IELTSwithJurabek

PASSAGE 2

Read the text and answer questions 14-26

THOUGHTFUL COMPUTING SYSTEM

A. "Your battery is now fully charged," announced the laptop computer to its owner, Donald A. Norman, with enthusiasm, perhaps even a hint of pride, in its synthetic voice. To be sure, distractions and multitasking are hardly new to the human condition. "A complicated life, continually interrupted by competing requests for attention, is as old as procreation," laughs Ted Selker of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Media Lab. But increasingly, it is not just our kids pulling us three ways at once; it is also a relentless barrage of e-mail, alerts, alarms, calls, instant messages and automated notifications, none of them coordinated and all of them oblivious to whether we are busy or even present. "It's ridiculous that my own computer can't figure out whether I'm in front of it, but a public toilet can," exclaims Roel Vertegaal of Queen's University in Ontario.

B. Humanity has connected itself through roughly three billion networked telephones, computers, traffic lights, even refrigerators and picture frames, because these things make life more convenient and keep us available to those we care about. So although we could simply turn off the phones, close the e-mail program, and shut the office door when it is time for a meeting or a stretch of concentrated work, we usually do not. We just endure the consequences.

C. Numerous studies have shown that when people are unexpectedly interrupted, they not only work less efficiently but also make more mistakes. "It seems to add cumulatively to a feeling of frustration," Picard reports, and that stress response makes it hard to regain focus. It is not merely a matter of productivity and the pace of life. For pilots, drivers, soldiers and doctors, errors of inattention can be downright dangerous. "If we could just give our computers and phones some understanding of the limits of human attention and memory, it would make them seem a lot more thoughtful and courteous," says Eric Horvitz of Microsoft Research. Horvitz, Vertegaal, Selker and Picard are among a small but growing number of researchers trying to teach computers, phones, cars and other gadgets to behave less like egocentric oafs and more like considerate colleagues.

D. "Attentive" computing systems have begun appearing in newer Volvos and IBM has introduced Websphere communications software with a basic busyness sense. Microsoft has been running extensive in-house tests of a much more sophisticated system since 2003. Within a few years, companies may be able to offer every office worker a software version of the personal receptionist that only corner-suite executives enjoy today. But if such an offer should land in your inbox, be sure to read the fine print before you sign. An attentive system, by definition, is one that is always watching. That considerate computer may come to know more about your work habits than you do.

E. Most people are not as busy as they think they are, which is why we can usually tolerate interruptions from our inconsiderate electronic paraphernalia. James Fogarty and Scott E. Hudson of Carnegie Mellon University recently teamed up with Jennifer Lai of IBM Research to study 10 managers, researchers and interns at work. They videotaped the subjects and periodically had them rate their "interruptibility." The amount of time the workers spent in leave-me-alone mode varied from person to person and day to day, ranging from 10 to 51 percent. On average, the subjects wanted to work without interruption about one third of the time. In studies of Microsoft employees, Horvitz has similarly found that they typically spend more than 65 percent of their day in a state of low attention.

F. Today's phones and computers, which naively assume that their user is never too busy to take a call, read an email, or click "OK" on an alert box, thus are probably correct about two thirds of time. To be useful, then, considerate systems will have to be more than 65 percent accurate in sensing when their users are near their cognitive limits.

G. Bestcom/Enhanced Telephony, a Microsoft prototype based on Horvitz's work, digs a little deeper into each user's computer to find clues about what they are up to. Microsoft launched an internal beta test of the system in mid-2003. By last October, Horvitz says, about 3,800 people were using the system to field their incoming phone calls.

H. Horvitz himself is one of those testers, and while we talk in his office in Redmond, Wash., Bestcom silently handles one call after another. First it checks whether the caller is listed in his address book, the company directory, or its log of people he has called recently. Triangulating these sources, it tries to deduce their relationship. Family members, supervisors and people he called earlier today ring through. Others see a message on their computer that he is in a meeting and will not be available until 3 PM. The system scans Horvitz's and the caller's calendar and offers to reschedule the call at a time that is open for both. Some callers choose that option; others leave voicemail. Email messages get a similar screening. When Horvitz is out of the office, Bestcom automatically offers to forward selected callers to his cellphone, unless his calendar and other evidence suggest that he is in a meeting.

