In the early times,the music industry was terrified of taping,thinking that customers would just copy music,or record from the radio.But that never really happened,at least not enough to cause any real hardship to anyone in the music business.

    The same argument arose over technologies like miniDisc and recordable CDs.But the thing that terrified the music industry more than anything else was the arrival of services like Napster,which allowed people to share music over the Internet without costing them anything.The music industry was shocked: it saw people exchanging digital copies that didn't degrade（降级）with each transfer,something that kept tapes from being a huge threat.

    But it wasn't the Internet that killed the music industry.In fact,everything is still looking optimistic for many musicians.Taylor Swift has had a good year,and her latest album is likely to be making her very wealthy indeed.And that won't change in all likelihood,not for Swift,and not for those who come after her.There is always going to be public demand for music.

    However,the technology will simply destroy the record company.The reason is simple.Record companies are a man in the middle that simply doesn't need to exist anymore.The same way we buy our flights directly did get our shopping online and have things delivered from Amazon instead of going to a local shop.We have always been willing to enjoy cost reductions at the expense of the middleman and the record companies are that kind of middleman.

    What does the record industry offer?Well,surprisingly little these days.It used to be the case that record companies would go and find new talents.Of course this still happens,but more likely is that an artist will be discovered by the public through YouTube,or even from friends on Facebook or Twitter.Record companies also used to have an important role in producing the music.But countless artists are making their own way through software or any of the other amazing music development apps,without any help from the record companies.

    The law says women should have the chance of doing the same jobs as men and earn the same as them. The reality is very different. Women lose because, 25 years after the Equal Pay Act, many of them still get paid less than men. They lose because they do lower-paid jobs which men just won't consider. And they lose because they are the ones who interrupt a career to have children.  All this is reported in an independent study ordered by the Government's women's unit. The biggest problem isn't equal pay in workplaces such as factories. It is the sort of work women do.

    Make a list of low-paid-jobs, then consider who does them. Try nurses, secretaries, cleaners, clerks, teachers in primary schools, dinner ladies and child-care helpers. Not a lot of men among that group, are there? Yet some of those jobs are really important. Surely no one would deny that about nurses and teachers, for a start. So why do we reward the people who do them so poorly? There can be only one answer—because they are women. This is not going to be put right overnight. But the government, which employs a lot of them, and other bosses have to make a start.

    It is disgraceful (可耻的) that we have gone into the 21st century still treating women like second-class citizens.

    Many Americans think of driverless cars as a futuristic technology that will revolutionize travel in cities and along state highways. But recent experiments are proving that autonomous vehicles also have the potential to improve the quality of life for millions of Americans underserved by traditional modes of transportation, such as the elderly and disabled, so long as lawmakers make smart policies that pave the way for innovation.

    A retirement community in San Jose, Calif. , which has been transformed by a small fleet of driverless taxis, shows the potential of self-driving cars to transform people's lives. Built by a tech start-up called Voyage, the modified Ford Fusions are currently limited to a two-mile road, but residents are already having the benefits of these autonomous vehicles, which allow them to participate in social activities they would otherwise be unable to enjoy simply because they could not get to them.

    When the trial run finally expands to 15 miles of road, these residents—whose average age is 76—will also have a convenient and reliable new way to appointments. As these cars continue to serve residents there, it is easy to understand why California is moving to simplify regulations for the industry.

    In Michigan, forward-thinking policies have the potential to unlock other hidden benefits of autonomous vehicles, especially for those with physical disabilities. The Michigan Disability Rights Coalition has strongly advocated for the development of this technology, saying that it could give people with disabilities greater opportunities in the workforce and enable them to lead more fulfilling, independent lives.

    Many recognize that autonomous vehicles will be the future of transportation, but it is too often overlooked that this future cannot arrive fast enough for millions of Americans who are forced to depend on others for day-to-day travel. The policymakers should follow the lead of places like California and Michigan, and pass rules and regulations to unlock these hidden benefits of driverless cars.

    As self — driving cars come closer to being common on American roads, much of the rhetoric (说辞) promoting them has to do with safety. About 40,000 people die on U. S. roads every year, and driver errors are linked to more than 90 percent of crashes. But many of the biggest advocates of autonomous vehicles aren't car companies looking to improve the safety of their existing products. Huge backing for self - driving technologies is coming from Silicon Valley giants like Google and Apple.

    Those of us who have studied the relationship between technology and society tend to look more carefully at the motivations behind any technological push. In this case, it's clear that in addition to addressing safety concerns, Silicon Valley firms have a strong incentive (动机) to create a new venue for increasing the use of their digital devices. Every minute people spend on their mobile phones provides data - and often money - to tech companies.

    At present, digital devices and driving are in conflict: There are serious, often fatal, consequences when drivers use smartphones to talk or to text. Regulators and safety advocates look to resolve dial conflict by banning phone use while driving - as has happened in virtually every state. But the tech companies are taking a different approach. The obvious answer for Silicon Valley is creating an antomobile in which continuous cellphone use no longer poses a threat to anyone.

    In recent years, the amount of time adults spend on their mobile devices has grown rapidly. At the moment, it's around four hours a day for the average adult in the U. S. However, that rapid growth is likely to slow down as people run out of time that ' s available for them to use their devices. Unless, of course, there's a new block of time that suddenly opens up. The average American now spends about 48 minutes in a car every day, a sizable opportunity for increased cellphone use.

    So as the public conversation around autonomous cars highlights the safety advantages, don't forget the tech industry ' s powerful desire for more profits, which goes well beyond simply saving us from ourselves.

    You may be surprised to learn that English gets 30 to 45 percent of its words from French. The reason goes back to the year 1066, when Norman forces invaded（入侵）what is now Britain. The Normans were from northern France and spoke French. During the Norman occupation, French became the language of England's rulers and wealthy class. This lasted for more than 300 years. Other people in England continued to speak English during this period.

    Over time, the two languages combined and shared words. Some researchers believe that about 10,000 French words eventually entered the English language. However, although English took many French words, their meanings have not always stayed the same. Sometimes the differences in meanings can be very important, and lead to funny or strange situations if the words are used in the wrong way.

    Take, for example, the French word college. In English, college can often be used in place of the word university, or sometimes as a school within a university. However, in French, college actually means “middle school”, or the level of schooling for students in grades five or six through eight.

    There are many other similar words in the two languages with completely different meanings. In English, the word chat is a verb which means “to talk casually”; but in French, the word chat is the word for an animal: a cat.

    If an English speaker says someone is jolly, that means they are cheerful or friendly. But in French, jolie means someone is good-looking or pleasant to look at. In any case, both are nice things to say to someone.

    Charlie studied in a famous college for four years. He studied hard and did well in all his subjects. He hoped to become a good teacher. This year he left the college and began to work in a middle school. He likes his students and is strict with them. He does his best to make his classes lively and interesting.

    One day he carefully explained a chemical reaction to the students of Grade 2 in the chemistry lab.

    “Be careful, everyone,” he said loudly. “Before I make the experiment, there're twenty five atoms of carbon (碳原子), but after I finish it, there're twenty four atoms of carbon left!”

He stopped to watch the classroom and hoped his students would go on explaining it. But the young men looked at each other and nobody answered him. He had to ask,

    “What happens? What makes the atom lost?”

    The classroom was very quiet and none of the students looked at their teacher.

    “Who can tell us where it has gone?”

    Suddenly a soft voice came from the back row, “We did not see anybody leave the lab!”