Smartphones are our constant companions. For many of us, their glowing screens are a ubiquitous (十分普遍的) presence, drawing us in with endless distractions. They are in our hands as soon as we wake, and command our attention until the final moments before we fall asleep.
Steve Jobs would not approve.
In 2007, Jobs took the stage and introduced the world to the iPhone. If you watch the full speech, you will be surprised by how he imagined our relationship should be with this iconic (标志性的) invention. This vision is so different from the way most of us use these devices now.
In his remarks, Jobs spent an extended amount of time demonstrating how users could utilize (应用) its touch screen before detailing the many ways Apple engineers had improved the age-old process of making phone calls. “It’s the best iPod we’ve ever made,” Jobs exclaimed at one point. “The killer app is making calls,” he later added. Both lines drew thunderous applause.
The presentation confirms that Jobs imagined a simpler iPhone experience than the one we actually have more than a decade later. For example, there was no App Store when the iPhone was first introduced, and this was by design. Jobs was convinced that the phone’s carefully-designed native features were enough. He did not seek to completely change the rhythm of users’ daily lives. He simply wanted to take experiences we had already found important — listening to music, placing calls, generating directions — and make them better.
The minimalist (简约主义者) vision for the iPhone Jobs offered in 2007 is unrecognizable today — and that is a shame.
Under what I call the “constant companion model,” we now see our smartphones as always-on portal (通道) to information. We have become so used to it over the past decade that it is easy to forget the novelty (新奇) of the device. It seems increasingly clear to me that Jobs probably got it right from the very beginning: Many of us would be better-off returning to his original minimalist vision for our phones.
Practically speaking, to be a minimalist smartphone user means only using your device for a small number of features that do things of value to you. Otherwise, you simply put it away outside of these activities. This approach removes this gadget (小玩意) from the position of a constant companion down to a luxury object, such as a fancy bike, that gives you great pleasure when you use it but does not dominate your entire day.
Early in his 2007 keynote jobs said, “Today, Apple is going to reinvent the phone.” What he didn’t add, however, was the follow-up promise: “Tomorrow, we’re going to reinvent your life.” The smartphone is fantastic, but it was never meant to be the foundation for a new form of existence. If you return this innovation to its original role, you will get more out of both your phone and your life.
1. According to Steve Jobs, what was the main selling point of Apple’s first iPhone?A.It allowed its users to have access to the Internet. |
B.It was actually an iPod that could make phone calls. |
C.It was installed with applications by third-party developers. |
D.It could fulfill people’s desire to multitask in their daily lives. |
A.expect to reinvent his life with the device |
B.buy the latest model of iPhone and see it as a luxury |
C.spend more time working than playing with his device |
D.remove the unnecessary applications from the device |
A.the native features of smartphones | B.the information on the Internet |
C.the novelty of the device | D.the constant companion model |
A.The minimalism of iPhone helps users bring out the best of the device. |
B.Jobs expected iPhone to be the foundation for a new form of existence. |
C.Smartphone users have changed their life to enjoy pleasant experiences. |
D.The invention of App Store has made smartphones luxury objects. |
A.tell readers why Steve Job created the iPhone |
B.remind readers not to be addicted to their smartphones |
C.show readers that smartphones can greatly change their lives |
D.encourage readers to block Internet access on their smartphones |
相似题推荐
【推荐1】Technological change is everywhere and affects every aspect of life, mostly for the better. However, social changes brought about by new technology are often mistaken for a change in attitudes.
An example at hand is the involvement of parents in the lives of their children who are attending college. Surveys (调查) on this topic suggests that parents today continue to be “very” or “somewhat” overly-protective even after their children move into college dormitories. The same surveys also indicate that the rate of parental involvement is greater today than it was a generation ago. This is usually interpreted as a sign that today’s parents are trying to manage their children’s lives past the point where this behavior is appropriate.
However, greater parental involvement does not necessarily indicate that parents are failing to let go of their “adult” children.
In the context (背景) of this discussion, it seems valuable to first find out the cause of change in the case of parents’ involvement with their grown children. If parents of earlier generations had wanted to be in touch with their college-age children frequently, would this have been possible? Probably not. On the other hand, does the possibility of frequent communication today mean that the urge to do so wasn’t present a generation ago? Many studies show that older parents - today’s grandparents - would have called their children more often if the means and cost of doing so had not been a barrier.
Furthermore, studies show that finances are the most frequent subject of communication between parents and their college children. The fact that college students are financially dependent on their parents is nothing new; nor are requests for more money to be sent from home. This phenomenon is neither good nor bad; it is a fact of college life, today and in the past.
Thanks to the advanced technology, we live in an age of bettered communication. This has many implications well beyond the role that parents seem to play in the lives of their children who have left for college. But it is useful to bear in mind that all such changes come from the technology and not some imagined desire by parents to keep their children under their wings.
