,gave evidence to the court on Tuesday about the founding of the controversial property company which he had an interest in.The company was subject to a regulatory sanction before being wound upWhy did the businessman want Google to remove the search results about his past conviction?A.Because he wanted to rewrite the historyB.Because Google greatly distorted the factsC.Because he suffered much from links to outdated dataD.Because the search results greatly influenced his career
How does the writer feel about the business she runs?A. It's the biggest company in the world.B. It will possibly be more successful.C. It's one of the most successful businesses.D. It is the only company that is growing all around the world.
Text 4 The EU's faltering progress towards a common system of taxing the huge revenues of the new digital giants lurched forward this morning as Margrethe Vestager,the EU commissioner in charge of competition,declared that Amazon had received unfair state aid from Luxembourg through its tax arrangements,and demanded that it pay￡250m in back taxes.At the same time,Ms Vestager announced that the European commission would haul Ireland up before the European court of justice for its failure to demand￡13bn of unpaid tax from Apple,identi{ied in an earlier investigation.The lwo events illusrrate the gulf between the commission,together with some of the EU's iargest economies,and smaller members such as Ireland and Luxembourg.Both Ireland and Luxembourg defend their tax arrangements.Ireland in particular welcomes the thousands of goocl jobs that the tech giants bring and has no desire to find ways of extracting more tax from thcm in case it drives them away.The Irish government also insists that taxation is a sovereign matter,not an arena for EU interference.（ ）thers are under pressure from voters who are outraged that any company can make so much profit in their country and pay so little tax on it.Revenue from Facebook's UK operations,it has emerged,nearly quadrupled last year t0 842m,through growth in digital ad sales;its corporation tax bill crept up from 4.2m t0 5.Im.The US inland revenue service is also keen to find transparent ways of taxing the new digital economy,and is watching jealously as the European commission draws up its plans,suspicious of any move that might be used by the tech giants to offset their US tax bills.Already,companies such as Google and Amazon hold billions of dollars in offshore funds,where ihey are out of reach of the taxman.The US defensiveness about its own tax revenues points to the need for a global rather than a merely European solution to the question of how,what and whcre to tax the digital economy,but progress through the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development（OECD）is glacial,and would in any event only be advisory.The commission is still hoping to get agreement on a common corporate tax base that would help to identify the parameters of any new tax system,but progress has stalled because of complexities around double taxation.Meanwhile the American Chamber of Commerce in Europe（ACCE）is warning that any attempt to tax the tech giants more would threaten investment and expansion.But across most of the EU discontent is growing,not just over the failure to pay tax-which has already prompted some tech companies to become more transparent,and even pay more-but over many of their practices.The chief executive of the ride-hailing app Uber has been in London this week trying to patch up relations with Transport for London（TfL）.Margrethe Vestager is right:enforcing regulations works.The U.S.'s close attention to EU's tax plan making is mentioned to stress_____A.the OECD's failure to fulfill its obligationB.Google and Amazon's success outside the U.S.C.U.S.'s jealousy in European progress in tax reformD.the universality of digital economy taxation problem
"Google is not a conventional company.We do not I to become one,"wrote Larry Page and Sergey Brin,the search firm's founders,in a letter to investors ahead ofits stockmarket flotation in 2004.Since then,Google has bumished its reputation 2 0ne ofthe quirkiest companies on the planet.This year alone it has 3 eyebrows by taking a stake in a wind-energy project off the east coast ofAmerica and by testing self-driving cars,which have already_4 0ver 140,000 miles（225,OOOkm）on the country's roads.Google has been able to 5 such flights of fancy 6 its amazingly successful online-search business.This has 7 handsome returns for the firm's investors,who have seen the company 8 itselfin the space ofa mere 12 years from a tiny start-up into a behemoth with a$180 billion market capitalisation that sprawls 9 a vast headquarters in Silicon Valley known as the Googleplex.Google 10 stretches across the web like a giant spider,with a leg in everything from online search and e-mail to social networking and web-based software applications,or apps.All this has turned Google into a force to be reckoned with.11 now the champion of the unorthodox is faced with two conventional business challenges.The first 12 placating regulators,who fret that it may be abusing its considerable 13.On November 30th the European Union 14 a formal investigation into claims that Google has been 15 search results to give an unfair advantage to its own services-a charge the firm vigorously 16.The other challenge facing Google is how to find new sources of growth.17 all the experiments it has launched,the firm is still heavily dependent on search-related advertising.Ironically,investors'biggest worry is that Google will end 18 like Microsoft,which has 19 to find big new sources of 20 and profit to replace those from its two ageing ponies,the Windows operating system and the Omce suite of business software.That explains why Google's share price has stagnated.6选？A.account forB.due toC.lead toD.contribute to
