2026年教师职称《高中英语》模拟试卷一

Old stereotypes die hard.Picture a video-game player and you will likely imagine a teenage boy,by himself,compulsively hammering away at a game involving rayguns and aliens that splatter when blasted.Ten years ago that might have bome some relation to reality.But today a gamer is as likely to be a middle-aged commuter playing "Angry Birds" on her smartphone.In AmericA.the biggest market,the average game-player is 37 years old.Two-fifths are female.
Over the past ten years the video-game industry has grown from a small business to a huge, mainstream one.With global sales of $56 billion in 2010,it is more than twice the size of the recorded-music industry.Despite the downturn,it is growing by almost 9% a year.
Is this success due to luck or skill? The answer matters,because the rest of the entertainment industry has tended to treat gaming as being a lucky beneficiary of broader technological changes. Video gaming,unlike musiC.film or television,had the luck to be born digital.In fact,there is plenty for old media to learn.
Video games have certainly been swept along by two forces: demography and technology.The first gaming generation-the children of the 1970s and early 1980s-is now over 30.Many still love gaming,and can afford to spend far more on it now.Meanwhile rapid improvements in computing power have allowed game designers to offer experiences that are now often more cinematic than the cinema.
But even granted this good fortune,the game-makers have been clever.They have reached out to new customers with new methods.They have branched out into education,corporate training and even warfare,and have embraced digital downloads and mobile devices with enthusiasm.Though big-budget games are still popular,much of the growth now comes from "casual" games that are simple,cheap and playable in short bursts on mobile phones or in web browsers.
The industry has excelled in a particular area-pricing.In an era when people are disinclined to pay for content on the weB.games publishers were quick to develop "freemium" models,where you rely on non-paying customers to build an audience and then extract cash only from a fanatical few.
As gaming comes to be seen as just another medium,its tech-savvy approach could provide a welcome shot in the arm for existing media groups.

Do who choose to go on exotiC.far-flung holidays deserve free health advice before they travel? And even if they pay,who ensures that they get gooD.up-to-date information? Who,for that matter,should collect that information in the first place? For a variety of reasons,travel medicine in Britain is a responsibility nobody wants.As a result,many travellers go abroad prepared to avoid serious disease.
　　Why is travel medicine so unloved? Partly there's an identity problem.Because it takes an interest in anything that impinges on the health of travellers,this emerging medical specialism invariably cuts across the traditional disciplines.It delves into everything from seasickness,jet lag and the hazards of camels to malaria and plague.But travel medicine has a more serious obstacle to overcome.Travel clinics are meant to tell people how to avoid ending up dead or in a hospital when they come home,but it is notoriously difficult to get anybody pay out money for keeping people healthy.
　　Travel medicine has also been colonized by commercial interests,the vast majority of travel clinics in Britain are run by airlines or travel companies.And while travel concerns are happy to sell profitable injections,they may be less keen to spread bad news about travellers' diarrhea in Turkey, or to take time to spell out preventive measures travellers could take."The NHS finds it difficult to define travellers' health," says Ron Behrens,"the only NHS consultant in travel and director of the travel clinic of the Hospital for Tropical Diseases in London." Should it come within the NHS or should it be paid for? "It's Gary areA.and opinion is spilt.No one seems to have any responsibility for defining its role," he says.
　　To compound its low status in the medical hierarchy,travel medicine has to rely on statistics that are patchy at best.In most cases we just don't know how many Britons contract diseases when abroad.And even if a disease linked to travel there is rarely any information about where those afflicted went,what they are,how they behaved.or which vaccinations they had.This shortage of hard facts and figures makes it difficult to give detailed advice to people,information that might even save their lives.
　　A recent leader in British Medical Journal argued."Travel medicine will emerge as credible disciplines only if the risks encountered by travellers and the relative benefits of public health interventions are well defined in terms oftheir relative occurrence,distribution and control." Exactly how much money is wasted by poor travel advice.The real figure is anybody's guess,but it could easily run into millions.Behrens gives one example.Britain spends more than1 million each yearjust on cholera vaccines that often don't work and so give people a false sense of security."Information on the prevention and treatment of all forms of diarrhea would be a better priority," he says.