1. The surveys inform us of ______.A.the development of technology |
B.the changes of adult children’s behavior |
C.the parents’ over-protection of their college children |
D.the means and expenses of students’ communication |
A.parents today are more protective than those in the past |
B.the disadvantages of new technology outweigh its advantages |
C.technology explains greater parental involvement with their children |
D.parents’ changed attitudes lead to college children’s delayed Independence |
A.negative | B.supportive |
C.understandable | D.sceptical |
A.Technology or Attitude |
B.Dependence or Independence |
C.Family Influence or Social Changes |
D.College Management or Communication Advancement |
A. | B. |
C. | D. |
What may well be the oldest metal coins in the world have been identified at an ancient abandoned city known as Guanzhuang in China. Like many Bronze Age (青铜时代) coins from the region, they were cast in the shape of spades with finely carved handles. These ancient coins existed during an in-between period between barter (以物易物) and money, when coins were a novel concept, but everybody knew that agricultural tools were valuable.
Reading about this incredible discovery, I kept thinking about the way modern people represent computer networks by describing machines as having “addresses”, like a house. We also talk about one computer using a “port” to send information to another computer, as if the data were a floating boat with destination. It’s as if we are in the Bronze Age of information technology, grasping desperately for real-world reference to transform our civilization.
Now consider what happened to spade coins. Over centuries, metalworkers made these coins into more abstract shapes. Some became almost human figures. Others’ handles were reduced to small half-circles. As spade coins grew more abstract, people carved them with number values and the locations where they were made. They became more like modern coins, flat and covered in writing. Looking at one of these later pieces, you would have no idea that they were once intended to look like a spade.
This makes me wonder if we will develop an entirely new set of symbols that allow us to interact with our digital information more smoothly.
Taking spade coins as our guide, we can guess that far-future computer networks will no longer contain any recognizable references to houses. But they still might bring some of the ideas we associate with home to our mind. In fact, computer networks — if they still exist at all — are likely to be almost the indispensable part of our houses and cities, their sensors inset with walls and roads. Our network addresses might actually be the same as our street addresses. If climate change leads to floods, our mobile devices might look more like boats than phones, assisting us to land.
My point is that the metaphors of the information age aren’t random. Mobile devices do offer us comfort after a long day at work. In some sense, our desire to settle on the shores of data lakes could change the way we understand home, as well as how we build computers. So as we cast our minds forward, we have to think about what new abstractions will go along with our information technology. Perhaps the one thing we count on is that humans will still appreciate the comforts of home.
1. Many Bronze Age coins were made into the shape of a spade because ___________.A.a lot of emphasis was put on agriculture |
B.this stylish design made the coins valuable |
C.these coins also served as agricultural tools |
D.the handles made the coins easily exchanged |
A.To show they both used to be new concepts when first invented. |
B.To explain abstract digital worlds are different from concrete coins. |
C.To suggest computers will experience dramatic changes as coins did. |
D.To highlight their same importance in our civilizational transformation. |
A.Flexible. | B.Essential. | C.Wasteful. | D.Alternative. |
A.What Coins and Computers Bring Us |
B.How Agriculture Loses to Digital Industry |
C.How Bronze Age Develops to Information Age |
D.What Ancient Money Tells Us About the Future |
【推荐3】Both misinformation, which includes honest mistakes, and disinformation, which involves an intention to mislead, have had a growing impact on teenage students over the past 20 years. One tool that schools can use to deal with this problem is called media literacy education. The idea is to teach teenage students how to evaluate and think critically about the messages they receive. Yet there is profound disagreement about what to teach.
Some approaches teach students to distinguish the quality of the information in part by learning how responsible journalism works. Yet some scholars argue that these methods overstate journalism and do little to cultivate critical thinking skills. Other approaches teach students methods for evaluating the credibility of news and information sources, in part by determining the incentive of those sources. They teach students to ask: What encouraged them to create it and why? But even if these approaches teach students specific skills well, some experts argue that determining credibility of the news is just the first step. Once students figure out if it’s true or false, what is the other assessment and the other analysis they need to do?
Worse still, some approaches to media literacy education not only don’t work but might actually backfire by increasing students’ skepticism about the way the media work. Students may begin to read all kinds of immoral motives into everything. It is good to educate students to challenge their assumptions, but it’s very easy for students to go from healthy critical thinking to unhealthy skepticism and the idea that everyone is lying all the time.