I. Most large companies already use computerized phone systems and standard calendar and contact management software, so tapping into those "sensors" should be straightforward. Not all employees will like the idea of having a microphone on all the time in their office, however, nor will everyone want to expose their datebook to some program they do not ultimately control. Moreover, some managers might be tempted to equate a "state of low attention" with "goofing off" and punish those who seem insufficiently busy.

PASSAGE 3

Read the text and answer questions 27-40

Thinking Small: Globalization and the Choice of Technology

Kumar Venkat questions the value of advanced technology for economic development at a global level

There is an almost universal belief among policy-makers that advanced technology and increased exports are vital for economic development in poor countries. Indeed, this belief is at the basis of the globalized economy, and despite protests against globalization from many quarters, it has not yet been fundamentally questioned.

The selection of appropriate technology is arguably the most crucial choice that a developing nation must make. However, in numerous instances, rather than making autonomous decisions tailored to their specific conditions, these nations have technological choices dictated by multinational corporations that dominate the global marketplace.

The increasing reliance on large-scale mechanization by these corporations demands substantial capital investment while simultaneously reducing the need for human labor wherever feasible. This strategy is often incompatible with the demographic and environmental realities of many developing regions, where populations are dense, unemployment rates are high, and natural resources such as fossil fuels, arable land, and freshwater are scarce.

The vision of globalization suggests that developing nations can overcome poverty by integrating into the global trade system, exporting goods to wealthier markets. The principle underlying this model is that each country should focus on producing commodities where it holds a comparative advantage and exchange them for goods it requires. However, this economic structure reinforces an industrial and agricultural landscape dominated by large-scale production, which often marginalizes small-scale, localized industries. The primary beneficiaries of this system are multinational corporations with the financial means to establish centralized production facilities in low-wage regions with minimal regulatory oversight.

Furthermore, domestic manufacturers in many developing nations struggle to compete with the influx of inexpensive imported goods saturating their markets. These imports bring with them embedded production technologies, leaving local manufacturers with little choice but to adopt similar methodologies to remain competitive, even when such technologies are ill-suited to their regional conditions.

One category of technology frequently promoted as a panacea for poverty and illiteracy is information technology. As the market for digital infrastructure in developed countries nears saturation, tech corporations seek to expand into emerging economies, capitalizing on the globalization narrative that advanced technology is indispensable for development. However, upon closer scrutiny, it becomes evident that the primary beneficiaries of such technological expansion are businesses and entities that are already economically viable.

The United States, where over half the population has access to computers and the internet, presents an idealized model of what developing nations might aspire to achieve through digitalization. Yet, despite widespread technological adoption, the U.S. poverty rate remains at approximately 12 percent, unchanged since the computer revolution of the 1970s, while income inequality has widened by nearly 50 percent over the past 25 years. This indicates that efforts to combat poverty must target deeper systemic issues rather than simply increasing access to information technology.

Nonetheless, tech industries continue to thrive in emerging economies like India, where internet connectivity is being extended to remote villages that still lack reliable road networks. Although the internet can offer certain advantages, such as improved access to governmental services and real-time weather forecasts, more traditional, cost-effective solutions, such as radio broadcasting, may be better suited for many rural areas.

The issue at hand is not a binary choice between embracing technology and rejecting it outright. Even without sophisticated machinery, societies still require tools to facilitate labor. If sustainable resource management and sufficient employment opportunities are priorities, then technology selection must be approached thoughtfully. Instead of prioritizing automation that displaces workers, it would be more prudent, particularly for resource-constrained, densely populated nations, to adopt smaller-scale technologies that optimize human participation. Such technologies should be engineered to maximize efficiency in agricultural and industrial production while minimizing the financial investment required for their acquisition.

The modern global economy is intrinsically linked to the technological infrastructure that enables mass production and international distribution of goods. However, if the goal is to foster a more sustainable global economy, one that safeguards resources and generates employment, then the spectrum of acceptable technologies must be broadened considerably.

Technological solutions must be adapted to the specific needs of a region and its inhabitants, rather than compelling communities to conform to externally imposed innovations. By opting for smaller-scale technologies, their functional reach is naturally confined, making them more conducive to local enterprises rather than large multinational corporations with extensive supply chains. Local businesses, in turn, contribute to their communities by providing employment opportunities and promoting responsible resource management. Ultimately, the sustainability of local economies will hinge on the technological choices they make. For the first time in history, the deliberate selection of appropriate technology, rather than defaulting to the most advanced or large-scale options, may determine the feasibility of a livable future.