Text 4 Alphabet Inc.'s most successful product-the Google search engine-may now be its most problematic.On Tuesday,the European Commission's top antitrust regulator levied a$2.7-billion fine against Alphabet and Google for the way the search engine handles requests for information about products.Specifically,Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said that Google twisted its results to bury links to rival companies'comparison shopping sites while prominently featuring its own service,Google Shopping.Google responded that it's simply trying to give users what they want and denied"favoring ourselves,or any particular site or seller."It has a lot at stake:Google has integrated many different offerings into its search engine,including its mapping and travel services.The principle advanced by Vestager,however,is a good one:Giant online companies shoulcl not be able to take advantage of their dominance in one field to hurt competitors in another.Google's argument is:It integrated Google Shopping,which offers links to products at sites that advertise on Google.into its search engine because that gave users quicker access to the information they were seeking.And in the United States,the key question in antitrust!aw is whether a company's behavior hurts users,not whether it hurts the company's competitors.European regulators focus more on competitors,but they really are two sides of the same coin.If competitors are unfairly closed out,the public can miss out on the very real benefits that vigorous competition provides.At the same time,it's undeniable that the public has welcomed virtual monopolies in search,social media and other services in the Internet era.A large part of the appeal of sites like Facebook and Twitter is that so many people use them.There's a network effect for social media apps in particular-the more people who use the service,the more valuable it becomes to them.Meanwhile,start-ups come out of nowhere to create whole new categories of must-have apps and proclucts online.That means dominant companies have to innovate too,or else they can easily change from today's thing to yesterday's.And often,that innovation involves finding a better way to do something that a competitor is doing.The challenge for regulators is to provide the big companies space to try new things without grossly disrupting the market,closing out other companies and reducing consumer choice,which will ultimately lead to less innovation.A good place to start is by focusing on cases where there is evidence of intentional undermining of competitors-where a dominant company alters the platform it provides not just to feature its own services,but to make it harder to find or use its rivals'.The European antitrust law is similar to its American counterpart in——A.the goal to defend the benefits of consumersB.the principle of protecting market competitorsC.the criteria to decide whether a company is guiltyD.the way to penatize convicted companies
Text 4 Alphabet Inc.'s most successful product-the Google search engine-may now be its most problematic.On Tuesday,the European Commission's top antitrust regulator levied a$2.7-billion fine against Alphabet and Google for the way the search engine handles requests for information about products.Specifically,Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said that Google twisted its results to bury links to rival companies'comparison shopping sites while prominently featuring its own service,Google Shopping.Google responded that it's simply trying to give users what they want and denied"favoring ourselves,or any particular site or seller."It has a lot at stake:Google has integrated many different offerings into its search engine,including its mapping and travel services.The principle advanced by Vestager,however,is a good one:Giant online companies shoulcl not be able to take advantage of their dominance in one field to hurt competitors in another.Google's argument is:It integrated Google Shopping,which offers links to products at sites that advertise on Google.into its search engine because that gave users quicker access to the information they were seeking.And in the United States,the key question in antitrust!aw is whether a company's behavior hurts users,not whether it hurts the company's competitors.European regulators focus more on competitors,but they really are two sides of the same coin.If competitors are unfairly closed out,the public can miss out on the very real benefits that vigorous competition provides.At the same time,it's undeniable that the public has welcomed virtual monopolies in search,social media and other services in the Internet era.A large part of the appeal of sites like Facebook and Twitter is that so many people use them.There's a network effect for social media apps in particular-the more people who use the service,the more valuable it becomes to them.Meanwhile,start-ups come out of nowhere to create whole new categories of must-have apps and proclucts online.That means dominant companies have to innovate too,or else they can easily change from today's thing to yesterday's.And often,that innovation involves finding a better way to do something that a competitor is doing.The challenge for regulators is to provide the big companies space to try new things without grossly disrupting the market,closing out other companies and reducing consumer choice,which will ultimately lead to less innovation.A good place to start is by focusing on cases where there is evidence of intentional undermining of competitors-where a dominant company alters the platform it provides not just to feature its own services,but to make it harder to find or use its rivals'.According to Paragraph 2,the author views Google's activity with——.A.sympathyB.uncertaintyC.appreciationD.criticism
