Facebook收购WhatsApp时，WhatsApp才五十五个员工，但是价值为190亿美金，它的价值来源是（）。A、管理层B、员工C、文化D、数据
Facebook收购WhatsApp时，WhatsApp才五十五个员工，但是价值为190亿美金，它的价值来源是（）。
- A、管理层
- B、员工
- C、文化
- D、数据
相关考题：
Text 2 Should we be thinking of Facebook as a news site?Is that how Facebook thinks of itself?No,not primarily,Facebook now says.In a document posted on Wednesday,the company explained,for the first time,the"values"that govem its news feed,the scrolling list of posts that Facebook presents to its l.65 billion users every time they log on.Though it is couched in the anodyne language of a corporate news release,the document's message should come as a shock to everyone in the media business.According to these values,Facebook has a single overriding purpose,and it isn't news.Facebook is mainly for telling you what's up with your friends and family.Adam Mosseri,the Facebook manager in charge of the news feed,said in a recent interview that informing and entertaining users was also part of the company's mission.But he made clear that news and entertainment were secondary pursuits."We think more,spend more time and work on more projects that try to help people express themselves with their friends or learn about their friends or have conversations with their friends,"he said.As if to underscore the point,the company is making a tweak to its news feed ranking system to increase the prominence ofcoiitent from your friends and family over posts by news companies and other organizations.It is also waming news companies that their traffic might decline as a result of the change.These moves highlight a truth that tends to get lost in commentary about the social network's influence over the news:At Facebook,infonrung users about the world will always take a back seat to cute pictures of babies..Because Facebook does not think ofitself primarily as a news company,it seems to want us to stop expecting it to act like one.Whether we should,though,is a more complicated matter.The company has long been hounded by journalists and activists over its power to shape the news through its algorithms,or the code that determines which stories you see,in the news feed.The question of how to think about Facebook's role in the news-and whether we should demand the same standards of accuracy,objectivity,transparency and fairness that we expect from traditional outlets-may be the primary puzzle ofour new media age.According to Facebook,the values outlined in the document have been the informal governing philosophy of its news feed since it was started a decade ago,and Mr.Zuckerberg and Chris Cox,Facebook's chiefproduct officer,were deeply involved in drafiing the new document.30.The best title for this text could be.A.Facebook-a News Giant That Would Rather Show Us Baby PicturesB.Facebook Is Reluctant to Be a News WebsiteC.Facebook,a New Bom Baby in the Age oflntemetD.Facebook's Mr.Zuckerberg and Chris Cox
Priests,teachers and parents have for generations advised their wards io think twice before speaking,to count to ten when angry and to get a good night's sleep before making big decisions.Social networks care little for seconcl thoughts.Services such as Facebook and Twitter are built to maximise"virality",making it irresistible to share,like and retweet things.They are getting better at it:fully half of the 40 most-retweeted tweets clate from January last year.Starting this month,however,users of WhatsApp,a messaging service owned by Facebook,will find it harder to spread content.They will no longer be able to forward messages to more than 20 0thers in one go,down from more than 100.The goal is not to prevent people from sharing information-only to get users to think about what they are passing on.It Js an idea other platforms should consider copying.Skeptics point out that WhatsApp can afford to hinder the spread of information on its platform because it does not rely on the sale of adverrisements to make money.Slowing down sharing would be more damaging to social networks such as Facebook and Twitter,which make money by keeping users on their sites and showing them ads.Their shareholders would surely refuse anything that lessens engagement.Sure enough,Facebook's shares fell by 23%in after-hours trading,partly because Mark Zuckerberg,its boss,said that its priority would be to get users to interact more with each other,not to promote viral content.Yet the short-term pain caused by a decline in virality may be in the long-term interests of the social networks.Fake news and concerns about cligital addiction,among other things,have already damaged the reputations of tech platforms.Moves to slow sharing could lielp see off harsh action by regulators and lawmakers.They could also improve its service.Instagram,a photo-sharing social network also owned by Facebook,shows that you can be successful without resorting to virality.It offers no sharing options and does not allow links but boasts more than a billion monthly users.It has remained relatively free of misinformation.Facebook does not break out Instagram's revenues,but it is thought to make money.The need to constrain virality is becoming ever more urgent.About half the world uses the internet today.The next 3.8bn users to go online will be poorer and less familiar with media.The examples of deceptions,misinformation and violence in India suggest that the capacity to manipulate people online is even greater when they first gain access to cligital communications.Small changes can have big effects:social networks have become expert at making their services compulsive by adjusting shades of blue and the size of buttons.They have the knowledge and the tools to maximise the sharing of information.That gives them the power to limit its virality,too.The advice of priests,teachers and parents is brought up toA.stress the necessity for social networks to circulate them.B.highlight the sharing without thinking on social networks.C.warn people against the danger of indulging in virtual life.D.urge social networks to build services more cautiously.
