which is(are) E－business company?A、BaiduB、AlibabaC、AmazonD、Google

Frankenstein's monster haunts discussions of the ethics of artificial intetligence:the fear is that scientists will create something that has purposes and even desires of its own and which will carry them out at the expense of human beings.This is a misleading picture because it suggests that there will be a moment at which the monster comes alive:the switch is thrown,the program run,and after that its human creators can do nothing more.In real life there will be no such singularity.Construction of AI and its deployment will be continuous processes,with humans involved and to some extent responsible at every step.This is what makes Google'-s declarations of ethical principles for its use of AI so significant,because it seems to be the result of a revolt among the company's programmers.The senior management at Google saw the supply of AI to the Pentagon as a goldmine,if only it could be kept from public knowledge."Avoid at all costs any mention or implication of Al,"wrole Google Cloud's chief scientist for AI in a memo."I don't know what would happen if the media starts picking up a theme that Google is building AI weapons or AI technologies to enable weapons for the Defense industry."That,of course,is exactly what the company had been doing.Google had been subcontracting for the Pentagon on Project Maven,which was meant to bring the benefits of AI to war-fighting.Then the media found out and more than 3,000 0f its own employees prote.sted.Only iwo things frighten the tech giants:onc i.s the stock market;the other is an organised workforce.The employees'agitation led to Google announcing six principles of ethical AI,among them that it will not make weapons systems.or technologies whose purpose,or use in surveillance,violates international principles of human rights.This still leaves a huge intentional exception:profiting from"non-lethal"defence technology.Obviously we cannot expect all companies,still less all programmers,to show this kind of ethical fine-tuning.Other companies will bid for Pentagon business:Google had to beat IBM,Amazon and Microsoft to gain the Maven contract.But in all these cases,the companies involved-which means the people who work for them-will be actively involved in maintaining,tweaking and improving the work.This opens an opportunity for consistent ethical pressure and for the attribution of responsibility to human beings and not to inanimate objects.Questions about the ethics of artificial intelligence are questions about the ethics of the people who make it and the purposes they put it to.It is not the monster,but the good Dr Frankenstein we need to worry about most.
Which of the following is true according to Paragraph 3?

A.Google had been developing war-related Al secretly.
B.Google prioritizes employees'opinions over profits.
C.Google promises not to profit from AI-related defence technology.
D.Google's six principles violate international principles of human rights.

Frankenstein's monster haunts discussions of the ethics of artificial intetligence:the fear is that scientists will create something that has purposes and even desires of its own and which will carry them out at the expense of human beings.This is a misleading picture because it suggests that there will be a moment at which the monster comes alive:the switch is thrown,the program run,and after that its human creators can do nothing more.In real life there will be no such singularity.Construction of AI and its deployment will be continuous processes,with humans involved and to some extent responsible at every step.This is what makes Google'-s declarations of ethical principles for its use of AI so significant,because it seems to be the result of a revolt among the company's programmers.The senior management at Google saw the supply of AI to the Pentagon as a goldmine,if only it could be kept from public knowledge."Avoid at all costs any mention or implication of Al,"wrole Google Cloud's chief scientist for AI in a memo."I don't know what would happen if the media starts picking up a theme that Google is building AI weapons or AI technologies to enable weapons for the Defense industry."That,of course,is exactly what the company had been doing.Google had been subcontracting for the Pentagon on Project Maven,which was meant to bring the benefits of AI to war-fighting.Then the media found out and more than 3,000 0f its own employees prote.sted.Only iwo things frighten the tech giants:onc i.s the stock market;the other is an organised workforce.The employees'agitation led to Google announcing six principles of ethical AI,among them that it will not make weapons systems.or technologies whose purpose,or use in surveillance,violates international principles of human rights.This still leaves a huge intentional exception:profiting from"non-lethal"defence technology.Obviously we cannot expect all companies,still less all programmers,to show this kind of ethical fine-tuning.Other companies will bid for Pentagon business:Google had to beat IBM,Amazon and Microsoft to gain the Maven contract.But in all these cases,the companies involved-which means the people who work for them-will be actively involved in maintaining,tweaking and improving the work.This opens an opportunity for consistent ethical pressure and for the attribution of responsibility to human beings and not to inanimate objects.Questions about the ethics of artificial intelligence are questions about the ethics of the people who make it and the purposes they put it to.It is not the monster,but the good Dr Frankenstein we need to worry about most.
Which of the following is the best title of the text?

