His encounter( )the dog had completelly unnerved him.

Although the teacher has explained to us，the meaning of the article is still( )to me.

My( )your proposal speaks volumes for my will.

My father often works( )into the night，which moves me( ).

The( )at the military academy is so rigid that some people cannot endure it.

So involved with their computers( )that leaders at summer computer camps often have to force them to break for sports and games.

Typical of the grassland dwellers of the continent( )，or pronghorn.

It was the training that he had as a young man( )made him such a good engineer.

The army is too( )to strike back.

Looking like a common object，the key chain has a(n)( )meaning to me.

Her mother is one of the representatives of( )feminism.

The passengers in missing airplane were( )dead after several months of search.

The unique island( )of Hainan attracts hundreds of thousands of tourists every year.

Perhaps the most significant postwar trend was the decentralization of cities throughout the UnitedStates，( )when massive highway-building programs permitted greater suburban growth.

Mike was one of my( )customers.

The old man has developed a( )headache which cannot be cured in a short time.

In the Canadian parliamentary system，( )holds the highest position.

The two main islands of the British Isles are( ).

In which day is Halloween celebrated？( )

( )is the dividing line between the South and North of America.

The Commonwealth of Australia was established in( )

Which of the following is not the function of the Australian parliament？( )

The direct cause for the Reformation was King Henry VIII’s effort to( )

The polices of the Conservative Party are characterized by pragmatism and( ).

Quebec province in Canada has a strong _____ culture.

The following American states are among the first thirteen colonies except( ).

Washington D.C.is named after( ).

The“three arms of government” of Australia refers to the Parliament，the Executive Government and( )

According to the maxim of ( ) suggested by Grice， one should speak truthfully.

Of Dickens′ novels，( )is considered most autobiographical.

Of the following books，( )is Not written by Thomas Hardy.

Of the following writers，( )is NOT included in the group of naturalists.

Which of the following is NOT a usual subject of Emily Dickenson′s poems？( )

Theodore Dreiser ′s works include the following EXCEPT ( )

-Would you mind telling me your address？-Somewhere in the southern of Handan.Which maxim of the Cooperative Principle that above example violates？( )

NP and ( ) are essential components of a sentence.

Conceptual meaning is not ( )

John is reading an interesting book on evolution theory which was written by Charles Darwin，who was a British naturalist who developed a theory of evolution based on natural selection.What design feature of language is reflected in the example？( )

A sentence is considered when it conforms to the grammatical knowledge in the mind of ( ) native speakers.

( ) are bound morphemes because they can not be used as separate words.

The vowel ( ) is a low back vowel.

Children as young as four will study Shakespeare in a project being launched today by the Royal Shakespeare Company.

　　The RSC is holding its first national conference for primary school teachers to encourage them to use the Bard’s plays imaginatively in the classroom from reception classes onwards. The conference will be told that they should learn how Shakespearian characters like Puck in?A Midsummer Night’s Dream?are “jolly characters” and how to write about them.

　　At present, the national curriculum does not require pupils to approach Shakespeare until secondary school. All it says is that pupils should study “texts drawn from a variety of cultures and traditions” and “myths, legends and traditional stories”.

　　However, educationists at the RSC believe children will gain a better appreciation of Shakespeare if they are introduced to him at a much younger age. “Even very young children can enjoy Shakespeare’s plays,” said Mary Johnson, head of the learning department. “It is just a question of pitching it for the age group. Even reception classes and key stage one pupils (five-to-seven-year-olds) can enjoy his stories. For instance, if you build up Puck as a character who skips, children of that age can enjoy the character. They can be inspired by Puck and they could even start writing about him at that age.”

　　It is the RSC’s belief that building the Bard up as a fun playwright in primary school could counter some of the negative images conjured up about teaching Shakespeare in secondary schools. Then, pupils have to concentrate on scenes from the plays to answer questions for compulsory English national-curriculum tests for 14-year-olds. Critics of the tests have complained that pupils no longer have the time to study or read the whole play—and therefore lose interest in Shakespeare.

　　However, Ms. Johnson is encouraging teachers to present 20-minute versions of the plays—a classroom version of the?Reduced Shakespeare Company’s

Children as young as four will study Shakespeare in a project being launched today by the Royal Shakespeare Company.

　　The RSC is holding its first national conference for primary school teachers to encourage them to use the Bard’s plays imaginatively in the classroom from reception classes onwards. The conference will be told that they should learn how Shakespearian characters like Puck in?A Midsummer Night’s Dream?are “jolly characters” and how to write about them.

　　At present, the national curriculum does not require pupils to approach Shakespeare until secondary school. All it says is that pupils should study “texts drawn from a variety of cultures and traditions” and “myths, legends and traditional stories”.

　　However, educationists at the RSC believe children will gain a better appreciation of Shakespeare if they are introduced to him at a much younger age. “Even very young children can enjoy Shakespeare’s plays,” said Mary Johnson, head of the learning department. “It is just a question of pitching it for the age group. Even reception classes and key stage one pupils (five-to-seven-year-olds) can enjoy his stories. For instance, if you build up Puck as a character who skips, children of that age can enjoy the character. They can be inspired by Puck and they could even start writing about him at that age.”

　　It is the RSC’s belief that building the Bard up as a fun playwright in primary school could counter some of the negative images conjured up about teaching Shakespeare in secondary schools. Then, pupils have to concentrate on scenes from the plays to answer questions for compulsory English national-curriculum tests for 14-year-olds. Critics of the tests have complained that pupils no longer have the time to study or read the whole play—and therefore lose interest in Shakespeare.

　　However, Ms. Johnson is encouraging teachers to present 20-minute versions of the plays—a classroom version of the?Reduced Shakespeare Company’s

Children as young as four will study Shakespeare in a project being launched today by the Royal Shakespeare Company.

　　The RSC is holding its first national conference for primary school teachers to encourage them to use the Bard’s plays imaginatively in the classroom from reception classes onwards. The conference will be told that they should learn how Shakespearian characters like Puck in?A Midsummer Night’s Dream?are “jolly characters” and how to write about them.

　　At present, the national curriculum does not require pupils to approach Shakespeare until secondary school. All it says is that pupils should study “texts drawn from a variety of cultures and traditions” and “myths, legends and traditional stories”.

　　However, educationists at the RSC believe children will gain a better appreciation of Shakespeare if they are introduced to him at a much younger age. “Even very young children can enjoy Shakespeare’s plays,” said Mary Johnson, head of the learning department. “It is just a question of pitching it for the age group. Even reception classes and key stage one pupils (five-to-seven-year-olds) can enjoy his stories. For instance, if you build up Puck as a character who skips, children of that age can enjoy the character. They can be inspired by Puck and they could even start writing about him at that age.”

　　It is the RSC’s belief that building the Bard up as a fun playwright in primary school could counter some of the negative images conjured up about teaching Shakespeare in secondary schools. Then, pupils have to concentrate on scenes from the plays to answer questions for compulsory English national-curriculum tests for 14-year-olds. Critics of the tests have complained that pupils no longer have the time to study or read the whole play—and therefore lose interest in Shakespeare.

　　However, Ms. Johnson is encouraging teachers to present 20-minute versions of the plays—a classroom version of the?Reduced Shakespeare Company’s

Children as young as four will study Shakespeare in a project being launched today by the Royal Shakespeare Company.

　　The RSC is holding its first national conference for primary school teachers to encourage them to use the Bard’s plays imaginatively in the classroom from reception classes onwards. The conference will be told that they should learn how Shakespearian characters like Puck in?A Midsummer Night’s Dream?are “jolly characters” and how to write about them.

　　At present, the national curriculum does not require pupils to approach Shakespeare until secondary school. All it says is that pupils should study “texts drawn from a variety of cultures and traditions” and “myths, legends and traditional stories”.

