Yours, Sincerely,
Li Hua
Last March, Margarito drove to visit his mother who lived in the countryside. When he set off for home, Margarito’s mother looked at the dark sky and noticed the sign of a coming storm. Worried about her son’s safety, she told him to drive as carefully as possible on his way home and he promised to give her a call upon his arrival.
With his mother’s words in mind, Margarito approached the main road carefully. Soon, it started to rain heavily. Eager to get home, Margarito began to drive faster. Two hours later, he came to a bumpy mountain road that had been flooded by a creek (小溪). Margarito, driving a four-wheel drive truck, figured that he would be OK. At that moment, he didn’t realize that such a thought would be a big mistake.
It was halfway across the creek that an unfortunate incident took place: The rushing waters grabbed hold of his vehicle, pushing it off the road and sending it down a rocky creek bed. The truck finally stopped some 80 feet away. Margarito’s problems only grew from there as the water had somehow positioned the truck into the creek bank at a 45-degree angle, making it difficult for him to open the driver’s side door. Injured and trapped inside with the muddy water rising quickly, Margarito was certain he was going to die. Shaking with fear, he was at a loss about what to do.
On the road right behind Margarito were a delivery worker named Steve and his nephew Mike, who were on the way to deliver furniture to customers in the countryside. They witnessed the horrible incident, and when Margarito’s truck came to rest in the middle of the overflowing creek, Steve quickly began to take action. First, he grabbed a rope from the back of his vehicle and used it to ensure he could safely approach the truck.
Thinking small, being engaging, and having a sense of humor don’t hurt. Those are a few of the traits of successful science crowdfunding efforts that emerge from a recent study that examined nearly 400 campaigns. But having a large network and some promotional skills may be more crucial.
Crowdfunding, raising money for a project through online appeals, has taken off in recent years for everything from making movies to producing water-saving gadgets. Scientists have tried to tap Internet donors, too, with mixed success. Some raised more than twice their goals, but others have fallen short of reaching even modest targets.
To determine what separates science crowdfunding triumphs from failures, a team led by science communications scholar Mike Schafer of the University of Zurich examined the content of the webpages for 371 recent campaigns.
Four traits stood out for those that achieved their goals, the researchers report in Public Understanding of Science. For one, they use a crowdfunding platform that specializes in raising money for science, and not just any kind of project. Although sites like Kickstarter take all comers, platforms such as Experiment.com and Petridish.org only present scientific projects. For another, they present the project with a funny video because good visuals and a sense of humor improved success. Most of them engage with potential donors, since projects that answered questions from interested donors fared better. And they target a small amount of money. The projects included in the study raised $4000 on average, with 30% receiving less than $1000. The more money a project sought, the lower the chance it reached its goal, the researchers found.
Crowdfunding can be part of researchers’ efforts to reach the public, and people give because “they feel a connection to the person” who is doing the fundraising — not necessarily to the science.
Scientific publishing has long been a license to print money. Scientists need journals in which to publish their research, so they will supply the articles without monetary reward. Other scientists perform the specialized work of peer review also for free, because it is a central element in the acquisition of status and the production of scientific knowledge.
With the content of papers secured for free, the publisher needs only find a market for its journal. Until this century, university libraries were not very price sensitive. Scientific publishers routinely report profit margins approaching 40% on their operations, at a time when the rest of the publishing industry is in an existential crisis.
The Dutch giant Elsevier, which claims to publish 25% of the scientific papers produced in the world , made profits of more than £900m last year, while UK universities alone spent more than £210m in 2016 to enable researchers to access their own publicly funded research; both figures seem to rise unstoppably despite increasingly desperate efforts to change them.
The most drastic, and thoroughly illegal, reaction has been the emergence of Sci-Hub, a kind of global photocopier for scientific papers, set up in 2012, which now claims to offer access to every paywalled article published since 2015. The success of Sci-Hub, which relies on researchers passing on copies they have themselves legally accessed, shows the legal ecosystem has lost legitimacy among its users and must be transformed so that it works for all participants.
In Britain the move towards open access publishing has been driven by funding bodies. In some ways it has been very successful. More than half of all British scientific research is now published under open access terms: either freely available from the moment of publication, or paywalled for a year or more so that the publishers can make a profit before being placed on general release.
Yet the new system has not worked out any cheaper for the universities. Publishers have responded to the demand that they make their product free to readers by charging their writers fees to cover the costs of preparing an article. These range from around ￡500 to $5,000. A report last year pointed out that the costs both of subscriptions and of these “article preparation costs” had been steadily rising at a rate above inflation. In some ways the scientific publishing model resembles the economy of the social internet: labour is provided free in exchange for the hope of status, while huge profits are made by a few big firms who run the market places. In both cases, we need a rebalancing of power.
1．Scientific publishing is seen as “a license to print money” partly because________| A．its funding has enjoyed a steady increase. | B．its marketing strategy has been successful. |
| C．its payment for peer review is reduced. | D．its content acquisition costs nothing. |
| A．Scientific publisher Elsevier have thrived mainly on university libraries. |
| B．Most scientific publishers gone through an existential crisis until this century. |
| C．Sci-Hub offers free access to paywalled articles published since 2015. |
| D．The researchers’ legally-accessed copies deny the legal ecosystem legitimacy. |
| A．allow publishers some room to make money. | B．render publishing much easier for scientists. |
| C．reduce the cost of publication substantially. | D．free universities from financial burdens. |
| A．Trial subscription is offered. | B．Labour triumphs over status. |
| C．Costs are well controlled. | D．The few feed on the many. |
Engineers at Zhejiang University have created China's first brain-like computer, named Darwin Mouse, which can copy the way a human brain works and solve complex calculations while using a small amount of the energy used by traditional supercomputers.