To avoid these potential problems, broad approaches that help students develop mindsets in which they become comfortable with uncertainty are in need. According to educational psychologist William Perry of Harvard University, students go through various stages of learning. First, children are black-and-white thinkers—they think there are right answers and wrong answers. Then they develop into relativists, realizing that knowledge can be contextual. This stage is the one where people can come to believe there is no truth. With media literacy education, the aim is to get students to the next level—that place where they can start to see and appreciate the fact that the world is messy, and that’s okay. They have these fundamental approaches to gathering knowledge that they can accept, but they still value uncertainty.
Schools still have a long way to go before they get there, though. Many more studies will be needed for researchers to reach a comprehensive understanding of what works and what doesn’t over the long term. “Education scholars need to take an ambitious step forward,” says Howard Schneider, director of the Center for News Literacy at Stony Brook University.
1. As for media literacy education, what is the author’s major concern?A.How to achieve its goal. | B.How to measure its progress. |
C.How to avoid its side effects. | D.How to promote its importance. |
A.Importance. | B.Variety. | C.Motivation. | D.Benefit. |
A.compare different types of thinking |
B.evaluate students’ mind development |
C.explain a theory of educational psychology |
D.stress the need to raise students’ thinking levels |
A.Media Literacy Education: Much Still Remains |
B.Media Literacy Education: Schools Are to Blame |
C.Media Literacy Education: A Way to Identify False Information |
D.Media Literacy Education: A Tool for Testing Critical Thinking |
【推荐1】Teens are now less likely to do part time jobs,drink alcohol or go out without their parents than their counterpart 10 or 20 years ago.This generation of teens is delaying the responsibilities and pleasures of adulthood.Some people think that today's teens are more virtuous(品行端正的)and responsible.Others have suggested that today's teens aren't working because they are simply lazy.
To figure out what's really going on,we should look at these trends with"life history theory" taken into consideration.A"fast life method"was the more common parenting approach in the mid-20th century,when fewer labor-saving devices were available and the average woman had four children.The parents needed to focus on day to day survival.As a result,kids needed to care for themselves sooner.A"slow life method"on the other hand is more common in times and places where families have fewer children and spend more time on each child's growth and development.When the average family has two children,preparing for college can begin as early as primary schools.The two methods are adaptations to a particular cultural background,so each isn't naturally"good"or"bad".
Delaying exposure to alcohol,then,could make young adults less prepared to deal with drinking in college.One study found teens who rapidly increased there binge-drinking(酗酒)were more at risk of alcohol dependence than those who learned to drink over a longer period of time.The same might be true of teens who don't work,drive or go out much in high school. College administrators describe students who can't do anything without calling their parents. Employers worry that more young employees lack the ability to work independently.
However,the"slow-life method"is also likely beneficial as teens are spending more time developing socially and emotionally before they drive,drink alcohol and work for pay.The key is to make sure that teens eventually get the opportunity to develop the skills they will need as adults: independence,along with social and decision making skills.For parents,this might mean pushing their teenagers out of the house more.
1. According to the text,teens in the past were more____.A.reliable | B.outgoing |
C.intelligent | D.independent |
A.Social standard |
B.Cultural changes |
C.Educational development. |
D.Methods of education |
A.Spend less time in accompanying their children. |
B..Force their children to leave home at an early age. |
C.Encourage their children to take part in social activities. |
D.Help their children to get to adulthood as soon as possible. |
A.How teens develop skills they need in future |
B.Teens take no responsibility for what they do |
C.Why today's teens aren't in any hurry to grow up |
D.Nowadays teens can't make decisions by themselves |
【推荐2】Great work is work that makes a difference in people’s lives, writes David Sturt, Executive Vice President of the O.C. Tanner Institute, in his book Great Work: How to Make a Difference People Love. Sturt insists, however, that great work is not just for surgeons or special-needs educators or the founders of organizations trying to eliminate poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. The central theme of Great Work, according to Sturt, is that anyone can make a difference in any job. It’s not the nature of the job, but what you do with the job that counts. As proof, Sturt tells the story of a remarkable hospital cleaner named Moses.
In a building filled with doctors and nurses doing great life-saving work, Moses the cleaner makes a difference. Whenever he enters a room, especially a room with a sick child, he engages both patients and parents with his optimism and calm, introducing himself to the child and, Sturt writes, speaking “little comments about light and sunshine and making things clean.” He comments on any progress he sees day by day (“you’re sitting up today, that’s good.”) Moses is no doctor and doesn’t pretend to be, but he has witnessed hundreds of sick children recovering from painful surgery, and parents take comfort from his encouraging words. For Matt and Mindi, whose son McKay was born with only half of a heart, Moses became a close friend. As Sturt explains, “Moses took his innate (与生俱来的) talents (his sensitivity) and his practical wisdom (from years of hospital experience) and combined them into a powerful form of patient and family support that changed the critical-care experience for Mindi, Matt and little McKay.”
How do people like Moses do great work when so many people just work? That was the central question raised by Sturt and his team at the O.C. Tanner Institute, a consulting company specialized in employee recognition and rewards system.