　　However, educationists at the RSC believe children will gain a better appreciation of Shakespeare if they are introduced to him at a much younger age. “Even very young children can enjoy Shakespeare’s plays,” said Mary Johnson, head of the learning department. “It is just a question of pitching it for the age group. Even reception classes and key stage one pupils (five-to-seven-year-olds) can enjoy his stories. For instance, if you build up Puck as a character who skips, children of that age can enjoy the character. They can be inspired by Puck and they could even start writing about him at that age.”

　　It is the RSC’s belief that building the Bard up as a fun playwright in primary school could counter some of the negative images conjured up about teaching Shakespeare in secondary schools. Then, pupils have to concentrate on scenes from the plays to answer questions for compulsory English national-curriculum tests for 14-year-olds. Critics of the tests have complained that pupils no longer have the time to study or read the whole play—and therefore lose interest in Shakespeare.

　　However, Ms. Johnson is encouraging teachers to present 20-minute versions of the plays—a classroom version of the?Reduced Shakespeare Company’s

Children as young as four will study Shakespeare in a project being launched today by the Royal Shakespeare Company.

　　The RSC is holding its first national conference for primary school teachers to encourage them to use the Bard’s plays imaginatively in the classroom from reception classes onwards. The conference will be told that they should learn how Shakespearian characters like Puck in?A Midsummer Night’s Dream?are “jolly characters” and how to write about them.

　　At present, the national curriculum does not require pupils to approach Shakespeare until secondary school. All it says is that pupils should study “texts drawn from a variety of cultures and traditions” and “myths, legends and traditional stories”.

　　However, educationists at the RSC believe children will gain a better appreciation of Shakespeare if they are introduced to him at a much younger age. “Even very young children can enjoy Shakespeare’s plays,” said Mary Johnson, head of the learning department. “It is just a question of pitching it for the age group. Even reception classes and key stage one pupils (five-to-seven-year-olds) can enjoy his stories. For instance, if you build up Puck as a character who skips, children of that age can enjoy the character. They can be inspired by Puck and they could even start writing about him at that age.”

　　It is the RSC’s belief that building the Bard up as a fun playwright in primary school could counter some of the negative images conjured up about teaching Shakespeare in secondary schools. Then, pupils have to concentrate on scenes from the plays to answer questions for compulsory English national-curriculum tests for 14-year-olds. Critics of the tests have complained that pupils no longer have the time to study or read the whole play—and therefore lose interest in Shakespeare.

　　However, Ms. Johnson is encouraging teachers to present 20-minute versions of the plays—a classroom version of the?Reduced Shakespeare Company’s

“When more and more people are thrown out of work, unemployment results,” Calvin Coolidge once observed. As the U. S. economy crumbles, Coolidge’s silly maxim might appear to be as apt as ever: the number of unemployment insurance claims is rising, and overall joblessness is creeping upward. But in today’s vast and complex labor market, things aren’t always what they seem. More and more people are indeed losing their jobs but not necessarily because the economy appears to be in recession. And old-fashioned unemployment isn’t the inevitable result of job loss. New work, at less pay, often is.

　　Call it new-wave unemployment: structural changes in the economy are overlapping the business downturn, giving joblessness a grim new twist. Small wonder that the U. S. unemployment rate is rising. Now at 5.7 percent, it is widely expected to edge toward 7 percent by the end of next year. But statistics alone can’t fully capture a complex reality. The unemployment rate has been held down by slow growth in the labor force—the number of people working or looking for work—since few people sense attractive job opportunities in a weak economy. In addition, many more people are losing their jobs than are actually ending up unemployed. Faced with hungry mouths to feed, thousands of women, for example, are taking two or more part-time positions or agreeing to shave the hours they work in service-sector jobs. For better and for worse, work in America clearly isn’t what it used to be. Now unemployment isn’t, either.

　　Like sour old wine in new bottles, this downturn blends a little of the old and the new reflecting a decade’s worth of change in the dynamic U. S. economy. Yet, in many respects the decline is following the classic pattern, with new layoffs concentrated among blue-collar workers in the most “cyclical” industries, whose ups and downs track the economy most closely.

　　As the downturn attracts attention on workers’ ill fortunes, some analysts predict that

“When more and more people are thrown out of work, unemployment results,” Calvin Coolidge once observed. As the U. S. economy crumbles, Coolidge’s silly maxim might appear to be as apt as ever: the number of unemployment insurance claims is rising, and overall joblessness is creeping upward. But in today’s vast and complex labor market, things aren’t always what they seem. More and more people are indeed losing their jobs but not necessarily because the economy appears to be in recession. And old-fashioned unemployment isn’t the inevitable result of job loss. New work, at less pay, often is.

　　Call it new-wave unemployment: structural changes in the economy are overlapping the business downturn, giving joblessness a grim new twist. Small wonder that the U. S. unemployment rate is rising. Now at 5.7 percent, it is widely expected to edge toward 7 percent by the end of next year. But statistics alone can’t fully capture a complex reality. The unemployment rate has been held down by slow growth in the labor force—the number of people working or looking for work—since few people sense attractive job opportunities in a weak economy. In addition, many more people are losing their jobs than are actually ending up unemployed. Faced with hungry mouths to feed, thousands of women, for example, are taking two or more part-time positions or agreeing to shave the hours they work in service-sector jobs. For better and for worse, work in America clearly isn’t what it used to be. Now unemployment isn’t, either.

　　Like sour old wine in new bottles, this downturn blends a little of the old and the new reflecting a decade’s worth of change in the dynamic U. S. economy. Yet, in many respects the decline is following the classic pattern, with new layoffs concentrated among blue-collar workers in the most “cyclical” industries, whose ups and downs track the economy most closely.

　　As the downturn attracts attention on workers’ ill fortunes, some analysts predict that

“When more and more people are thrown out of work, unemployment results,” Calvin Coolidge once observed. As the U. S. economy crumbles, Coolidge’s silly maxim might appear to be as apt as ever: the number of unemployment insurance claims is rising, and overall joblessness is creeping upward. But in today’s vast and complex labor market, things aren’t always what they seem. More and more people are indeed losing their jobs but not necessarily because the economy appears to be in recession. And old-fashioned unemployment isn’t the inevitable result of job loss. New work, at less pay, often is.

　　Call it new-wave unemployment: structural changes in the economy are overlapping the business downturn, giving joblessness a grim new twist. Small wonder that the U. S. unemployment rate is rising. Now at 5.7 percent, it is widely expected to edge toward 7 percent by the end of next year. But statistics alone can’t fully capture a complex reality. The unemployment rate has been held down by slow growth in the labor force—the number of people working or looking for work—since few people sense attractive job opportunities in a weak economy. In addition, many more people are losing their jobs than are actually ending up unemployed. Faced with hungry mouths to feed, thousands of women, for example, are taking two or more part-time positions or agreeing to shave the hours they work in service-sector jobs. For better and for worse, work in America clearly isn’t what it used to be. Now unemployment isn’t, either.

　　Like sour old wine in new bottles, this downturn blends a little of the old and the new reflecting a decade’s worth of change in the dynamic U. S. economy. Yet, in many respects the decline is following the classic pattern, with new layoffs concentrated among blue-collar workers in the most “cyclical” industries, whose ups and downs track the economy most closely.

　　As the downturn attracts attention on workers’ ill fortunes, some analysts predict that

“When more and more people are thrown out of work, unemployment results,” Calvin Coolidge once observed. As the U. S. economy crumbles, Coolidge’s silly maxim might appear to be as apt as ever: the number of unemployment insurance claims is rising, and overall joblessness is creeping upward. But in today’s vast and complex labor market, things aren’t always what they seem. More and more people are indeed losing their jobs but not necessarily because the economy appears to be in recession. And old-fashioned unemployment isn’t the inevitable result of job loss. New work, at less pay, often is.

　　Call it new-wave unemployment: structural changes in the economy are overlapping the business downturn, giving joblessness a grim new twist. Small wonder that the U. S. unemployment rate is rising. Now at 5.7 percent, it is widely expected to edge toward 7 percent by the end of next year. But statistics alone can’t fully capture a complex reality. The unemployment rate has been held down by slow growth in the labor force—the number of people working or looking for work—since few people sense attractive job opportunities in a weak economy. In addition, many more people are losing their jobs than are actually ending up unemployed. Faced with hungry mouths to feed, thousands of women, for example, are taking two or more part-time positions or agreeing to shave the hours they work in service-sector jobs. For better and for worse, work in America clearly isn’t what it used to be. Now unemployment isn’t, either.

