大学英语 报刊泛读

The Desire for Tallest Building PersistsBy ROBIN POGREBINGiven the haunting image of the collapsing twin towers, its hard for many Americans to fathom the enduring urge to build tall.Yet now come plans for the nations tallest skyscraper, a condominium and hotel building designed by Santiago Calatrava for Chicagos Near North lakefront. At 2,000 feet, the building, the Fordham Spire, would beat out the 1,776-foot Freedom Tower planned for ground zero.Internationally, both of these designs are dwarfed by the Burj Tower under construction in Dubai, which is expected to reach 2,300 feet. Once completed, the Burj will overtake Taipei 101, a 1,667-foot office tower, as the worlds tallest. And the Taipei building is certainly a short-time record holder; only in October did it surpass the 1,483-foot Petronas Towers in Malaysia. There are real bragging rights to being the tallest that go back 3,000 years, said Carol Willis, the founder and director of the Skyscraper Museum in Manhattan. Exceeding or exalting for spiritual reasons or a demonstration of power dates back from Babylon on - wanting to take a place in history, reserve a place in the timeline. Height is a fixation.For all the talk about jitters deterring potential tenants of a future Freedom Tower, the 9/11 terrorist attack has done little or nothing to diminish a global appetite to touch the sky. The number of tall buildings being built around the world is at an all-time high, said Ron Klemencic, chairman of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, a professional group.Chicago already has three of the 15 tallest buildings in the world: the Sears Tower, the John Hancock Center and Aon Center. The skyscraper was born in Chicago, said Christian K. Narkiewicz-Laine, director and president of the Chicago Athenaeum: Museum of Architecture and Design. The whole concept of the skyscraper has always been indigenous to the city.Developers are planning four buildings of around 80 stories in the city, Mr. Klemencic said. (The Fordham Spire is to rise to 115 stories by 2009.) Miami, San Francisco and Las Vegas are also in the midst of bustling high-rise construction.David M. Childs of Skidmore Owings & Merrill, the architect who designed the Freedom Tower, said he was not at all troubled by the notion that its height would be eclipsed by that of Mr. Calatravas building. More power to him, he said.Mr. Childs pointed out that under current Federal Aviation Administration rules, Mr. Calatravas proposed 2,000-foot tower is as tall as any building is allowed to be. And the Freedom Tower was not meant to be higher, given the patriotic symbolism of 1,776 feet mandated by Daniel Libeskinds master plan. Mr. Childs designed the roof and rooftop parapet to match the height of the two original World Trade Center buildings (1,362 feet and 1,368 feet); the antenna completes the distance to the top.But the developer behind Burj Tower, Balfour Beatty, has made clear his intention to set - and keep - the record for the worlds tallest building. If anyone comes close, Ms. Willis said, theyll build a taller spire. That, of course, raises that perennial question in the skyscraper world: Does the spire count? Isnt it kind of cheating?The Council on Tall Buildings, which certifies the tallest structures, has determined that the spire counts if it is integral to the architecture of the building, Mr. Klemencic said.If you take off the top of the Chrysler Building, it doesnt look like the Chrysler Building anymore, he explained. But if you take the antennas off the Hancock Tower, it still looks like the Hancock Tower.The Freedom Towers spire is expected to set off some squabbling. Im sure there will be heated debate, Mr. Klemencic said.The 2,000-foot-high Calatrava building in Chicago, to be built by the developer Christopher T. Carley, would be 1,458 feet without its spire - only eight feet taller than the Sears Tower.Architecture buffs revel in the lore of such competition, recalling how the Chrysler Building beat out the Bank of Manhattan tower in 1929 with the last-minute hoisting of a secretly planned stainless steel top. In 1931, of course, the Chrysler was bested by the Empire State Building, which yielded the title to the World Trade Center four decades later.While the Calatrava building may be major news for the country, experts say it is old hat for much of the rest of the world, particularly Asia. Hong Kong, with its notorious population density, has more skyscrapers than New York, Ms. Willis said, and its residential buildings typically reach 60 stories these days. Along Shanghais jostling skyline, plans are under way for an 1,614-foot tower, Chinas tallest, as part of the Shanghai World Financial Center. Theyre not afraid of height at all, Ms. Willis said of developers in Asia. There is no anxiety. They both need the space and want the attention.Some New Yorkers no doubt remain deeply wary of living or working in skyscrapers in the aftermath of 9/11. More than any other building, the Freedom Tower is a natural locus for fears of a violent recurrence. But architectural experts say that in general, plenty of people and institutions will succumb to the spell of an architecturally prominent tall building, not to mention the view. All you need is the right number of people with sufficient money, Ms. Willis said.