O.C. Tanner launched an exhaustive Great Work study that included surveys to 200 senior executives, a further set of surveys to 1,000 managers and employees working on projects, an in-depth qualitative study of 1.7 million accounts of award-winning work (in the form of nominations (提名) for awards from corporations around the world), and one-on-one interviews with 200 difference makers. The results of the study revealed that those who do great work refuse to be defeated by the constraints of their jobs and are especially able to reframe their jobs: they don’t view their jobs as a list of tasks and responsibilities but see their jobs as opportunities to make a difference. No matter, as Moses so ably exemplifies (例证), what that job may be.
1. According to Sturt, which of the following is TRUE?A.It’s not the nature of the job, but what you do that makes a difference. |
B.Anyone in the world is responsible to delete poverty and change the world. |
C.Anyone can make a difference in people’s lives no matter what kind of job he does. |
D.Surgeons, special-needs educators and founders of organizations can succeed more easily. |
A.By keeping optimistic and calm when facing patients and their parents at hospital. |
B.By showing his special gift and working experience when working at hospital. |
C.By showing his sympathy and kindness to patients when entering their rooms. |
D.By pretending to be a doctor or nurse when entering a room with a sick child. |
A.demands | B.advantages | C.disadvantages | D.limitations |
A.Great work is work that makes a difference in people’s lives no matter what you do. |
B.If a boss has trouble recognizing his employees, he can ask O. C. Tanner for advice. |
C.Moses makes a difference through his sensitivity and his practical wisdom. |
D.Those who do great work are never defeated by others or their jobs themselves. |
【推荐3】The environmental practices of big businesses are shaped by a fundamental fact that offends our sense of justice. A business may maximize the amount of money it makes by damaging the environment and hurting people. When government regulation is effective, and the public is environmentally aware, environmentally clean big businesses may out-compete dirty ones, but the reverse is likely to be true if government regulation is ineffective and the public doesn’t care.
It is easy to blame a business for helping itself by hurting other people. But blaming alone is unlikely to produce change. It ignores the fact that businesses are not charities but profit-making companies, and they are under obligation to maximize profits for shareholders by legal means.
Our blaming of businesses also ignores the ultimate responsibility of the public for creating the conditions that let a business profit through destructive environmental policies. In the long run, it is the public, either directly or through its politicians, that has the power to make such destructive policies unprofitable and illegal, and to make sustainable environmental policies profitable.
The public can do that by accusing businesses of harming them. The public may also make their opinion felt by choosing to buy sustainably harvested products; by preferring their governments to award valuable contracts to businesses with a good environmental track record; and by pressing their governments to pass and enforce laws and regulations requiring good environmental practices.
In turn, big businesses can exert powerful pressure on any suppliers that might ignore public or government pressure. For instance, after the US public became concerned about the spread of a disease, transmitted to humans through infected meat, the US government introduced rules demanding that the meat industry abandon practices associated with the risk of the disease spreading. But the meat packers refused to follow these, claiming that they would be too expensive to obey. However, when a fast-food company made the same demands after customer purchases of its hamburgers dropped, the meat industry followed immediately. The public’s task is therefore to identify which links in the supply chain are sensitive to public pressure.
Some readers may be disappointed or outraged that I place the ultimate responsibility for business practices harming the public on the public itself. I also believe that the public must accept the necessity for higher prices for products to cover the added costs of sound environmental practices. My views may seem to ignore the belief that businesses should act in accordance with moral principles even if this leads to a reduction in their profits. But I think we have to recognize that, throughout human history, government regulation has arisen precisely because it was found that not only did moral principles need to be made explicit, they also needed to be enforced.
My conclusion is not a moralistic one about who is right or wrong, admirable or selfish. I believe that changes in public attitudes are essential for changes in businesses’ environmental practices.
1. The main idea of Paragraph 3 is that environmental damage__________.A.is the result of ignorance of the public |
B.requires political action if it is to be stopped |
C.can be prevented by the action of ordinary people |
D.can only be stopped by educating business leaders |
A.reduce their own individual impact on the environment |
B.learn more about the impact of business on the environment |
C.raise awareness of the effects of specific environmental disasters |
D.influence the environmental policies of businesses and governments |
A.Meat packers stopped supplying hamburgers to fast-food chains. |
B.Meat packers persuaded the government to reduce their expenses. |
C.A fast-food company forced their meat suppliers to follow the law. |
D.A fast-food company encouraged the government to introduce regulations. |
A.Will the world survive the threat caused by big businesses? |
B.How can big businesses be encouraged to be less driven by profit? |
C.What environmental dangers are caused by the greed of businesses? |
D.Are big businesses to blame for the damage they cause to the environment? |