　　Like sour old wine in new bottles, this downturn blends a little of the old and the new reflecting a decade’s worth of change in the dynamic U. S. economy. Yet, in many respects the decline is following the classic pattern, with new layoffs concentrated among blue-collar workers in the most “cyclical” industries, whose ups and downs track the economy most closely.

　　As the downturn attracts attention on workers’ ill fortunes, some analysts predict that

“When more and more people are thrown out of work, unemployment results,” Calvin Coolidge once observed. As the U. S. economy crumbles, Coolidge’s silly maxim might appear to be as apt as ever: the number of unemployment insurance claims is rising, and overall joblessness is creeping upward. But in today’s vast and complex labor market, things aren’t always what they seem. More and more people are indeed losing their jobs but not necessarily because the economy appears to be in recession. And old-fashioned unemployment isn’t the inevitable result of job loss. New work, at less pay, often is.

　　Call it new-wave unemployment: structural changes in the economy are overlapping the business downturn, giving joblessness a grim new twist. Small wonder that the U. S. unemployment rate is rising. Now at 5.7 percent, it is widely expected to edge toward 7 percent by the end of next year. But statistics alone can’t fully capture a complex reality. The unemployment rate has been held down by slow growth in the labor force—the number of people working or looking for work—since few people sense attractive job opportunities in a weak economy. In addition, many more people are losing their jobs than are actually ending up unemployed. Faced with hungry mouths to feed, thousands of women, for example, are taking two or more part-time positions or agreeing to shave the hours they work in service-sector jobs. For better and for worse, work in America clearly isn’t what it used to be. Now unemployment isn’t, either.

　　Like sour old wine in new bottles, this downturn blends a little of the old and the new reflecting a decade’s worth of change in the dynamic U. S. economy. Yet, in many respects the decline is following the classic pattern, with new layoffs concentrated among blue-collar workers in the most “cyclical” industries, whose ups and downs track the economy most closely.

　　As the downturn attracts attention on workers’ ill fortunes, some analysts predict that

Hormones in the Body　　Up to the beginning of the twentieth century, the nervous system was thought to control all communication within the body and the resulting integration of behavior. Scientists had determined that nerves ran, essentially, on electrical impulses. These impulses were thought to be the engine for thought, emotion, movement, and internal processes such as digestion. However, experiments by William Bayliss and Ernest Starling on the chemical secretin, which is produced in the small intestine when food enters the stomach, eventually challenged that view. From the small intestine, secretin travels through the bloodstream to the pancreas. There, it stimulates the release of digestive chemicals. In this fashion, the intestinal cells that produce secretin ultimately regulate the production of different chemicals in a different organ, the pancreas.

　　Such a coordination of processes had been thought to require control by the nervous system; Bayliss and Starling showed that it could occur through chemicals alone. This discovery spurred Starting to coin the term hormone to refer to secretin, taking it from the Greek word hormon, meaning “to excite” or “to set in motion.” A hormone is a chemical produced by one tissue to make things happen elsewhere.

　　As more hormones were discovered, they were categorized, primarily according to the process by which they operated on the body. Some glands (which make up the endocrine system) secrete hormones directly into the bloodstream. Such glands include the thyroid and the pituitary. The exocrine system consists of organs and glands that produce substances that are used outside the bloodstream, primarily for digestion. The pancreas is one such organ, although it secretes some chemicals into the blood and thus is also part of the endocrine system.

　　Much has been learned about hormones since their discovery. Some play such key roles in regulating bodily processes or behavior that their absence would

Hormones in the Body　　Up to the beginning of the twentieth century, the nervous system was thought to control all communication within the body and the resulting integration of behavior. Scientists had determined that nerves ran, essentially, on electrical impulses. These impulses were thought to be the engine for thought, emotion, movement, and internal processes such as digestion. However, experiments by William Bayliss and Ernest Starling on the chemical secretin, which is produced in the small intestine when food enters the stomach, eventually challenged that view. From the small intestine, secretin travels through the bloodstream to the pancreas. There, it stimulates the release of digestive chemicals. In this fashion, the intestinal cells that produce secretin ultimately regulate the production of different chemicals in a different organ, the pancreas.

　　Such a coordination of processes had been thought to require control by the nervous system; Bayliss and Starling showed that it could occur through chemicals alone. This discovery spurred Starting to coin the term hormone to refer to secretin, taking it from the Greek word hormon, meaning “to excite” or “to set in motion.” A hormone is a chemical produced by one tissue to make things happen elsewhere.

　　As more hormones were discovered, they were categorized, primarily according to the process by which they operated on the body. Some glands (which make up the endocrine system) secrete hormones directly into the bloodstream. Such glands include the thyroid and the pituitary. The exocrine system consists of organs and glands that produce substances that are used outside the bloodstream, primarily for digestion. The pancreas is one such organ, although it secretes some chemicals into the blood and thus is also part of the endocrine system.

　　Much has been learned about hormones since their discovery. Some play such key roles in regulating bodily processes or behavior that their absence would

Hormones in the Body　　Up to the beginning of the twentieth century, the nervous system was thought to control all communication within the body and the resulting integration of behavior. Scientists had determined that nerves ran, essentially, on electrical impulses. These impulses were thought to be the engine for thought, emotion, movement, and internal processes such as digestion. However, experiments by William Bayliss and Ernest Starling on the chemical secretin, which is produced in the small intestine when food enters the stomach, eventually challenged that view. From the small intestine, secretin travels through the bloodstream to the pancreas. There, it stimulates the release of digestive chemicals. In this fashion, the intestinal cells that produce secretin ultimately regulate the production of different chemicals in a different organ, the pancreas.

　　Such a coordination of processes had been thought to require control by the nervous system; Bayliss and Starling showed that it could occur through chemicals alone. This discovery spurred Starting to coin the term hormone to refer to secretin, taking it from the Greek word hormon, meaning “to excite” or “to set in motion.” A hormone is a chemical produced by one tissue to make things happen elsewhere.

　　As more hormones were discovered, they were categorized, primarily according to the process by which they operated on the body. Some glands (which make up the endocrine system) secrete hormones directly into the bloodstream. Such glands include the thyroid and the pituitary. The exocrine system consists of organs and glands that produce substances that are used outside the bloodstream, primarily for digestion. The pancreas is one such organ, although it secretes some chemicals into the blood and thus is also part of the endocrine system.

　　Much has been learned about hormones since their discovery. Some play such key roles in regulating bodily processes or behavior that their absence would

Hormones in the Body　　Up to the beginning of the twentieth century, the nervous system was thought to control all communication within the body and the resulting integration of behavior. Scientists had determined that nerves ran, essentially, on electrical impulses. These impulses were thought to be the engine for thought, emotion, movement, and internal processes such as digestion. However, experiments by William Bayliss and Ernest Starling on the chemical secretin, which is produced in the small intestine when food enters the stomach, eventually challenged that view. From the small intestine, secretin travels through the bloodstream to the pancreas. There, it stimulates the release of digestive chemicals. In this fashion, the intestinal cells that produce secretin ultimately regulate the production of different chemicals in a different organ, the pancreas.

　　Such a coordination of processes had been thought to require control by the nervous system; Bayliss and Starling showed that it could occur through chemicals alone. This discovery spurred Starting to coin the term hormone to refer to secretin, taking it from the Greek word hormon, meaning “to excite” or “to set in motion.” A hormone is a chemical produced by one tissue to make things happen elsewhere.

　　As more hormones were discovered, they were categorized, primarily according to the process by which they operated on the body. Some glands (which make up the endocrine system) secrete hormones directly into the bloodstream. Such glands include the thyroid and the pituitary. The exocrine system consists of organs and glands that produce substances that are used outside the bloodstream, primarily for digestion. The pancreas is one such organ, although it secretes some chemicals into the blood and thus is also part of the endocrine system.