（From New York Times, July 27, 2005）Film Studios Said to Agree on Digital StandardsBy LAURA M. HOLSONLOS ANGELES, July 26 - Hollywoods major film studios are expected to announce on Wednesday that they have agreed to new technical standards that will make it easier for movie theaters to show digitally produced movies, according to two studio executives apprised of the announcement.For years Hollywood has discussed how to create and distribute digital films with little success, in part because the parties could not agree on a standard technology for projectors or on who would pay to replace the equipment. Movie theater owners did not want to foot the bill, fearing the $100,000 projectors would become obsolete without a consensus about the standards. The movie industry, for its part, has resisted paying to replace projectors because studios do not own the theaters.But as it gets more expensive to make and market movies, studios have become more interested in the cost savings achieved with digital distribution. According to one of the executives, who requested anonymity because the agreement has not been announced yet, a movie film print costs $1,000 to $1,200 to make. A digital version costs a fraction of that as it can be either on a disc or transferred electronically.A spokesman for Digital Cinema Initiatives, the group that developed the standards, declined to discuss the agreement. But according to the two executives, studio executives agreed that the projectors should not only have digital capabilities now, but be compatible with higher resolution, next-generation projectors.Financing, a major sticking point between movie theater owners and the movie studios, is still being worked out. It is unclear how quickly theater owners will convert to digital technology; it could take years, according to some industry estimates. (Piracy will remain a problem because of illegal camcorder use.) One plan being discussed is having a group of studios work with a financing partner to help pay for the new projectors. As each projector is replaced, the savings associated with lower film costs would be used to pay down the debt. The theater owners would then be responsible for maintenance and upkeep.(From New York Times, July 26, 2005.)Shuttle back in spaceBY Jacqui Goddard IT TOOK nearly 30 months, more than a billion dollars and the endeavours of 20,000 people. Yet in just 8 thunderous minutes, Nasas space shuttle programme was finally back in orbit yesterday. The launch of Discovery, which punched out of the Earths atmosphere at 17,400mph, brought a chance for the beleaguered US space agency to lay ghosts to rest. Grounded since February 1, 2003, when Columbia disintegrated 16 minutes from landing, killing seven astronauts, the 24-year-old shuttle fleet has undergone a safety makeover as Nasa fights to restore faith in its long-term plan to send men back to the Moon by 2020, and on to Mars. But in a haunting reminder of the 2003 tragedy, in which the spacecraft broke up after a wing had been punctured during the launch, video footage showed debris falling from a fuel tank during lift-off. The debris did not seem to hit the shuttle, and Nasa officials said that there was no immediate cause for concern. In a second incident, radar and video footage showed a 1.5 in patch of surfacing missing from a heat-resistant tile on the door covering Discoverys nose landing gear. John Shannon, space shuttle flight operations manager, said that it was too early to tell whether it may become a safety issue. “Personally, I feel very good about where we are at in this mission right now,” he said. Seconds before Mission STS-114 lifted off from the Kennedy Space Centre, Florida, Mike Leinbach, the flight director, sent a radio message to Colonel Eileen Collins and her six crew. “On behalf of the millions of people who believe so deeply in what we do, good luck, Godspeed and have a little fun up there,” he said. As Colonel Collins and her team soared away, Laura Bush, the First Lady, watched from the roof of the launch control centre with the four wives, one husband and 13 children the astronauts left behind. Joining them were relatives of the astronauts who died when Challenger blew up in 1986 and the families of five of the crew of Columbia. Discovery, propelled by 7.5 million pounds of thrust and burning fuel at a rate of five tonnes a second, took off at 10.39am local time. Less than 20 minutes later she was 111 miles above the Earth. The 12-day voyage will take the crew to the International Space Station, where they will deliver parts and supplies to two astronauts one American, one Russian and test shuttle safety procedures. (From Times, July 27, 2005U.S. Tries a New Approach in Talks With North Korea By JIM YARDLEY and DAVID E. SANGER BEIJING, July 26 - The Bush administration appeared to show signs of new flexibility in talks with North Korea on Tuesday, with American and North Korean diplomats meeting here at length to discuss the delicate question of how aid or energy assistance may be provided to the North as it begins the process of dismantling its nuclear weapons program. Delegations from the two countries met alone here for the second straight day to discuss a proposal the administration put forward in June 2004 before North Korea walked away from talks. Christopher R. Hill, who is leading the American delegation, told reporters that the businesslike meeting again raised the prospect of a three-month freeze period on North Koreas nuclear activity, followed by a rapid dismantlement of their nuclear plants. In return, the aid spigot from South Korea and other neighbors would begin to open wider. In Washington, a senior administration official said the approach to the North was loosely patterned on the administrations dealings with Libya in 2003. That negotiation led to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafis decision to give up all the central elements of his nuclear program. But North Koreas nuclear infrastructure is far older, far more advanced and far better hidden, and the official said that at this point the United States was simply trying to lay the groundwork for a disarmament deal that many in Washington say Kim Jong Il, North Koreas leader, is unwilling to make. Mr. Hill declined to give any specifics of the response given by the North Korean vice foreign minister, Kim Kye Gwan. They talked about the June proposal, Mr. Hill said, according to the Kyodo News Agency of Japan. They talked about