Though the technology is still in its early stages, experts say it could be used to run large, real-time simulations(模拟) and make new discoveries in chemistry, medicine and neuroscience. It could also be used to revolutionise computer design, leading to more powerful and efficient artificial intelligence.
Pan Gang, a professor at the university's College of Computer Science and Technology, said neuromorphic(神经形态的) computing has been a focus of the international scientific and engineering communities for some time and is considered one of the key methods to overcome the major computing challenges for artificial intelligence. Darwin Mouse represented a "major milestone achievement" in China's brain-like computing technology.
In late 2018, the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom upgraded its neuromorphic supercomputer SpiNNaker to use a million processors, enabling it to perform 2 trillion actions a second. This allowed the machine to run extremely large-scale real-time simulations, such as modelling parts of the brain. Darwin Mouse uses significantly fewer processors thanks to the latest developments in brain-like chips made in China, allowing it to perform far better.
Another advantage is low energy costs. When information is transmitted, only neurons that receive and process the signals are activated, while other neurons stay asleep, similar to how a brain works. As a result, the energy consumption can be reduced to a small part of that of conventional supercomputers.
"We hope to keep evolving the Darwin series neuromorphic computer towards reaching human levels of intelligence, thus achieving more powerful artificial intelligence with significantly less energy use. It is hopeful that brain-like computers will make their way into our daily lives as the hardware and the software for the technology mature," Pan said.
1．Which can be inferred about Darwin Mouse?| A．Brain-like and easy to operate. | B．Powerful and energy-saving. |
| C．Traditional but efficient. | D．Advanced but impractical. |
| A．To show it can run more complex simulations. |
| B．To prove no computers can compare with human brains. |
| C．To stress the importance of brain-like chips. |
| D．To highlight the advantage of Darwin Mouse. |
| A．Positive. | B．Sceptical. | C．Tolerant. | D．Objective. |
| A．Outstanding Engineers of China |
| B．The Brain-Like Computer Makes Its First Appearance in China |
| C．Darwin Mouse, a Famous Mouse |
| D．Artificial Intelligence Has a Bright Future |
Electronic timing is older than most people imagine and was used for the first time more than a hundred years ago at the 1912 Stockholm Olympics. Initially, the well-known company Ericsson was tasked with developing the technology, but it was the Swedish inventor Ragnar Carlstedt who eventually created the final product.
At the same time, Carlstedt introduced another invention: the finish line camera. The 1, 500-meter Olympic final was extremely close with Arnold Jackson from Great Britain winning by only 0.1 seconds. But it was impossible to decide on the silver medal since the two Americans Abel Kiviat and Norman Taber finished side by side. For the first time in history, the outcome of an Olympic event had to be settled based on a photo finish when Kiviat was judged to be “slightly ahead”.
The significance of these two inventions led a major newspaper to write: “Electronic timing at the Olympic Games. Simultaneous (同时发生的) timing and photography of contestants. A brilliant idea!”
The next step in timekeeping was the photo-finish camera with a time stamp imprinted on each picture, which was introduced at the 1932 Olympics in Los Angeles. The 1948 Olympics saw the introduction of another invention with the continuous slit camera (狭缝摄影机), where a film behind a narrow slit rolls (滚动) with the same speed as the runners. Four years later the clocks were connected to the slit camera giving a solution of 1/100 s. But it was not until 1972 that official times were recorded to the 100th of a second.
The next big step in the eighties was to make the camera digital to speed up the feedback (反馈). But the idea behind the slit camera was kept and is still the basis of all timing systems for athletics used today. The only difference is that now there is a very narrow sensor array ( 阵列传感器) instead of the moving film.
After a century technology has reached the point where the whole timing system can be stored in a smartphone. So in a way, the circle was closed when SprintTimer, a sports timer and photo finish app, was developed in the same place and precisely a hundred years after Ragnar Carlstedt.
1．What do we know about electronic timing?| A．It was created in recent years. |
| B．It was first introduced at the Olympics. |
| C．It was developed by the well-known company Ericsson. |
| D．It was perfected by the Swedish inventor Ragnar Carlstedt. |
| A．The increasing need for a finish line camera. |
| B．The excellent performance of Arnold Jackson. |
| C．The significant role of Carlstedt's another invention. |
| D．The intense competition of the 1,500-meter Olympic final. |
| A．It avoided the use of a moving film. |
| B．It rolled with the same speed as the runners. |
| C．It made a 100th-of-a-second record possible. |
| D．It adopted a new idea for all timing systems used today. |
| A．Further improvement was discontinued. |
| B．The problem was back to the origin. |
| C．A new invention was created. |
| D．The issue was resolved. |
| A．In Texas. | B．In California. | C．In Ohio. |
| A．When he visited his dad’s workplace. |
| B．When he majored in astronomy. |
| C．When he joined a flying club. |
| A．Dealing with emergencies. |
| B．Estimating the required fuel. |
| C．Remembering the flight routes. |
| A．Tiring. | B．Interesting. | C．Demanding. |
搜索