　　Much has been learned about hormones since their discovery. Some play such key roles in regulating bodily processes or behavior that their absence would

Hormones in the Body　　Up to the beginning of the twentieth century, the nervous system was thought to control all communication within the body and the resulting integration of behavior. Scientists had determined that nerves ran, essentially, on electrical impulses. These impulses were thought to be the engine for thought, emotion, movement, and internal processes such as digestion. However, experiments by William Bayliss and Ernest Starling on the chemical secretin, which is produced in the small intestine when food enters the stomach, eventually challenged that view. From the small intestine, secretin travels through the bloodstream to the pancreas. There, it stimulates the release of digestive chemicals. In this fashion, the intestinal cells that produce secretin ultimately regulate the production of different chemicals in a different organ, the pancreas.

　　Such a coordination of processes had been thought to require control by the nervous system; Bayliss and Starling showed that it could occur through chemicals alone. This discovery spurred Starting to coin the term hormone to refer to secretin, taking it from the Greek word hormon, meaning “to excite” or “to set in motion.” A hormone is a chemical produced by one tissue to make things happen elsewhere.

　　As more hormones were discovered, they were categorized, primarily according to the process by which they operated on the body. Some glands (which make up the endocrine system) secrete hormones directly into the bloodstream. Such glands include the thyroid and the pituitary. The exocrine system consists of organs and glands that produce substances that are used outside the bloodstream, primarily for digestion. The pancreas is one such organ, although it secretes some chemicals into the blood and thus is also part of the endocrine system.

　　Much has been learned about hormones since their discovery. Some play such key roles in regulating bodily processes or behavior that their absence would

Students of United States history, seeking to identify the circumstances that encouraged the emergence of feminist movements, have thoroughly investigated the mid-nineteenth-century American economic and social conditions that affected the status of women. These historians, however, have analyzed less fully the development of specifically feminist ideas and activities during the same period. Furthermore, the ideological origins of feminism in the United States have been obscured because, even when historians did take into account those feminist ideas and activities occurring within the United States, they failed to recognize that feminism was then a truly international movement actually centered in Europe. American feminist activists who have been described as “solitary” and “individual theorists” were in reality connected to a movement —utopian socialism—which was already popularizing feminist ideas in Europe during the two decades that cachinnated in the first women’s rights conference held at Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848. Thus, a complete understanding of the origins and development of nineteenth-century feminism in the United States requires that the geographical focus be widened to include Europe and that the detailed study already made of social conditions be expanded to include the ideological development of feminism.

　　The earliest and most popular of the utopian socialists were the Saint-Simonians. The specifically feminist part of Saint-Simonianism has, however, been less studied than the group’s contribution to early socialism. This is regrettable on two accounts. By 1832 feminism was the central concern of Saint-Simonianism and entirely absorbed its adherents’ energy; hence, by ignoring its feminism, European historians have misunderstood Saint-Simonianism. Moreover, since many feminist ideas can be traced to Saint-Simonianism, European historians’ appreciation of later feminism in France and the United States remained limited.

　　Saint-

Students of United States history, seeking to identify the circumstances that encouraged the emergence of feminist movements, have thoroughly investigated the mid-nineteenth-century American economic and social conditions that affected the status of women. These historians, however, have analyzed less fully the development of specifically feminist ideas and activities during the same period. Furthermore, the ideological origins of feminism in the United States have been obscured because, even when historians did take into account those feminist ideas and activities occurring within the United States, they failed to recognize that feminism was then a truly international movement actually centered in Europe. American feminist activists who have been described as “solitary” and “individual theorists” were in reality connected to a movement —utopian socialism—which was already popularizing feminist ideas in Europe during the two decades that cachinnated in the first women’s rights conference held at Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848. Thus, a complete understanding of the origins and development of nineteenth-century feminism in the United States requires that the geographical focus be widened to include Europe and that the detailed study already made of social conditions be expanded to include the ideological development of feminism.

　　The earliest and most popular of the utopian socialists were the Saint-Simonians. The specifically feminist part of Saint-Simonianism has, however, been less studied than the group’s contribution to early socialism. This is regrettable on two accounts. By 1832 feminism was the central concern of Saint-Simonianism and entirely absorbed its adherents’ energy; hence, by ignoring its feminism, European historians have misunderstood Saint-Simonianism. Moreover, since many feminist ideas can be traced to Saint-Simonianism, European historians’ appreciation of later feminism in France and the United States remained limited.

　　Saint-

Students of United States history, seeking to identify the circumstances that encouraged the emergence of feminist movements, have thoroughly investigated the mid-nineteenth-century American economic and social conditions that affected the status of women. These historians, however, have analyzed less fully the development of specifically feminist ideas and activities during the same period. Furthermore, the ideological origins of feminism in the United States have been obscured because, even when historians did take into account those feminist ideas and activities occurring within the United States, they failed to recognize that feminism was then a truly international movement actually centered in Europe. American feminist activists who have been described as “solitary” and “individual theorists” were in reality connected to a movement —utopian socialism—which was already popularizing feminist ideas in Europe during the two decades that cachinnated in the first women’s rights conference held at Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848. Thus, a complete understanding of the origins and development of nineteenth-century feminism in the United States requires that the geographical focus be widened to include Europe and that the detailed study already made of social conditions be expanded to include the ideological development of feminism.

　　The earliest and most popular of the utopian socialists were the Saint-Simonians. The specifically feminist part of Saint-Simonianism has, however, been less studied than the group’s contribution to early socialism. This is regrettable on two accounts. By 1832 feminism was the central concern of Saint-Simonianism and entirely absorbed its adherents’ energy; hence, by ignoring its feminism, European historians have misunderstood Saint-Simonianism. Moreover, since many feminist ideas can be traced to Saint-Simonianism, European historians’ appreciation of later feminism in France and the United States remained limited.

　　Saint-

Students of United States history, seeking to identify the circumstances that encouraged the emergence of feminist movements, have thoroughly investigated the mid-nineteenth-century American economic and social conditions that affected the status of women. These historians, however, have analyzed less fully the development of specifically feminist ideas and activities during the same period. Furthermore, the ideological origins of feminism in the United States have been obscured because, even when historians did take into account those feminist ideas and activities occurring within the United States, they failed to recognize that feminism was then a truly international movement actually centered in Europe. American feminist activists who have been described as “solitary” and “individual theorists” were in reality connected to a movement —utopian socialism—which was already popularizing feminist ideas in Europe during the two decades that cachinnated in the first women’s rights conference held at Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848. Thus, a complete understanding of the origins and development of nineteenth-century feminism in the United States requires that the geographical focus be widened to include Europe and that the detailed study already made of social conditions be expanded to include the ideological development of feminism.

　　The earliest and most popular of the utopian socialists were the Saint-Simonians. The specifically feminist part of Saint-Simonianism has, however, been less studied than the group’s contribution to early socialism. This is regrettable on two accounts. By 1832 feminism was the central concern of Saint-Simonianism and entirely absorbed its adherents’ energy; hence, by ignoring its feminism, European historians have misunderstood Saint-Simonianism. Moreover, since many feminist ideas can be traced to Saint-Simonianism, European historians’ appreciation of later feminism in France and the United States remained limited.

　　Saint-

Students of United States history, seeking to identify the circumstances that encouraged the emergence of feminist movements, have thoroughly investigated the mid-nineteenth-century American economic and social conditions that affected the status of women. These historians, however, have analyzed less fully the development of specifically feminist ideas and activities during the same period. Furthermore, the ideological origins of feminism in the United States have been obscured because, even when historians did take into account those feminist ideas and activities occurring within the United States, they failed to recognize that feminism was then a truly international movement actually centered in Europe. American feminist activists who have been described as “solitary” and “individual theorists” were in reality connected to a movement —utopian socialism—which was already popularizing feminist ideas in Europe during the two decades that cachinnated in the first women’s rights conference held at Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848. Thus, a complete understanding of the origins and development of nineteenth-century feminism in the United States requires that the geographical focus be widened to include Europe and that the detailed study already made of social conditions be expanded to include the ideological development of feminism.