A.The Ethics of AI:It's about Dr Frankenstein,Not His Monster
B.The Path to Advanced AI:It I.ies in Ethics,Not in Technologies
C.The Nature of Project Maven:A Conspiracy to Misuse AI
D.Google's Principles of Ethical AI:A Wake-up Call to the Threat of AI

Text 2 Google or,technically,Alphabet,the holding company that the firm established in 2015,has its fingers in many fields.But the company's main business,which pays for all ofits spending elsewhere,is digital advertising,which in 2017 accounted for more than 86%ofits$lllbn revenue.It may seem odd,then,that Google's latest move is to aid ad-blocking.On February 15th,Chrome,its web browser,which has a 59%market share,switched on code to block certain online advertisements.In doing so it joins an established trend.Third-party ad-blocking software is available already for Chrome but only for its desktop version.As well as being built in and thus on by default,the new blocker will work on smartphones.Web publishers will not welcome another threat to the efficacy of advertising,their main source ofincome.Google at least promises that only pages which display the most annoying ads-those that automatically play videos with sound,for instance-will fall foul ofits new filter.What counts as annoying is defined by the Coalition for Better Ads,a group of advertisers,technology firms and other companies of which Google is a member.The online-ad industry has over the years developed an unusually hostile relationship with those to whom its products are served.In the early days of the internet,jiggling,brightly coloured animations were common.Pop-up advertisements,some of them uncloseable,became so prevalent that browsers such as Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator were modified to try to stop them.Ads may be more sophisticated now but still find ways to irritate.Dodgy ones are a popular delivery route for malware.The ad industry,indeed,is in an arms race with blocker-writers.Many sites now try to detect ad-blockers,and force users to disable them if they want to visit websites.The ad-blockers have retaliated with techniques to dodge the detectors,and so on.Google's move thus looks like an attempt to save online advertising from itself.It is also launching a service called"Funding Choices"that is designed to allow website operators to invite people who use ad-blockers to pay small amounts to view their pages instead.Its new products could land it in trouble.Margrethe Vestager,the European Union's competition chief,tweeted last year that she would be"closely"following the firm's ad-filtering efforts.The worry is that by defining what counts as an acceptable ad Google will amass still more power over online advertising.The European Commission fined it 2.4bn（$2.9bn）in 2017 for giving its price-comparison shopping service preferential treatment in search results over rival offerings.It was unclear that users of such services lost out much.Consumers also have lots to gain if Chrome can help stem the ad onslaught.26.Technically speaking,the author would agree that

A.Google is a holding company that set up by Alphabet in 2015.
B.Google's holding company benefits from lots ofbusinesses.
C.Google's business is mainly in the field of digital advertising.
D.Google has given up blocking certain online ads recently.