their concern about the sequencing of the proposal and the importance they attach to sequencing, where they dont want to have obligations ahead of other peoples obligations. During Mr. Bushs first term, Condoleezza Rice, now the secretary of state, was highly critical of President Bill Clinton for signing a deal that front-loaded the benefits to North Korea while putting off the Norths disarmament. Senior American officials say that is still the administrations position, but they say that Mr. Hill has been given more leeway than his predecessor, James A. Kelly, about what tack to take with the North Koreans, including one-on-one meetings. Mr. Hill seemed to suggest that the United States would be amenable to a step-by-step process under which North Korean concessions were met by rewards from the United States and other participants in the six-nation talks, South Korea, Japan, China and Russia. Mr. Hill said that when North Korea makes the decision to dismantle its nuclear program permanently, fully, verifiably, the United States and other participants in the talks would take corresponding measures. He described the approach as words for words and actions for actions. But the word verifiably may be a stumbling point, senior administration officials said, just as it was in decades of arms talks with the former Soviet Union. The United States says it does not know where major elements of North Koreas two suspected nuclear programs are - meaning that it is bound to insist on the right to look almost anywhere in the country. It is a step that many in the administration say they do not believe North Korea is ready to take. The bilateral meeting, held on the opening day of the six-nation talks here on the North Korean nuclear crisis, came as Mr. Hill sent several signals that the United States would take a more flexible negotiating line. In a statement during the opening session of the talks, he said the United States recognized the sovereignty of the North Korean government as a matter of fact and offered assurances that the Bush administration did not plan to launch a military attack against the country. In his opening remarks, Kim Kye Gwan, the top North Korean negotiator, avoided the belligerent tone often adopted by his government in his opening statement. Those directly involved should make a political and strategic decision to rid the threat of war from the Korean peninsula, and we are ready to do so, he said. I hope the U.S. and other nations are ready to do the same. This fourth round of talks comes after North Korea broke off negotiations 13 months ago without publicly responding to the American proposal. The new talks have assumed an air of urgency because of American concerns that North Korea has rapidly expanded its nuclear arsenal. Nuclear experts worry that the North may have enough fuel to make eight or more nuclear bombs. The previous three rounds of talks in Beijing ended without a breakthrough, and the legitimacy of the six-nation negotiating structure could collapse if this round ends in a stalemate. The Bush administration has already suggested that it might invoke severe economic penalties if this round failed to produce results. In a side issue, Japan continued to insist that North Koreas past abduction of Japanese citizens should also be included in the talks, a position rejected by North Korea and discouraged by South Korea. At a briefing after the close of the days meetings, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said that another plenary session would be held Wednesday and that the envoys from each country might also hold a joint meeting. The spokesman, Qin Gang, said that all the participants held bilateral meetings on Tuesday and that the session between the United States and North Korea was part of a broader warming trend in relations. Recently, the atmosphere has improved between the United States and North Korea, Mr. Qin said. The Chinese, who have served as host for each round of talks, have staked much of their diplomatic prestige on achieving a breakthrough. Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing asserted in his opening statement that the six-nation process was the only realistic, viable course for peacefully resolving the nuclear standoff, according to Chinese state media. But he also urged that the participating countries adopt a gradual approach to negotiations. These talks may run into all sorts of difficulties and setbacks, he said. If you climb up one crag at a time, you can always ascend a mountain. (From New York Times,)China Says It Does Not Plan More Revaluation By DAVID BARBOZA and JONATHAN FUERBRINGER BEIJING, July 26 - Just days after China modestly revalued its currency and did away with its longstanding peg to the American dollar alone, the nations central bank issued a statement Tuesday denying that there were any plans for further revaluation of the currency.The Peoples Bank of China released the statement in what appeared to be an effort to quell widespread speculation that over the next year China would allow its currency, the yuan or renminbi, to further appreciate against the dollar.The statement blamed certain foreign media for creating the impression that the 2.1 percent revaluation announced last Thursday would lead to more revaluations soon.Analysts said that the announcement may have been aimed at stopping a potential flood of capital into China trying to capitalize on any rise in the value of the yuan. Such a sudden inflow of capital would force Chinas central bank to take extra steps to keep the yuan from rising further against the dollar.When the rhetoric became extreme about further moves, they felt they had to come out with a statement, said Robert Sinche, global head of currency strategy at Bank of America. We believe they are through for this year, he added, referring to any further revaluations.The new rate posted by Chinas central bank