　　The earliest and most popular of the utopian socialists were the Saint-Simonians. The specifically feminist part of Saint-Simonianism has, however, been less studied than the group’s contribution to early socialism. This is regrettable on two accounts. By 1832 feminism was the central concern of Saint-Simonianism and entirely absorbed its adherents’ energy; hence, by ignoring its feminism, European historians have misunderstood Saint-Simonianism. Moreover, since many feminist ideas can be traced to Saint-Simonianism, European historians’ appreciation of later feminism in France and the United States remained limited.

　　Saint-

There is substantial evidence that by 1926, with the publication of The Weary Blues, Langston Hughes had broken with two well-established traditions in African American literature. In The Weary Blues, Hughes chose to modify the traditions that decreed that African American literature must promote racial acceptance and integration, and that, in order to do so, it must reflect an understanding and mastery of Western European literary techniques and styles. Necessarily excluded by this decree, linguistically and thematically, was the vast amount of secular folk material in the oral tradition that had been created by Black people in the years of slavery and after. It might be pointed out that even the spirituals or “sorrow songs” of the slaves—as distinct from their secular songs and stories—had been Europeanized to make them acceptable within these African American traditions after the Civil War. In 1862 northern White writers had commented favorably on the unique and provocative melodies of these “sorrow songs” when they first heard them sung by slaves in the Carolina sea islands. But by 1916, ten years before the publication of The Weary Blues, Hurry T. Burleigh, the Black baritone soloist at New York’s ultrafashionable Saint George’s Episcopal Church, had published Jubilee Songs of the United States, with every spiritual arranged so that a concert singer could sing it “in the manner of an art song.” Clearly, the artistic work of Black people could be used to promote racial acceptance and integration only on the condition that it became Europeanized.

　　Even more than his rebellion against this restrictive tradition in African American art, Hughes’s expression of the vibrant folk culture of Black people established his writing as a landmark in the history of African American literature. Most of his folk poems have the distinctive marks of this folk culture’s oral tradition: they contain many instances of naming and enumeration, considerable hyperbole and unde

There is substantial evidence that by 1926, with the publication of The Weary Blues, Langston Hughes had broken with two well-established traditions in African American literature. In The Weary Blues, Hughes chose to modify the traditions that decreed that African American literature must promote racial acceptance and integration, and that, in order to do so, it must reflect an understanding and mastery of Western European literary techniques and styles. Necessarily excluded by this decree, linguistically and thematically, was the vast amount of secular folk material in the oral tradition that had been created by Black people in the years of slavery and after. It might be pointed out that even the spirituals or “sorrow songs” of the slaves—as distinct from their secular songs and stories—had been Europeanized to make them acceptable within these African American traditions after the Civil War. In 1862 northern White writers had commented favorably on the unique and provocative melodies of these “sorrow songs” when they first heard them sung by slaves in the Carolina sea islands. But by 1916, ten years before the publication of The Weary Blues, Hurry T. Burleigh, the Black baritone soloist at New York’s ultrafashionable Saint George’s Episcopal Church, had published Jubilee Songs of the United States, with every spiritual arranged so that a concert singer could sing it “in the manner of an art song.” Clearly, the artistic work of Black people could be used to promote racial acceptance and integration only on the condition that it became Europeanized.

　　Even more than his rebellion against this restrictive tradition in African American art, Hughes’s expression of the vibrant folk culture of Black people established his writing as a landmark in the history of African American literature. Most of his folk poems have the distinctive marks of this folk culture’s oral tradition: they contain many instances of naming and enumeration, considerable hyperbole and unde

There is substantial evidence that by 1926, with the publication of The Weary Blues, Langston Hughes had broken with two well-established traditions in African American literature. In The Weary Blues, Hughes chose to modify the traditions that decreed that African American literature must promote racial acceptance and integration, and that, in order to do so, it must reflect an understanding and mastery of Western European literary techniques and styles. Necessarily excluded by this decree, linguistically and thematically, was the vast amount of secular folk material in the oral tradition that had been created by Black people in the years of slavery and after. It might be pointed out that even the spirituals or “sorrow songs” of the slaves—as distinct from their secular songs and stories—had been Europeanized to make them acceptable within these African American traditions after the Civil War. In 1862 northern White writers had commented favorably on the unique and provocative melodies of these “sorrow songs” when they first heard them sung by slaves in the Carolina sea islands. But by 1916, ten years before the publication of The Weary Blues, Hurry T. Burleigh, the Black baritone soloist at New York’s ultrafashionable Saint George’s Episcopal Church, had published Jubilee Songs of the United States, with every spiritual arranged so that a concert singer could sing it “in the manner of an art song.” Clearly, the artistic work of Black people could be used to promote racial acceptance and integration only on the condition that it became Europeanized.

　　Even more than his rebellion against this restrictive tradition in African American art, Hughes’s expression of the vibrant folk culture of Black people established his writing as a landmark in the history of African American literature. Most of his folk poems have the distinctive marks of this folk culture’s oral tradition: they contain many instances of naming and enumeration, considerable hyperbole and unde

There is substantial evidence that by 1926, with the publication of The Weary Blues, Langston Hughes had broken with two well-established traditions in African American literature. In The Weary Blues, Hughes chose to modify the traditions that decreed that African American literature must promote racial acceptance and integration, and that, in order to do so, it must reflect an understanding and mastery of Western European literary techniques and styles. Necessarily excluded by this decree, linguistically and thematically, was the vast amount of secular folk material in the oral tradition that had been created by Black people in the years of slavery and after. It might be pointed out that even the spirituals or “sorrow songs” of the slaves—as distinct from their secular songs and stories—had been Europeanized to make them acceptable within these African American traditions after the Civil War. In 1862 northern White writers had commented favorably on the unique and provocative melodies of these “sorrow songs” when they first heard them sung by slaves in the Carolina sea islands. But by 1916, ten years before the publication of The Weary Blues, Hurry T. Burleigh, the Black baritone soloist at New York’s ultrafashionable Saint George’s Episcopal Church, had published Jubilee Songs of the United States, with every spiritual arranged so that a concert singer could sing it “in the manner of an art song.” Clearly, the artistic work of Black people could be used to promote racial acceptance and integration only on the condition that it became Europeanized.

　　Even more than his rebellion against this restrictive tradition in African American art, Hughes’s expression of the vibrant folk culture of Black people established his writing as a landmark in the history of African American literature. Most of his folk poems have the distinctive marks of this folk culture’s oral tradition: they contain many instances of naming and enumeration, considerable hyperbole and unde

There is substantial evidence that by 1926, with the publication of The Weary Blues, Langston Hughes had broken with two well-established traditions in African American literature. In The Weary Blues, Hughes chose to modify the traditions that decreed that African American literature must promote racial acceptance and integration, and that, in order to do so, it must reflect an understanding and mastery of Western European literary techniques and styles. Necessarily excluded by this decree, linguistically and thematically, was the vast amount of secular folk material in the oral tradition that had been created by Black people in the years of slavery and after. It might be pointed out that even the spirituals or “sorrow songs” of the slaves—as distinct from their secular songs and stories—had been Europeanized to make them acceptable within these African American traditions after the Civil War. In 1862 northern White writers had commented favorably on the unique and provocative melodies of these “sorrow songs” when they first heard them sung by slaves in the Carolina sea islands. But by 1916, ten years before the publication of The Weary Blues, Hurry T. Burleigh, the Black baritone soloist at New York’s ultrafashionable Saint George’s Episcopal Church, had published Jubilee Songs of the United States, with every spiritual arranged so that a concert singer could sing it “in the manner of an art song.” Clearly, the artistic work of Black people could be used to promote racial acceptance and integration only on the condition that it became Europeanized.