Text 4 Alphabet Inc.'s most successful product-the Google search engine-may now be its most problematic.On Tuesday,the European Commission's top antitrust regulator levied a$2.7-billion fine against Alphabet and Google for the way the search engine handles requests for information about products.Specifically,Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said that Google twisted its results to bury links to rival companies'comparison shopping sites while prominently featuring its own service,Google Shopping.Google responded that it's simply trying to give users what they want and denied"favoring ourselves,or any particular site or seller."It has a lot at stake:Google has integrated many different offerings into its search engine,including its mapping and travel services.The principle advanced by Vestager,however,is a good one:Giant online companies shoulcl not be able to take advantage of their dominance in one field to hurt competitors in another.Google's argument is:It integrated Google Shopping,which offers links to products at sites that advertise on Google.into its search engine because that gave users quicker access to the information they were seeking.And in the United States,the key question in antitrust!aw is whether a company's behavior hurts users,not whether it hurts the company's competitors.European regulators focus more on competitors,but they really are two sides of the same coin.If competitors are unfairly closed out,the public can miss out on the very real benefits that vigorous competition provides.At the same time,it's undeniable that the public has welcomed virtual monopolies in search,social media and other services in the Internet era.A large part of the appeal of sites like Facebook and Twitter is that so many people use them.There's a network effect for social media apps in particular-the more people who use the service,the more valuable it becomes to them.Meanwhile,start-ups come out of nowhere to create whole new categories of must-have apps and proclucts online.That means dominant companies have to innovate too,or else they can easily change from today's thing to yesterday's.And often,that innovation involves finding a better way to do something that a competitor is doing.The challenge for regulators is to provide the big companies space to try new things without grossly disrupting the market,closing out other companies and reducing consumer choice,which will ultimately lead to less innovation.A good place to start is by focusing on cases where there is evidence of intentional undermining of competitors-where a dominant company alters the platform it provides not just to feature its own services,but to make it harder to find or use its rivals'.
The author argues that regulators should_____

A.leave room for dominant companies to innovate
B.help small companies enhance competitiveness
C.encourage companies to increase product variety
D.prohibit featuring services on company platforms

Text 4 Alphabet Inc.'s most successful product-the Google search engine-may now be its most problematic.On Tuesday,the European Commission's top antitrust regulator levied a$2.7-billion fine against Alphabet and Google for the way the search engine handles requests for information about products.Specifically,Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said that Google twisted its results to bury links to rival companies'comparison shopping sites while prominently featuring its own service,Google Shopping.Google responded that it's simply trying to give users what they want and denied"favoring ourselves,or any particular site or seller."It has a lot at stake:Google has integrated many different offerings into its search engine,including its mapping and travel services.The principle advanced by Vestager,however,is a good one:Giant online companies shoulcl not be able to take advantage of their dominance in one field to hurt competitors in another.Google's argument is:It integrated Google Shopping,which offers links to products at sites that advertise on Google.into its search engine because that gave users quicker access to the information they were seeking.And in the United States,the key question in antitrust!aw is whether a company's behavior hurts users,not whether it hurts the company's competitors.European regulators focus more on competitors,but they really are two sides of the same coin.If competitors are unfairly closed out,the public can miss out on the very real benefits that vigorous competition provides.At the same time,it's undeniable that the public has welcomed virtual monopolies in search,social media and other services in the Internet era.A large part of the appeal of sites like Facebook and Twitter is that so many people use them.There's a network effect for social media apps in particular-the more people who use the service,the more valuable it becomes to them.Meanwhile,start-ups come out of nowhere to create whole new categories of must-have apps and proclucts online.That means dominant companies have to innovate too,or else they can easily change from today's thing to yesterday's.And often,that innovation involves finding a better way to do something that a competitor is doing.The challenge for regulators is to provide the big companies space to try new things without grossly disrupting the market,closing out other companies and reducing consumer choice,which will ultimately lead to less innovation.A good place to start is by focusing on cases where there is evidence of intentional undermining of competitors-where a dominant company alters the platform it provides not just to feature its own services,but to make it harder to find or use its rivals'.
According to Paragraph 2,the author views Google's activity with——.

