The
Future Is on Our Doorstep
A topic
that has become a growing part of conversation in the tech industry and beyond
is the Internet of Things (IoT). _(1)_ Though it may seem like something from
some far-off future, it is estimated that around 26
billion devices will be connected to the IoT by 2020. Many IoT applications now
exist in our everyday lives. _(2)_ However, these simple sensors embedded in
physical things can become something far grander.
The IoT
has the potential to become a system of intelligent devices that collect data
and communicate with each other via cloud computing and other networks. _(3)_ A bigger picture of IoT would include not simply
smart homes with intelligent devices, but smart cities.
Imagine
smart traffic cameras in cities communicating with one another to create an
efficient citywide▼ transportation system. _(4)_ It can
also connect to other city networks, producing an even larger framework of
systems. For example, if an accident happened near an airport or a school, the
traffic system could notify one of those two setups▼,
and flight or school schedules could be adjusted accordingly. _(5)_ Clearly,
the potential of a future with the IoT is vast. With a complete transformation
of our lives, businesses, and world underway, are you ready for the next big
thing?
(A) However,
some doubt if IoT has the potential to make a positive impact on our society.
(B) For example,
there is wearable tech, such as FitBit, that tracks our fitness and sleep, and
there is home automation, like Nest.
(C) The best
routes around the accident could also be sent to traffic signs to guide
drivers.
(D) British
entrepreneur Kevin Ashton coined the term in 1999, but the concept of connected
devices has been around since at least the 1970s.
(E) This system
can monitor congestion, accidents, and weather conditions.
(F) A smart
fridge can notice you are running low on milk through its internal sensors and
text you about it.
Even without assigned seating,
it is a little surprising how many people always choose the same seat in a
classroom or auditorium. Or the same table in a
restaurant. Or even the same bicycle from a full rack (n.（通常帶有橫檔或鉤子的）架子，置物架) of rental bikes. After close observation, psychologists believe they have figured out the reason for this behavior.
In one such study, Marco Costa, a psychologist at the University of
Bologna in Italy, selected two lecture halls for a sample of 47 and 31
students. Costa purposefully chose rooms where there were more seats than
students so that they had more freedom to choose where to sit. He set up hidden
cameras to record how the students chose their seats over a period of four
weeks. As suspected, most students picked the same seat over and over. But why?
Costa calls this habit “territoriality (n. 領域感).” The word often makes us think of gangs protecting their turf (n. 地盤，勢力範圍) or wolf packs fighting off
other packs to control a certain area. In other words, territoriality usually
suggests aggression and defense. However, Costa as well as another
psychologist, Professor Robert Gifford of the University of Victoria, believes
that this seat-choosing behavior is designed to keep the peace. “Most of the time, most people claim a space and others tacitly (adv.
心照不宣地) agree to it,” Gifford explained.
The phenomenon of classroom seating selection perhaps shows an even deeper
truth. Life can be messy and unpredictable. The reason students go to school is
to study. Going to class and knowing where you will sit is just one less thing
to distract a student from this greater purpose. In short, sitting in the same
place sets students up for a psychologically more comfortable learning
environment and makes it easier for them to concentrate on the lecture at hand.
-------------------------------------
1. What is the main idea of this
passage?
(A) To suggest the best seat in
the classroom to choose from.
(B) To explain why people tend
to choose the same seat.
(C) To show that seat selection
is just a random act.
(D) To illustrate the reason why
people don’t pick the same seat.
-------------------------------------
2. Why didn’t Costa choose a
room with the same number of seats as students?
(A) He could not find rooms of
the perfect size for his experiment.
(B) He did not want students to
start fighting over their seat choices.
(C) He was not interested in the
aspect of territoriality among students.
(D) He wanted students to have
more choice in their seat selection.
-------------------------------------
3. What surprising results do
Costa’s and Gifford’s experiments show about territoriality?
(A) Only students exhibit this
kind of human behavior.
(B) Territoriality applies only
to classrooms and not restaurants.
(C) The larger the classroom,
the less chance there is of aggression.
(D) Though territoriality
suggests aggression, it actually increases peaceful interactions.
-------------------------------------
4. What can be concluded from
the passage?
(A) To have a better choice of
seating, always arrive early to a class or theater.
(B) Choosing the same seat can
reduce psychological stress.
(C) Seating choice is a
privilege, not a right.
(D) Aggressive behavior is
natural so people should not be ashamed of it.
答案： 1. B 2. D 3. D 4. B
沒有留言:
張貼留言