Protests at the use of animals in research have taken a new and fearful character in Britain with the attempted murder of two British scientists by the terrorist technique of the pre-planted car-bomb.
    The research community will rightly be alarmed at these developments, which have two objectives: to arouse public attention and to frighten people working in research with animals. The first need is that everything should be done to identify those responsible for the crimes and to put them on trail. The Defence Research Society has taken the practical step of offering a reward of 10,000 pounds for information leading to those responsible, but past experience is not encouraging. People are unlikely to be tempted by such offers. The professional police will similarly be confronted by the usual problem of finding a needle in a haystack.
    That is why the intellectual (知识分子) community in Britain and elsewhere must act more vigorously in its own defence. There are several steps that can be taken, of which the chief one is to demand of all the organizations that exist with the declared objectives of safeguarding the interests of animals that they should declare clearly where they stand on violence towards people. And it will not be enough for the chairmen and chairwomen of these organizations to utter placatory (安抚的) statements on behalf of all their members. These people should also undertake that it will be a test of continuing membership in their organizations that members and would be members should declare that they will take no part in acts of violence against human beings. Even such undertakings would not be fully effective: people, after all, can lie. But at least they would distinguish the organizations entitled to a continuing voice in the dialogue with the research community about the rights of animals in research from the organizations that deserve no say.

    The earlier type of suburb, which was most dependent on the railroad, had a special advantage that could be fully appreciated only after it had disappeared. These suburbs, spread out along a railroad line, were discontinuous and properly spaced; and without the aid of legislation (法规) they were limited in population as well as area; for the biggest rarely held as many as ten thousand people, and under five thousand was more usual. In 1950, for example, Bronxville, New York, a typical upper-class suburb, had 6,778 people, while Riverside, Illinois, founded as early as 1869, had only 9.153.
    The size and scale of the suburb, that of neighborhood unit, was not entirely the result of its open planning, which favored low densities. Being served by a railroad line, with station stops from three to five miles apart, there was a natural limit to the spread of any particular community. House had to be sited “within easy walking distance of the railroad station,” as some old residents would point out; and only those wealthy enough to afford a horse and a carriage dared to penetrate farther into the open country.
    Through its spaced station stops, the railroad suburb was at first kept from spreading or excessively increasing in numbers, for a natural greenbelt, often still under cultivation as park, gardens, remained between the suburbs and increased the available recreation area. Occasionally, in a few happy areas like Westchester, between 1915 and 1935 a parkway, like the Bronx River parkway, accompanied by continuous strip of park for pedestrian (散步的人) use, not yet overrun by a constant stream of urban traffic, added to the perfection of the whole suburban pattern. Whatever one might say of the social disadvantages this was in many ways a perfect physical environment. But it lasted less than a generation.

    Recent stories in the newspapers and magazines suggest that teaching and research contradict each other, that research plays too prominent a part in academic promotions, and that teaching is badly underemphasized. There is an element of truth in these statements, but they also ignore deeper and more important relationships.
    Research experience is an essential element of hiring and promotion at a research university because it is the emphasis on research that distinguishes such a university from an arts college. Some professors, however, neglect teaching for research and that presents a problem.
    Most research universities reward outstanding teaching, but the greatest recognition is usually given for achievements in research. Part of the reason is the difficulty of judging teaching. A highly responsible and tough professor is usually appreciated by top students who want to be challenged, but disliked by those whose records are less impressive. The mild professor gets overall ratings that are usually high, but there is a sense of disappointment in the part of the best students, exactly those for whom the system should present the greatest challenges. Thus, a university trying to promote professors primarily on the teaching qualities would have to confront this confusion.
    As modern science moves faster, two forces are exerted on professor: one is the time needed to keep on with the profession; the other is the time needed to teach. The training of new scientists requires outstanding teaching at the research university as well as the arts college. Although scientists are usually “made” in the elementary schools, scientists can be “lost” by poor teaching at the college and graduate school levels. The solution is not to separate teaching and research, but to recognize that the combination is difficult but vital. The title of professor should be given only to those who profess, and it is perhaps time for universities to reserve it for those willing to be an earnest part of the community of scholars. Professor unwilling to teach can be called “distinguished research investigators” or something else.
    The pace of modern science makes it increasingly difficult to be a great researcher and a great teacher. Yet many are described in just those terms. Those who say we can separate teaching and research simply do not understand the system but those who say the problem will disappear are not fulfilling their responsibilities.

    I have had just about enough of being treated like a second-class citizen, simply because I happened to be that put upon member of society-a customer. The more I go into shops and hotels, banks and post offices, railway stations, airports and the like, the more I’m convinced that things are being run solely to suit the firm, the system, or the union. There seems to be a new motto (座右铭) for the so-called ‘service’ organization-Staff Before Service. How often, for example, have you queued for what seems like hours at the Post Office or the supermarket because there aren’t enough staff on duty at all the service counters? Surely in these days of high unemployment it must be possible to increase counter staff. Yet supermarkets, hinting darkly at higher prices, claim that bringing all their cash registers into operation at any time would increase expenses. And the Post Office says we cannot expect all their service counters to be occupied ‘at times when demand is low’.
    It’s the same with hotels. Because waiters and kitchen staff must finish when it suits them, dining rooms close earlier or menu choice is diminished. As for us guests (and how the meaning of that word has been cut away little by little), we just have to put up with it. There’s also the nonsense of so many friendly hotel night porters having been gradually with drawn from service in the interests of ‘efficiency’ (i.e. profits) and replaced by coin-eating machines which supply everything from beer to medicine, not to mention the creeping threat of the tea-making set in your room: a kettle with teabags, milk bags sugar. Who wants to wake up to a raw teabag? I don’t, especially when I am paying for ‘service’.
    Our only hope is to hammer our irritation whenever and wherever we can and, if all else fails, restore that other, older saying-Take Our Custom (买卖) Elsewhere.

    When you board a plane, a machine may soon be scanning more than your bags—it may be studying your face. A computer comes onto the market recently which (S1)promises to be able to recognize faces at a glance from a video (S2) camera.
    The system, known as PRES, has many possible use in (S3)different fields but the most prominent is like to be monitoring (S4) crowds at airports for known terrorists. Such a task is far from the capabilities of a conventional image processor, which is too quick to be of practical use. Moreover, it is too easily (S5)confused: if image of a face in its memory is only a frontal (S6)view. For example, they might not recognize that same face (S7)when presenting with a side view of the face. (S8)
    PARES relies in the new technology of neural (神经的) (S9) networks. Like the brain, it has many interconnected memory “cells”, which work simultaneously rather than in sequence and thus greatly speed up the computation. And like the brain, the neural network can be trained to concentrate on essentials while ignoring of inessential matters-it can “learn” what’s (S10) important and what isn’t. But the training is boring: an operator must patiently correct the computer’s mistakes.

Directions: For this part, you are allowed 30 minutes to write a composition on the title: Motorcycles and City Traffic. You should base your composition on the following outline (given in Chinese):
(1). 近年来中国城市中的摩托车
(2). 摩托车的优点和缺点
(3). 你对我国城市中摩托车发展前景的看法
You must write your composition in no less than 120 words on Composition Sheet and remember to write it in readable handwriting.

Motorcycles and City Traffic