Priests,teachers and parents have for generations advised their wards io think twice before speaking,to count to ten when angry and to get a good night's sleep before making big decisions.Social networks care little for seconcl thoughts.Services such as Facebook and Twitter are built to maximise"virality",making it irresistible to share,like and retweet things.They are getting better at it:fully half of the 40 most-retweeted tweets clate from January last year.Starting this month,however,users of WhatsApp,a messaging service owned by Facebook,will find it harder to spread content.They will no longer be able to forward messages to more than 20 0thers in one go,down from more than 100.The goal is not to prevent people from sharing information-only to get users to think about what they are passing on.It Js an idea other platforms should consider copying.Skeptics point out that WhatsApp can afford to hinder the spread of information on its platform because it does not rely on the sale of adverrisements to make money.Slowing down sharing would be more damaging to social networks such as Facebook and Twitter,which make money by keeping users on their sites and showing them ads.Their shareholders would surely refuse anything that lessens engagement.Sure enough,Facebook's shares fell by 23%in after-hours trading,partly because Mark Zuckerberg,its boss,said that its priority would be to get users to interact more with each other,not to promote viral content.Yet the short-term pain caused by a decline in virality may be in the long-term interests of the social networks.Fake news and concerns about cligital addiction,among other things,have already damaged the reputations of tech platforms.Moves to slow sharing could lielp see off harsh action by regulators and lawmakers.They could also improve its service.Instagram,a photo-sharing social network also owned by Facebook,shows that you can be successful without resorting to virality.It offers no sharing options and does not allow links but boasts more than a billion monthly users.It has remained relatively free of misinformation.Facebook does not break out Instagram's revenues,but it is thought to make money.The need to constrain virality is becoming ever more urgent.About half the world uses the internet today.The next 3.8bn users to go online will be poorer and less familiar with media.The examples of deceptions,misinformation and violence in India suggest that the capacity to manipulate people online is even greater when they first gain access to cligital communications.Small changes can have big effects:social networks have become expert at making their services compulsive by adjusting shades of blue and the size of buttons.They have the knowledge and the tools to maximise the sharing of information.That gives them the power to limit its virality,too.WhatsApp's new move is intended toA.prevent users from spreading content.B.get users to interact more with each other.C.put a limit on users'overuse of social networks.D.get users to think twice before sharing content.