A.sympathy
B.uncertainty
C.appreciation
D.criticism

The information commissioner gave Facebook a rap over the knuckles earlier this month,putting the company on notice of likely fines-the equivalent of a few minutes'revenue-for breaches of privacy.On Wednesday the European commission gave Google a vigorous correction,fining it￠4.3 billion for abusing its market dominance with the AndrOJd operating system which powers the overwhelming majority of the world's mobile phones.Google is appealing.The billions of euros at stake aside,it is easy to see why.Google gives most of Android away,not only to the consumers who use it,but to the companies that build their phones around it.As the company points out,there are more than 24,000 competing Android phones available today,from 1,300 companies.How can that possibly constitute a harmful monopoly?Besides,Google has real competition in the smartphone world from Apple.At the same time,these are exactly the factors that make the commission's decision so interesLing and significant.For Google's business to work,it must become as easy as possible for advertisers to reach users.That is the purpose of all the software that Google gives away,from the Android operating system,through to YouTube,Google search on phones and the Chrome browser.This might look like a cross-subsidy,but on the other hand it is the heart of the company's business.The software that Google gives away is not designed to make a profit on its own.This free version does not include the bits that make a phone useful for anything but making telephone calls,and this was the weak spot in Google's defence.None of the enticements-the mail,the search,the maps and the browser-are included.These can only be used with a proprietary chunk of software that Google controls;and manufacturers who want to use the Play store and 11 crucial Google apps must agree not to build so much as a single phone that does not include them.It is all or nothing.This licensing trick is the way in which Google has undoubtedly limited competition.The commission's decision to punish it probably comes too late to undo the damage it has done.All digital businesses tend towards a monopoly,and this is in part because in some important ways they benefit consumers more the larger they grow.Yet as customers we pay for this in other ways and as citizens even more so,not least because the companies fattened by monopoly profits grow too large to fail and too powerful to challenge.There is a public interest in preventing any company from acquiring almost unlimited power.Regulation defends democracy.
Which of the following is true of Google's licensing trick?

A.It is of great use to some users,but of little use to others.
B.It offers many enticing functions to Android users for free.
C.It imposes a restriction on manufacturers'choice of apps
D.It may help Google escape punishment from the commission.

The information commissioner gave Facebook a rap over the knuckles earlier this month,putting the company on notice of likely fines-the equivalent of a few minutes'revenue-for breaches of privacy.On Wednesday the European commission gave Google a vigorous correction,fining it￠4.3 billion for abusing its market dominance with the AndrOJd operating system which powers the overwhelming majority of the world's mobile phones.Google is appealing.The billions of euros at stake aside,it is easy to see why.Google gives most of Android away,not only to the consumers who use it,but to the companies that build their phones around it.As the company points out,there are more than 24,000 competing Android phones available today,from 1,300 companies.How can that possibly constitute a harmful monopoly?Besides,Google has real competition in the smartphone world from Apple.At the same time,these are exactly the factors that make the commission's decision so interesLing and significant.For Google's business to work,it must become as easy as possible for advertisers to reach users.That is the purpose of all the software that Google gives away,from the Android operating system,through to YouTube,Google search on phones and the Chrome browser.This might look like a cross-subsidy,but on the other hand it is the heart of the company's business.The software that Google gives away is not designed to make a profit on its own.This free version does not include the bits that make a phone useful for anything but making telephone calls,and this was the weak spot in Google's defence.None of the enticements-the mail,the search,the maps and the browser-are included.These can only be used with a proprietary chunk of software that Google controls;and manufacturers who want to use the Play store and 11 crucial Google apps must agree not to build so much as a single phone that does not include them.It is all or nothing.This licensing trick is the way in which Google has undoubtedly limited competition.The commission's decision to punish it probably comes too late to undo the damage it has done.All digital businesses tend towards a monopoly,and this is in part because in some important ways they benefit consumers more the larger they grow.Yet as customers we pay for this in other ways and as citizens even more so,not least because the companies fattened by monopoly profits grow too large to fail and too powerful to challenge.There is a public interest in preventing any company from acquiring almost unlimited power.Regulation defends democracy.
Google gives away certain software to

A.respond actively io the commission's decision.
B.make itself easily accessible to advertisers.
C.draw people into its advertising ecosystem.
D.avoid distractions from its core business.