"Google is not a conventional company.We do not I to become one,"wrote Larry Page and Sergey Brin,the search firm's founders,in a letter to investors ahead ofits stockmarket flotation in 2004.Since then,Google has bumished its reputation 2 0ne ofthe quirkiest companies on the planet.This year alone it has 3 eyebrows by taking a stake in a wind-energy project off the east coast ofAmerica and by testing self-driving cars,which have already_4 0ver 140,000 miles（225,OOOkm）on the country's roads.Google has been able to 5 such flights of fancy 6 its amazingly successful online-search business.This has 7 handsome returns for the firm's investors,who have seen the company 8 itselfin the space ofa mere 12 years from a tiny start-up into a behemoth with a$180 billion market capitalisation that sprawls 9 a vast headquarters in Silicon Valley known as the Googleplex.Google 10 stretches across the web like a giant spider,with a leg in everything from online search and e-mail to social networking and web-based software applications,or apps.All this has turned Google into a force to be reckoned with.11 now the champion of the unorthodox is faced with two conventional business challenges.The first 12 placating regulators,who fret that it may be abusing its considerable 13.On November 30th the European Union 14 a formal investigation into claims that Google has been 15 search results to give an unfair advantage to its own services-a charge the firm vigorously 16.The other challenge facing Google is how to find new sources of growth.17 all the experiments it has launched,the firm is still heavily dependent on search-related advertising.Ironically,investors'biggest worry is that Google will end 18 like Microsoft,which has 19 to find big new sources of 20 and profit to replace those from its two ageing ponies,the Windows operating system and the Omce suite of business software.That explains why Google's share price has stagnated.4选？A.coveredB.rangedC.changedD.differed
Text 4 Alphabet Inc.'s most successful product-the Google search engine-may now be its most problematic.On Tuesday,the European Commission's top antitrust regulator levied a$2.7-billion fine against Alphabet and Google for the way the search engine handles requests for information about products.Specifically,Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said that Google twisted its results to bury links to rival companies'comparison shopping sites while prominently featuring its own service,Google Shopping.Google responded that it's simply trying to give users what they want and denied"favoring ourselves,or any particular site or seller."It has a lot at stake:Google has integrated many different offerings into its search engine,including its mapping and travel services.The principle advanced by Vestager,however,is a good one:Giant online companies shoulcl not be able to take advantage of their dominance in one field to hurt competitors in another.Google's argument is:It integrated Google Shopping,which offers links to products at sites that advertise on Google.into its search engine because that gave users quicker access to the information they were seeking.And in the United States,the key question in antitrust!aw is whether a company's behavior hurts users,not whether it hurts the company's competitors.European regulators focus more on competitors,but they really are two sides of the same coin.If competitors are unfairly closed out,the public can miss out on the very real benefits that vigorous competition provides.At the same time,it's undeniable that the public has welcomed virtual monopolies in search,social media and other services in the Internet era.A large part of the appeal of sites like Facebook and Twitter is that so many people use them.There's a network effect for social media apps in particular-the more people who use the service,the more valuable it becomes to them.Meanwhile,start-ups come out of nowhere to create whole new categories of must-have apps and proclucts online.That means dominant companies have to innovate too,or else they can easily change from today's thing to yesterday's.And often,that innovation involves finding a better way to do something that a competitor is doing.The challenge for regulators is to provide the big companies space to try new things without grossly disrupting the market,closing out other companies and reducing consumer choice,which will ultimately lead to less innovation.A good place to start is by focusing on cases where there is evidence of intentional undermining of competitors-where a dominant company alters the platform it provides not just to feature its own services,but to make it harder to find or use its rivals'.The European Commission fined Google for_____A.providing false informationB.integrating multiple offeringsC.manipulating search resultsD.defaming rival companies
Which of the following is not true of Britain.s foreign trade?（）A、The value of Britain.s exports of goods usually exceeds the value of its imports.B、The value of Britain.s imports of goods usually exceeds the value of its exports.C、Manufactured goods now account for about 85%of British imports and about 80%of its exports.D、Most of the United Kingdom.s trade is with other developed countries,especially other members of the European Union.
问答题The high performance innovators depended on different models and approaches to outperform their competitors. In many cases, the company’s success is attributed to a distinctive skill. Google, for example, is known for generating new ideas with blistering speed. Toyota excels at developing its products and processes far more efficiency and effectively than most other companies. And Apple is noted for its well-honed capabilities in project selection and customer understanding. The most successful companies exhibited strong capabilities across four key areas: ideation, project selection, product development, and commercialization.
填空题The world’s most extensive research effort on climate change is now regulated by the U.S. Global Change Research Program.____