Priests,teachers and parents have for generations advised their wards io think twice before speaking,to count to ten when angry and to get a good night's sleep before making big decisions.Social networks care little for seconcl thoughts.Services such as Facebook and Twitter are built to maximise"virality",making it irresistible to share,like and retweet things.They are getting better at it:fully half of the 40 most-retweeted tweets clate from January last year.Starting this month,however,users of WhatsApp,a messaging service owned by Facebook,will find it harder to spread content.They will no longer be able to forward messages to more than 20 0thers in one go,down from more than 100.The goal is not to prevent people from sharing information-only to get users to think about what they are passing on.It Js an idea other platforms should consider copying.Skeptics point out that WhatsApp can afford to hinder the spread of information on its platform because it does not rely on the sale of adverrisements to make money.Slowing down sharing would be more damaging to social networks such as Facebook and Twitter,which make money by keeping users on their sites and showing them ads.Their shareholders would surely refuse anything that lessens engagement.Sure enough,Facebook's shares fell by 23%in after-hours trading,partly because Mark Zuckerberg,its boss,said that its priority would be to get users to interact more with each other,not to promote viral content.Yet the short-term pain caused by a decline in virality may be in the long-term interests of the social networks.Fake news and concerns about cligital addiction,among other things,have already damaged the reputations of tech platforms.Moves to slow sharing could lielp see off harsh action by regulators and lawmakers.They could also improve its service.Instagram,a photo-sharing social network also owned by Facebook,shows that you can be successful without resorting to virality.It offers no sharing options and does not allow links but boasts more than a billion monthly users.It has remained relatively free of misinformation.Facebook does not break out Instagram's revenues,but it is thought to make money.The need to constrain virality is becoming ever more urgent.About half the world uses the internet today.The next 3.8bn users to go online will be poorer and less familiar with media.The examples of deceptions,misinformation and violence in India suggest that the capacity to manipulate people online is even greater when they first gain access to cligital communications.Small changes can have big effects:social networks have become expert at making their services compulsive by adjusting shades of blue and the size of buttons.They have the knowledge and the tools to maximise the sharing of information.That gives them the power to limit its virality,too.Skeptics hold that slowing down sharing wouldA.fail to curb viralityB.be bad for users.C.do no good to advertisers.D.go against shareholders.
Text 2 Should we be thinking of Facebook as a news site?Is that how Facebook thinks of itself?No,not primarily,Facebook now says.In a document posted on Wednesday,the company explained,for the first time,the"values"that govem its news feed,the scrolling list of posts that Facebook presents to its l.65 billion users every time they log on.Though it is couched in the anodyne language of a corporate news release,the document's message should come as a shock to everyone in the media business.According to these values,Facebook has a single overriding purpose,and it isn't news.Facebook is mainly for telling you what's up with your friends and family.Adam Mosseri,the Facebook manager in charge of the news feed,said in a recent interview that informing and entertaining users was also part of the company's mission.But he made clear that news and entertainment were secondary pursuits."We think more,spend more time and work on more projects that try to help people express themselves with their friends or learn about their friends or have conversations with their friends,"he said.As if to underscore the point,the company is making a tweak to its news feed ranking system to increase the prominence ofcoiitent from your friends and family over posts by news companies and other organizations.It is also waming news companies that their traffic might decline as a result of the change.These moves highlight a truth that tends to get lost in commentary about the social network's influence over the news:At Facebook,infonrung users about the world will always take a back seat to cute pictures of babies..Because Facebook does not think ofitself primarily as a news company,it seems to want us to stop expecting it to act like one.Whether we should,though,is a more complicated matter.The company has long been hounded by journalists and activists over its power to shape the news through its algorithms,or the code that determines which stories you see,in the news feed.The question of how to think about Facebook's role in the news-and whether we should demand the same standards of accuracy,objectivity,transparency and fairness that we expect from traditional outlets-may be the primary puzzle ofour new media age.According to Facebook,the values outlined in the document have been the informal governing philosophy of its news feed since it was started a decade ago,and Mr.Zuckerberg and Chris Cox,Facebook's chiefproduct officer,were deeply involved in drafiing the new document.27.By"making a tweak",Facebook means to.A.adjust the ranking system of the different news.B.give priority to news about friends and family.C.solve the traffic problem online.D.wam media companies to change their organizations.