"Google is not a conventional company.We do not I to become one,"wrote Larry Page and Sergey Brin,the search firm's founders,in a letter to investors ahead ofits stockmarket flotation in 2004.Since then,Google has bumished its reputation 2 0ne ofthe quirkiest companies on the planet.This year alone it has 3 eyebrows by taking a stake in a wind-energy project off the east coast ofAmerica and by testing self-driving cars,which have already_4 0ver 140,000 miles（225,OOOkm）on the country's roads.Google has been able to 5 such flights of fancy 6 its amazingly successful online-search business.This has 7 handsome returns for the firm's investors,who have seen the company 8 itselfin the space ofa mere 12 years from a tiny start-up into a behemoth with a$180 billion market capitalisation that sprawls 9 a vast headquarters in Silicon Valley known as the Googleplex.Google 10 stretches across the web like a giant spider,with a leg in everything from online search and e-mail to social networking and web-based software applications,or apps.All this has turned Google into a force to be reckoned with.11 now the champion of the unorthodox is faced with two conventional business challenges.The first 12 placating regulators,who fret that it may be abusing its considerable 13.On November 30th the European Union 14 a formal investigation into claims that Google has been 15 search results to give an unfair advantage to its own services-a charge the firm vigorously 16.The other challenge facing Google is how to find new sources of growth.17 all the experiments it has launched,the firm is still heavily dependent on search-related advertising.Ironically,investors'biggest worry is that Google will end 18 like Microsoft,which has 19 to find big new sources of 20 and profit to replace those from its two ageing ponies,the Windows operating system and the Omce suite of business software.That explains why Google's share price has stagnated.6选？

A.account for
B.due to
C.lead to
D.contribute to

Text 4 Alphabet Inc.'s most successful product-the Google search engine-may now be its most problematic.On Tuesday,the European Commission's top antitrust regulator levied a$2.7-billion fine against Alphabet and Google for the way the search engine handles requests for information about products.Specifically,Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said that Google twisted its results to bury links to rival companies'comparison shopping sites while prominently featuring its own service,Google Shopping.Google responded that it's simply trying to give users what they want and denied"favoring ourselves,or any particular site or seller."It has a lot at stake:Google has integrated many different offerings into its search engine,including its mapping and travel services.The principle advanced by Vestager,however,is a good one:Giant online companies shoulcl not be able to take advantage of their dominance in one field to hurt competitors in another.Google's argument is:It integrated Google Shopping,which offers links to products at sites that advertise on Google.into its search engine because that gave users quicker access to the information they were seeking.And in the United States,the key question in antitrust!aw is whether a company's behavior hurts users,not whether it hurts the company's competitors.European regulators focus more on competitors,but they really are two sides of the same coin.If competitors are unfairly closed out,the public can miss out on the very real benefits that vigorous competition provides.At the same time,it's undeniable that the public has welcomed virtual monopolies in search,social media and other services in the Internet era.A large part of the appeal of sites like Facebook and Twitter is that so many people use them.There's a network effect for social media apps in particular-the more people who use the service,the more valuable it becomes to them.Meanwhile,start-ups come out of nowhere to create whole new categories of must-have apps and proclucts online.That means dominant companies have to innovate too,or else they can easily change from today's thing to yesterday's.And often,that innovation involves finding a better way to do something that a competitor is doing.The challenge for regulators is to provide the big companies space to try new things without grossly disrupting the market,closing out other companies and reducing consumer choice,which will ultimately lead to less innovation.A good place to start is by focusing on cases where there is evidence of intentional undermining of competitors-where a dominant company alters the platform it provides not just to feature its own services,but to make it harder to find or use its rivals'.
Which of the following statements about virtual monopolies is true?

A.They are increasingly denied by the public.
B.They are facing great pressure of innovation.
C.They are attempting to cooperate with start-ups.
D.They are suffering badly from the network effect.