　　Even more than his rebellion against this restrictive tradition in African American art, Hughes’s expression of the vibrant folk culture of Black people established his writing as a landmark in the history of African American literature. Most of his folk poems have the distinctive marks of this folk culture’s oral tradition: they contain many instances of naming and enumeration, considerable hyperbole and unde

Every man is a philosopher. Every man has his own philosophy of life and his special view of the universe. Moreover, his philosophy is important, more important perhaps that he himself knows. It determines his treatment of friends and enemies, his conduct when alone and in society, his attitude towards his home, his work, and his country, his religious beliefs, his ethical standards, his social adjustment and his personal happiness.

　　Nations, too, through the political or military party in power, have their philosophers of thought and action. Wars are waged and revolutions incited because of the clash of ideologies, the conflict of philippics. It has always been so. World War II is but the latest and most dramatic illustration of the combustible nature of differences in social and political philosophy.

　　Philosophy, says Plato, begins with wonder. We wonder about the destructive fury of earthquakes, floods, storms, drought, pestilence, famine, and fire, the mysteries of birth and death, pleasure and pain, change and permanence, cruelly and kindness, instincts and ideals, mind and body, the size of the universe and man’s place in it. Our questions are endless. What is man? What is Nature? What is justice? What is duty? Alone among the animals man is concerned about his origin and end, about his purposes and goals, about the meaning of life and the nature of reality. He alone distinguishes between beauty and ugliness, good and evil, the better and the worse. He may be a member of the animal kingdom, but he is also a citizen of the world of ideas and values.

　　Some of man’s questions have had answers. Where the answer is clear, we call it science or art and move on to higher ground and a new vista of the world. Many of our questions, however, will never have final answers. Men will always discuss the nature of justice and right, the significance of evil, the art of government, the relation of mind and matter, the search for truth, the quest for ha

Every man is a philosopher. Every man has his own philosophy of life and his special view of the universe. Moreover, his philosophy is important, more important perhaps that he himself knows. It determines his treatment of friends and enemies, his conduct when alone and in society, his attitude towards his home, his work, and his country, his religious beliefs, his ethical standards, his social adjustment and his personal happiness.

　　Nations, too, through the political or military party in power, have their philosophers of thought and action. Wars are waged and revolutions incited because of the clash of ideologies, the conflict of philippics. It has always been so. World War II is but the latest and most dramatic illustration of the combustible nature of differences in social and political philosophy.

　　Philosophy, says Plato, begins with wonder. We wonder about the destructive fury of earthquakes, floods, storms, drought, pestilence, famine, and fire, the mysteries of birth and death, pleasure and pain, change and permanence, cruelly and kindness, instincts and ideals, mind and body, the size of the universe and man’s place in it. Our questions are endless. What is man? What is Nature? What is justice? What is duty? Alone among the animals man is concerned about his origin and end, about his purposes and goals, about the meaning of life and the nature of reality. He alone distinguishes between beauty and ugliness, good and evil, the better and the worse. He may be a member of the animal kingdom, but he is also a citizen of the world of ideas and values.

　　Some of man’s questions have had answers. Where the answer is clear, we call it science or art and move on to higher ground and a new vista of the world. Many of our questions, however, will never have final answers. Men will always discuss the nature of justice and right, the significance of evil, the art of government, the relation of mind and matter, the search for truth, the quest for ha

Every man is a philosopher. Every man has his own philosophy of life and his special view of the universe. Moreover, his philosophy is important, more important perhaps that he himself knows. It determines his treatment of friends and enemies, his conduct when alone and in society, his attitude towards his home, his work, and his country, his religious beliefs, his ethical standards, his social adjustment and his personal happiness.

　　Nations, too, through the political or military party in power, have their philosophers of thought and action. Wars are waged and revolutions incited because of the clash of ideologies, the conflict of philippics. It has always been so. World War II is but the latest and most dramatic illustration of the combustible nature of differences in social and political philosophy.

　　Philosophy, says Plato, begins with wonder. We wonder about the destructive fury of earthquakes, floods, storms, drought, pestilence, famine, and fire, the mysteries of birth and death, pleasure and pain, change and permanence, cruelly and kindness, instincts and ideals, mind and body, the size of the universe and man’s place in it. Our questions are endless. What is man? What is Nature? What is justice? What is duty? Alone among the animals man is concerned about his origin and end, about his purposes and goals, about the meaning of life and the nature of reality. He alone distinguishes between beauty and ugliness, good and evil, the better and the worse. He may be a member of the animal kingdom, but he is also a citizen of the world of ideas and values.

　　Some of man’s questions have had answers. Where the answer is clear, we call it science or art and move on to higher ground and a new vista of the world. Many of our questions, however, will never have final answers. Men will always discuss the nature of justice and right, the significance of evil, the art of government, the relation of mind and matter, the search for truth, the quest for ha

Every man is a philosopher. Every man has his own philosophy of life and his special view of the universe. Moreover, his philosophy is important, more important perhaps that he himself knows. It determines his treatment of friends and enemies, his conduct when alone and in society, his attitude towards his home, his work, and his country, his religious beliefs, his ethical standards, his social adjustment and his personal happiness.

　　Nations, too, through the political or military party in power, have their philosophers of thought and action. Wars are waged and revolutions incited because of the clash of ideologies, the conflict of philippics. It has always been so. World War II is but the latest and most dramatic illustration of the combustible nature of differences in social and political philosophy.

　　Philosophy, says Plato, begins with wonder. We wonder about the destructive fury of earthquakes, floods, storms, drought, pestilence, famine, and fire, the mysteries of birth and death, pleasure and pain, change and permanence, cruelly and kindness, instincts and ideals, mind and body, the size of the universe and man’s place in it. Our questions are endless. What is man? What is Nature? What is justice? What is duty? Alone among the animals man is concerned about his origin and end, about his purposes and goals, about the meaning of life and the nature of reality. He alone distinguishes between beauty and ugliness, good and evil, the better and the worse. He may be a member of the animal kingdom, but he is also a citizen of the world of ideas and values.

　　Some of man’s questions have had answers. Where the answer is clear, we call it science or art and move on to higher ground and a new vista of the world. Many of our questions, however, will never have final answers. Men will always discuss the nature of justice and right, the significance of evil, the art of government, the relation of mind and matter, the search for truth, the quest for ha

Every man is a philosopher. Every man has his own philosophy of life and his special view of the universe. Moreover, his philosophy is important, more important perhaps that he himself knows. It determines his treatment of friends and enemies, his conduct when alone and in society, his attitude towards his home, his work, and his country, his religious beliefs, his ethical standards, his social adjustment and his personal happiness.

　　Nations, too, through the political or military party in power, have their philosophers of thought and action. Wars are waged and revolutions incited because of the clash of ideologies, the conflict of philippics. It has always been so. World War II is but the latest and most dramatic illustration of the combustible nature of differences in social and political philosophy.

　　Philosophy, says Plato, begins with wonder. We wonder about the destructive fury of earthquakes, floods, storms, drought, pestilence, famine, and fire, the mysteries of birth and death, pleasure and pain, change and permanence, cruelly and kindness, instincts and ideals, mind and body, the size of the universe and man’s place in it. Our questions are endless. What is man? What is Nature? What is justice? What is duty? Alone among the animals man is concerned about his origin and end, about his purposes and goals, about the meaning of life and the nature of reality. He alone distinguishes between beauty and ugliness, good and evil, the better and the worse. He may be a member of the animal kingdom, but he is also a citizen of the world of ideas and values.

　　Some of man’s questions have had answers. Where the answer is clear, we call it science or art and move on to higher ground and a new vista of the world. Many of our questions, however, will never have final answers. Men will always discuss the nature of justice and right, the significance of evil, the art of government, the relation of mind and matter, the search for truth, the quest for ha

Nobody ever went into academic circles to make a fast fortune. Professors, especially those in medical-and technology-related fields, typically earn a fraction of what their colleagues in industry do. But suddenly, big money is starting to flow into the ivory tower, as university administrators make up to the commercial potential of academic research. And the institutions are wrestling with a whole new set of issues.