Text 3 The power and ambition of the giants of the digital economy is astonishing—Amazon has just announced the purchase of the upmarket grocery chain Whole Foods for$13.5bn，but two years ago Facebook paid even more than that to acquire the WhatsApp messaging service，which doesn’t have any physical product at all.What WhatsApp offered Facebook was an intricate and finely detailed web of its users’friendships and social lives.Facebook promised the European commission then that it would not link phone numbers to Facebook identities，but it broke the promise almost as soon as the deal went through.Even without knowing what was in the messages，the knowledge of who sent them and to whom was enormously revealing and still could be.What political journalist，what party whip，would not want to know the makeup of the WhatsApp groups in which Theresa May’s enemies are currently plotting?It may be that the value of Whole Foods to Amazon is not so much the 460 shops it owns,but the records of which customers have purchased what.Competition law appears to be the only way to address these imbalances of power.But it is clumsy.For one thing,it is very slow compared to the pace of change within the digital economy.By the time a problem has been addressed and remedied it may have vanished in the marketplace,to be replaced by new abuses of power.But there is a deeper conceptual problem,too.Competition law as presently interpreted deals with financial disadvantage to consumers and this is not obvious when the users of these services don’t pay for them.The users of their services are not their customers.That would be the people who buy advertising from them—and Facebook and Google，the two virtual giants，dominate digital advertising to the disadvantage of all other media and entertainment companies.The product they’re selling is data，and we，the users，convert our lives to data for the benefit of the digital giants.Just as some ants farm the bugs called aphids for the honeydew they produce when they feed,so Google farms us for the data that our digital lives yield.Ants keep predatory insects away from where their aphids feed;Gmail keeps the spammers out of our inboxes.It doesn’t feel like a human or democratic relationship，even if both sides benefit.Linking phone numbers to Facebook identities may_____A.worsen political disputesB.mess up customer recordsC.pose a risk to Facebook usersD.mislead the European commission
Text 3 The power and ambition of the giants of the digital economy is astonishing—Amazon has just announced the purchase of the upmarket grocery chain Whole Foods for$13.5bn，but two years ago Facebook paid even more than that to acquire the WhatsApp messaging service，which doesn’t have any physical product at all.What WhatsApp offered Facebook was an intricate and finely detailed web of its users’friendships and social lives.Facebook promised the European commission then that it would not link phone numbers to Facebook identities，but it broke the promise almost as soon as the deal went through.Even without knowing what was in the messages，the knowledge of who sent them and to whom was enormously revealing and still could be.What political journalist，what party whip，would not want to know the makeup of the WhatsApp groups in which Theresa May’s enemies are currently plotting?It may be that the value of Whole Foods to Amazon is not so much the 460 shops it owns,but the records of which customers have purchased what.Competition law appears to be the only way to address these imbalances of power.But it is clumsy.For one thing,it is very slow compared to the pace of change within the digital economy.By the time a problem has been addressed and remedied it may have vanished in the marketplace,to be replaced by new abuses of power.But there is a deeper conceptual problem,too.Competition law as presently interpreted deals with financial disadvantage to consumers and this is not obvious when the users of these services don’t pay for them.The users of their services are not their customers.That would be the people who buy advertising from them—and Facebook and Google，the two virtual giants，dominate digital advertising to the disadvantage of all other media and entertainment companies.The product they’re selling is data，and we，the users，convert our lives to data for the benefit of the digital giants.Just as some ants farm the bugs called aphids for the honeydew they produce when they feed,so Google farms us for the data that our digital lives yield.Ants keep predatory insects away from where their aphids feed;Gmail keeps the spammers out of our inboxes.It doesn’t feel like a human or democratic relationship，even if both sides benefit.Competition law as presently interpreted can hardly protect Facebook users because_____A.they are not defined as customersB.they are not financially reliableC.the services are generally digitalD.the services are paid for by advertisers