　　The profits are impressive: the Association of University Technology Managers surveyed 132 universities and found that they earned a combined $576 million from patent royalties in 1998, a number that promises to keep rising dramatically. Schools like Columbia University in New York have aggressively marketed their inventions to corporations, particularly pharmaceutical and high-tech companies.

　　Now Columbia is going retail—on the Web. It plans to go beyond the typical “dot. edu” model, free sites listing courses and professors’ research interests. Instead, it will offer the expertise of its faculty on a new for-profit site which will be spun off as an independent company. The site will provide free access to educational and research content, say administrators, as well as advanced features that are already available to Columbia students, such as a simulation of the construction and architecture of a French cathedral and interactive 3-D models of organic chemicals. Free pages will feed into profit-generating areas, such as online courses and seminars, and related books and tapes. Columbia executive vice president Michael Crow imagines “millions of visitors” to the new site, including retirees and students willing to pay to tap into this educational resource. “We can offer the best of what’s thought and written and researched,” says Ann Kirschner, who heads the project. Columbia also is anxious not be beaten by some of the other for-profit “knowledge sites,” such as About.com and Hungry Minds. “If they capture this space,” says Crow, “th

Nobody ever went into academic circles to make a fast fortune. Professors, especially those in medical-and technology-related fields, typically earn a fraction of what their colleagues in industry do. But suddenly, big money is starting to flow into the ivory tower, as university administrators make up to the commercial potential of academic research. And the institutions are wrestling with a whole new set of issues.

　　The profits are impressive: the Association of University Technology Managers surveyed 132 universities and found that they earned a combined $576 million from patent royalties in 1998, a number that promises to keep rising dramatically. Schools like Columbia University in New York have aggressively marketed their inventions to corporations, particularly pharmaceutical and high-tech companies.

　　Now Columbia is going retail—on the Web. It plans to go beyond the typical “dot. edu” model, free sites listing courses and professors’ research interests. Instead, it will offer the expertise of its faculty on a new for-profit site which will be spun off as an independent company. The site will provide free access to educational and research content, say administrators, as well as advanced features that are already available to Columbia students, such as a simulation of the construction and architecture of a French cathedral and interactive 3-D models of organic chemicals. Free pages will feed into profit-generating areas, such as online courses and seminars, and related books and tapes. Columbia executive vice president Michael Crow imagines “millions of visitors” to the new site, including retirees and students willing to pay to tap into this educational resource. “We can offer the best of what’s thought and written and researched,” says Ann Kirschner, who heads the project. Columbia also is anxious not be beaten by some of the other for-profit “knowledge sites,” such as About.com and Hungry Minds. “If they capture this space,” says Crow, “th

Nobody ever went into academic circles to make a fast fortune. Professors, especially those in medical-and technology-related fields, typically earn a fraction of what their colleagues in industry do. But suddenly, big money is starting to flow into the ivory tower, as university administrators make up to the commercial potential of academic research. And the institutions are wrestling with a whole new set of issues.

　　The profits are impressive: the Association of University Technology Managers surveyed 132 universities and found that they earned a combined $576 million from patent royalties in 1998, a number that promises to keep rising dramatically. Schools like Columbia University in New York have aggressively marketed their inventions to corporations, particularly pharmaceutical and high-tech companies.

　　Now Columbia is going retail—on the Web. It plans to go beyond the typical “dot. edu” model, free sites listing courses and professors’ research interests. Instead, it will offer the expertise of its faculty on a new for-profit site which will be spun off as an independent company. The site will provide free access to educational and research content, say administrators, as well as advanced features that are already available to Columbia students, such as a simulation of the construction and architecture of a French cathedral and interactive 3-D models of organic chemicals. Free pages will feed into profit-generating areas, such as online courses and seminars, and related books and tapes. Columbia executive vice president Michael Crow imagines “millions of visitors” to the new site, including retirees and students willing to pay to tap into this educational resource. “We can offer the best of what’s thought and written and researched,” says Ann Kirschner, who heads the project. Columbia also is anxious not be beaten by some of the other for-profit “knowledge sites,” such as About.com and Hungry Minds. “If they capture this space,” says Crow, “th

Nobody ever went into academic circles to make a fast fortune. Professors, especially those in medical-and technology-related fields, typically earn a fraction of what their colleagues in industry do. But suddenly, big money is starting to flow into the ivory tower, as university administrators make up to the commercial potential of academic research. And the institutions are wrestling with a whole new set of issues.

　　The profits are impressive: the Association of University Technology Managers surveyed 132 universities and found that they earned a combined $576 million from patent royalties in 1998, a number that promises to keep rising dramatically. Schools like Columbia University in New York have aggressively marketed their inventions to corporations, particularly pharmaceutical and high-tech companies.

　　Now Columbia is going retail—on the Web. It plans to go beyond the typical “dot. edu” model, free sites listing courses and professors’ research interests. Instead, it will offer the expertise of its faculty on a new for-profit site which will be spun off as an independent company. The site will provide free access to educational and research content, say administrators, as well as advanced features that are already available to Columbia students, such as a simulation of the construction and architecture of a French cathedral and interactive 3-D models of organic chemicals. Free pages will feed into profit-generating areas, such as online courses and seminars, and related books and tapes. Columbia executive vice president Michael Crow imagines “millions of visitors” to the new site, including retirees and students willing to pay to tap into this educational resource. “We can offer the best of what’s thought and written and researched,” says Ann Kirschner, who heads the project. Columbia also is anxious not be beaten by some of the other for-profit “knowledge sites,” such as About.com and Hungry Minds. “If they capture this space,” says Crow, “th

Nobody ever went into academic circles to make a fast fortune. Professors, especially those in medical-and technology-related fields, typically earn a fraction of what their colleagues in industry do. But suddenly, big money is starting to flow into the ivory tower, as university administrators make up to the commercial potential of academic research. And the institutions are wrestling with a whole new set of issues.

　　The profits are impressive: the Association of University Technology Managers surveyed 132 universities and found that they earned a combined $576 million from patent royalties in 1998, a number that promises to keep rising dramatically. Schools like Columbia University in New York have aggressively marketed their inventions to corporations, particularly pharmaceutical and high-tech companies.

　　Now Columbia is going retail—on the Web. It plans to go beyond the typical “dot. edu” model, free sites listing courses and professors’ research interests. Instead, it will offer the expertise of its faculty on a new for-profit site which will be spun off as an independent company. The site will provide free access to educational and research content, say administrators, as well as advanced features that are already available to Columbia students, such as a simulation of the construction and architecture of a French cathedral and interactive 3-D models of organic chemicals. Free pages will feed into profit-generating areas, such as online courses and seminars, and related books and tapes. Columbia executive vice president Michael Crow imagines “millions of visitors” to the new site, including retirees and students willing to pay to tap into this educational resource. “We can offer the best of what’s thought and written and researched,” says Ann Kirschner, who heads the project. Columbia also is anxious not be beaten by some of the other for-profit “knowledge sites,” such as About.com and Hungry Minds. “If they capture this space,” says Crow, “th

Some believe that in the age of identikit computer games, mass entertainment and conformity on the supermarket shelves, truly inspired thinking has gone out of the window. But, there are others who hold the view that there is still plenty of scope for innovation, lateral thought and creative solutions. Despite the standardization of modern life, there is an unabated appetite for great ideas, visionary thinking and inspired debate. In the first of a series of monthly debates on contemporary issues, we ask two original thinkers to discuss the nature of creativity. Here is the first one.

　　Yes. Absolutely. Since I started working as an inventor 10 or 12 years ago, I’ve seen a big change in attitudes to creativity and invention. Back then, there was hardly any support for inventors, apart from the national organization the Institute of Patentees and Inventors. Today, there are lots of little inventors’ clubs popping up all over the place, my last count was 19 nationally and growing. These non-profit clubs, run by inventors for inventors, are an indication that people are once again interested in invention.