Text 3 The power and ambition of the giants of the digital economy is astonishing—Amazon has just announced the purchase of the upmarket grocery chain Whole Foods for$13.5bn，but two years ago Facebook paid even more than that to acquire the WhatsApp messaging service，which doesn’t have any physical product at all.What WhatsApp offered Facebook was an intricate and finely detailed web of its users’friendships and social lives.Facebook promised the European commission then that it would not link phone numbers to Facebook identities，but it broke the promise almost as soon as the deal went through.Even without knowing what was in the messages，the knowledge of who sent them and to whom was enormously revealing and still could be.What political journalist，what party whip，would not want to know the makeup of the WhatsApp groups in which Theresa May’s enemies are currently plotting?It may be that the value of Whole Foods to Amazon is not so much the 460 shops it owns,but the records of which customers have purchased what.Competition law appears to be the only way to address these imbalances of power.But it is clumsy.For one thing,it is very slow compared to the pace of change within the digital economy.By the time a problem has been addressed and remedied it may have vanished in the marketplace,to be replaced by new abuses of power.But there is a deeper conceptual problem,too.Competition law as presently interpreted deals with financial disadvantage to consumers and this is not obvious when the users of these services don’t pay for them.The users of their services are not their customers.That would be the people who buy advertising from them—and Facebook and Google，the two virtual giants，dominate digital advertising to the disadvantage of all other media and entertainment companies.The product they’re selling is data，and we，the users，convert our lives to data for the benefit of the digital giants.Just as some ants farm the bugs called aphids for the honeydew they produce when they feed,so Google farms us for the data that our digital lives yield.Ants keep predatory insects away from where their aphids feed;Gmail keeps the spammers out of our inboxes.It doesn’t feel like a human or democratic relationship，even if both sides benefit.According to the author,competition law___A.should serve the new market powersB.may worsen the economic imbalanceC.should not provide just one legal solutionD.cannot keep pace with the changing market
Text 3 The power and ambition of the giants of the digital economy is astonishing—Amazon has just announced the purchase of the upmarket grocery chain Whole Foods for$13.5bn，but two years ago Facebook paid even more than that to acquire the WhatsApp messaging service，which doesn’t have any physical product at all.What WhatsApp offered Facebook was an intricate and finely detailed web of its users’friendships and social lives.Facebook promised the European commission then that it would not link phone numbers to Facebook identities，but it broke the promise almost as soon as the deal went through.Even without knowing what was in the messages，the knowledge of who sent them and to whom was enormously revealing and still could be.What political journalist，what party whip，would not want to know the makeup of the WhatsApp groups in which Theresa May’s enemies are currently plotting?It may be that the value of Whole Foods to Amazon is not so much the 460 shops it owns,but the records of which customers have purchased what.Competition law appears to be the only way to address these imbalances of power.But it is clumsy.For one thing,it is very slow compared to the pace of change within the digital economy.By the time a problem has been addressed and remedied it may have vanished in the marketplace,to be replaced by new abuses of power.But there is a deeper conceptual problem,too.Competition law as presently interpreted deals with financial disadvantage to consumers and this is not obvious when the users of these services don’t pay for them.The users of their services are not their customers.That would be the people who buy advertising from them—and Facebook and Google，the two virtual giants，dominate digital advertising to the disadvantage of all other media and entertainment companies.The product they’re selling is data，and we，the users，convert our lives to data for the benefit of the digital giants.Just as some ants farm the bugs called aphids for the honeydew they produce when they feed,so Google farms us for the data that our digital lives yield.Ants keep predatory insects away from where their aphids feed;Gmail keeps the spammers out of our inboxes.It doesn’t feel like a human or democratic relationship，even if both sides benefit.According to Paragraph 1,Facebook acquired WhatsApp for its_____A.digital productsB.user informationC.physical assetsD.quality service
资料：As more personal business is conducted through smartphone devices , more users are implementing security measures for their devices, according to a recent survey by Harris Poll and commissioned by the CTIA.The survey was a part of the company’s ongoing efforts to boost user education on the pitfalls of mobile security and assess whether the CTIA’s initiatives are working.It turns out that mobile users in the US have begun implementing many of the initiatives set forth and have increased both awareness of, and protection for, their mobile devices:More smartphone users are protecting their devices with PINs and passwords than in previous years. In 2016, of smartphone users had some sort of PIN/password, up from 2015 and form 2012.An increasing number of smartphone users have installed built-in remote lock-and-erase software. Of survey respondents, have this type of lock-and-erase software installed, up an astounding from 2015 and from 2012.Smartphone users are increasingly aware of the importance of anti-virus software. of smartphone users have an anti-virus software installed, compared with only of smartphone owners in 2015, according to BI Intelligence.The survey results indicate that users are becoming increasingly aware of the danger posed by the increasing reliance on mobile technology form not only malicious entities like hackers, but also government surveillance. Specifically, users are increasingly seeking for ways to guard themselves in light of a number of recent high-profile incidents involving phone security–like Apple's case against the FBI, for example.Because of this, it will become increasingly common for app developers and device manufactures to build in security and end-to-end encryption. This can be seen in devices and apps such as WhatsApp and iPhones. Developers and device manufacturers that don't include this feature in their products could be faced with negative consumer attitudes.It can be inferred that WhatsApp and iPhones _____.A.had built in security and end-to-end encryption.B.included the CTIA feature in their products.C.were faced with negative consumer attitudes.D.cooperated with FBI to guarantee the securety.
共用题干1.Tired of social networking?Logging off Facebook?You're probably not the only one.Fearing for their privacy or perhaps just bored with using the site,100,000 Britons are said to have deactivated（注销）their accounts last month. And Facebook fatigue seems to be catching. Six million logged off for good in the U.S.too,figures show.Worldwide,the rate of growth has slowed for a second month in a row一and as it aims to reach its goal of one billion active users,Facebook is having to rely on developing countries to boost its numbers.The figures suggest that there could be a"natural limit" for Facebook's saturation（饱和）.There is even speculation on blogs that, as is feared for its failing rival MySpace,the website could one day "pass into oblivion"（被人遗忘）.2.Earlier this year,executives announced that the number of Facebook accounts held in the UK had reached 30 million,accounting for about half the population.The milestone was an increase of four million from last July and represented the highest saturation of any country in Europe.3.But times change一and last month more than 100,000 in the UK stopped using the website, figures show.In the U.S.,user numbers dropped from 155.2 million to 149.4 million throughout May.In Canada there was also a fall,of about 1.5 million users,while in Russia and Norway num-bers also fell by more than 100,000 users.4.It's not all bad news for the site.Worldwide,Facebook is still expanding and has around 600 million users,thanks to strong growth in countries such as Mexico and Brazil.5.According to Eric Eldon,of the website Inside Facebook,which obtained the figures through analysis of the company's advertising tools,there is a point at which the site can no longer grow, once it has established itself in a country."By the time Facebook reaches around 50 percent of the total population in a given country,growth generally slows to a halt,"he explained.Paragraph 1_________A:Facebook users in Britain increased a lot earlier this year.B:Facebook seems to be faced with a gloomy future.C:Facebook is a very popular social place for many people.D:Users of Facebook dropped dramatically in many countries.E:In spite of the setback in some countries,Facebook is still expanding worldwide. F: There is a reason for the decreasing users of Facebook.
（）和（）是最早关注“大数据”的企业。A、波音公司和麦肯锡公司B、谷歌公司（GooglE.和脸谱公司（Facebook）C、通用公司和脸谱（Facebook）D、甲骨文公司和谷歌公司（GooglE.
单选题（）和（）是最早关注“大数据”的企业。A波音公司和麦肯锡公司B谷歌公司（GooglE.和脸谱公司（Facebook）C通用公司和脸谱（Facebook）D甲骨文公司和谷歌公司（GooglE.