　　I’ve been a project leader, a croupier, an IT consultant and I’ve written a motor mandrel. I spent my teens under a 1950s two-tone Riley RME ear, learning to put it together. Back in the Sixties, kids like me were always out doing things, making go-karts, riding bicycles or exploring. We learned to overcome challenges and solve problems. We weren’t just sitting at a PlayStation, like many kids do today.

　　But I think, and hope, things are shifting back. There’s a lot more internl in design and creativity and such talents are getting a much higher profile in the media. It’s evident with TV programmes such as Channe14’s?Scrapheap Challenge?or BBC2’s?The Apprentice and Dragon’s Den, where people are given a task to solve or face the challenge of selling their idea to a panel.

　　And. thankfully, the image of the mad scientist with electrified

Some believe that in the age of identikit computer games, mass entertainment and conformity on the supermarket shelves, truly inspired thinking has gone out of the window. But, there are others who hold the view that there is still plenty of scope for innovation, lateral thought and creative solutions. Despite the standardization of modern life, there is an unabated appetite for great ideas, visionary thinking and inspired debate. In the first of a series of monthly debates on contemporary issues, we ask two original thinkers to discuss the nature of creativity. Here is the first one.

　　Yes. Absolutely. Since I started working as an inventor 10 or 12 years ago, I’ve seen a big change in attitudes to creativity and invention. Back then, there was hardly any support for inventors, apart from the national organization the Institute of Patentees and Inventors. Today, there are lots of little inventors’ clubs popping up all over the place, my last count was 19 nationally and growing. These non-profit clubs, run by inventors for inventors, are an indication that people are once again interested in invention.

　　I’ve been a project leader, a croupier, an IT consultant and I’ve written a motor mandrel. I spent my teens under a 1950s two-tone Riley RME ear, learning to put it together. Back in the Sixties, kids like me were always out doing things, making go-karts, riding bicycles or exploring. We learned to overcome challenges and solve problems. We weren’t just sitting at a PlayStation, like many kids do today.

　　But I think, and hope, things are shifting back. There’s a lot more internl in design and creativity and such talents are getting a much higher profile in the media. It’s evident with TV programmes such as Channe14’s?Scrapheap Challenge?or BBC2’s?The Apprentice and Dragon’s Den, where people are given a task to solve or face the challenge of selling their idea to a panel.

　　And. thankfully, the image of the mad scientist with electrified

Some believe that in the age of identikit computer games, mass entertainment and conformity on the supermarket shelves, truly inspired thinking has gone out of the window. But, there are others who hold the view that there is still plenty of scope for innovation, lateral thought and creative solutions. Despite the standardization of modern life, there is an unabated appetite for great ideas, visionary thinking and inspired debate. In the first of a series of monthly debates on contemporary issues, we ask two original thinkers to discuss the nature of creativity. Here is the first one.

　　Yes. Absolutely. Since I started working as an inventor 10 or 12 years ago, I’ve seen a big change in attitudes to creativity and invention. Back then, there was hardly any support for inventors, apart from the national organization the Institute of Patentees and Inventors. Today, there are lots of little inventors’ clubs popping up all over the place, my last count was 19 nationally and growing. These non-profit clubs, run by inventors for inventors, are an indication that people are once again interested in invention.

　　I’ve been a project leader, a croupier, an IT consultant and I’ve written a motor mandrel. I spent my teens under a 1950s two-tone Riley RME ear, learning to put it together. Back in the Sixties, kids like me were always out doing things, making go-karts, riding bicycles or exploring. We learned to overcome challenges and solve problems. We weren’t just sitting at a PlayStation, like many kids do today.

　　But I think, and hope, things are shifting back. There’s a lot more internl in design and creativity and such talents are getting a much higher profile in the media. It’s evident with TV programmes such as Channe14’s?Scrapheap Challenge?or BBC2’s?The Apprentice and Dragon’s Den, where people are given a task to solve or face the challenge of selling their idea to a panel.

　　And. thankfully, the image of the mad scientist with electrified

Some believe that in the age of identikit computer games, mass entertainment and conformity on the supermarket shelves, truly inspired thinking has gone out of the window. But, there are others who hold the view that there is still plenty of scope for innovation, lateral thought and creative solutions. Despite the standardization of modern life, there is an unabated appetite for great ideas, visionary thinking and inspired debate. In the first of a series of monthly debates on contemporary issues, we ask two original thinkers to discuss the nature of creativity. Here is the first one.

　　Yes. Absolutely. Since I started working as an inventor 10 or 12 years ago, I’ve seen a big change in attitudes to creativity and invention. Back then, there was hardly any support for inventors, apart from the national organization the Institute of Patentees and Inventors. Today, there are lots of little inventors’ clubs popping up all over the place, my last count was 19 nationally and growing. These non-profit clubs, run by inventors for inventors, are an indication that people are once again interested in invention.

　　I’ve been a project leader, a croupier, an IT consultant and I’ve written a motor mandrel. I spent my teens under a 1950s two-tone Riley RME ear, learning to put it together. Back in the Sixties, kids like me were always out doing things, making go-karts, riding bicycles or exploring. We learned to overcome challenges and solve problems. We weren’t just sitting at a PlayStation, like many kids do today.

　　But I think, and hope, things are shifting back. There’s a lot more internl in design and creativity and such talents are getting a much higher profile in the media. It’s evident with TV programmes such as Channe14’s?Scrapheap Challenge?or BBC2’s?The Apprentice and Dragon’s Den, where people are given a task to solve or face the challenge of selling their idea to a panel.

　　And. thankfully, the image of the mad scientist with electrified

Some believe that in the age of identikit computer games, mass entertainment and conformity on the supermarket shelves, truly inspired thinking has gone out of the window. But, there are others who hold the view that there is still plenty of scope for innovation, lateral thought and creative solutions. Despite the standardization of modern life, there is an unabated appetite for great ideas, visionary thinking and inspired debate. In the first of a series of monthly debates on contemporary issues, we ask two original thinkers to discuss the nature of creativity. Here is the first one.

　　Yes. Absolutely. Since I started working as an inventor 10 or 12 years ago, I’ve seen a big change in attitudes to creativity and invention. Back then, there was hardly any support for inventors, apart from the national organization the Institute of Patentees and Inventors. Today, there are lots of little inventors’ clubs popping up all over the place, my last count was 19 nationally and growing. These non-profit clubs, run by inventors for inventors, are an indication that people are once again interested in invention.

　　I’ve been a project leader, a croupier, an IT consultant and I’ve written a motor mandrel. I spent my teens under a 1950s two-tone Riley RME ear, learning to put it together. Back in the Sixties, kids like me were always out doing things, making go-karts, riding bicycles or exploring. We learned to overcome challenges and solve problems. We weren’t just sitting at a PlayStation, like many kids do today.

　　But I think, and hope, things are shifting back. There’s a lot more internl in design and creativity and such talents are getting a much higher profile in the media. It’s evident with TV programmes such as Channe14’s?Scrapheap Challenge?or BBC2’s?The Apprentice and Dragon’s Den, where people are given a task to solve or face the challenge of selling their idea to a panel.

　　And. thankfully, the image of the mad scientist with electrified

Sydney is the capital city of ( ) .

Firth insisted that the object of linguistics is ( )

Which American president was at the same time period with Martin Luther King Jr.？

Henry James was most famous for( )

Lexemeis( ).

The original New Zealand residentsare( )

The Declaration of Independence came from the theory of British philosopher ( )

The distinction between competence and performance was made by( ).

( ) modify the meaning of the stem， but usually do not change the part of speech of the original word.

An allophone refers to any of the different forms of a ( ).

The Parliament of Australia consists of the House of Representatives and( )

Which American university is with the longest history？

( )with traditional contexts，the Internet-based learning environment provides new ways of presenting and obtaining knowledge.

The noun "tear" and the verb "tear"are( ).

The largest lake in Britain is( ).

The Canterbury Tales was written by( ).

President Jefferson bought ( ) from France and doubled the countrys territory.

The Amendment to the Constitution whichbanned slavery is( ).