英語(yǔ)一閱讀翻譯2010.doc

2010年Text1Of all the changes that have taken place in English-language newspapers during the past quarter-century, perhaps the most far-reaching has been the inexorable decline in the scope and seriousness of their arts coverage.過(guò)去的25年，在英文報(bào)紙發(fā)生的所有變化中，或許最具有深遠(yuǎn)意義的變化就是這些報(bào)紙的文藝報(bào)道范圍不斷縮小，嚴(yán)肅性不斷減弱，這是個(gè)無(wú)法逆轉(zhuǎn)的必然趨勢(shì)。It is difficult to the point of impossibility for the average reader under the age of forty to imagine a time when high-quality arts criticism could be found in most big-city newspapers. Yet a considerable number of the most significant collections of criticism published in the 20th century consisted in large part of newspaper reviews. To read such books today is to marvel at the fact that their learned contents were once deemed suitable for publication in general-circulation dailies.對(duì)于年齡低于40歲的普通讀者來(lái)講，讓他們想象一下當(dāng)年可以在許多大城市報(bào)紙上讀到精品的文藝評(píng)論簡(jiǎn)直幾乎是天方夜譚。然而，在20世紀(jì)出版的最重要的文藝批評(píng)集子里，人們讀到的大部分評(píng)論文章都是從報(bào)紙上收集而來(lái)?，F(xiàn)在，如果讀到這些集子，人們肯定會(huì)驚詫，當(dāng)年這般博學(xué)多才的精神食糧竟然被認(rèn)為適合刊載在面向大眾發(fā)行的報(bào)紙版面上。We are even farther removed from the unfocused newspaper reviews published in England between the turn of the 20th century and the eve of World War , at a time when newsprint was dirt-cheap and stylish arts criticism was considered an ornament to the publications in which it appeared. In those far-off days, it was taken for granted that the critics of major papers would write in detail and at length about the events they covered. Theirs was a serious business, and even those reviewers who wore their learning lightly, like George Bernard Shaw and Ernest Newman, could be trusted to know what they were about. These men believed in journalism as a calling, and were proud to be published in the daily press. “So few authors have brains enough or literary gift enough to keep their own end up in journalism,” Newman wrote, “that I am tempted to define journalism as a term of contempt applied by writers who are not read to writers who are .”從20世紀(jì)早期到二戰(zhàn)以前，報(bào)紙紙張極為便宜，由于格調(diào)高雅的文藝批評(píng)被認(rèn)為可以裝點(diǎn)刊載它的報(bào)紙，英國(guó)報(bào)紙對(duì)投來(lái)的評(píng)論文章來(lái)者不拒，對(duì)它們涉及什么主題無(wú)人在意。但我們現(xiàn)今的報(bào)紙離此已相去更遠(yuǎn)。在那些遙遠(yuǎn)的年代，人們理所當(dāng)然地認(rèn)為主流報(bào)紙的評(píng)論家們都會(huì)不遺余力地把他們?cè)u(píng)論的事實(shí)說(shuō)清楚。他們寫(xiě)作是嚴(yán)肅的，甚至以文筆輕松風(fēng)趣著稱的George Bernard Shaw和Ernest Newman也知道自己在做什么，這一點(diǎn)足以讓人信任。這些批評(píng)家們相信報(bào)刊評(píng)論是一門職業(yè)，并且對(duì)于他們的文章能夠在報(bào)紙上發(fā)表感到很自豪。“鑒于幾乎沒(méi)有作家能擁有足夠的思想或足夠的文學(xué)天賦以保證他們?cè)趯?xiě)批評(píng)時(shí)能不畏艱難，時(shí)刻保持樂(lè)觀”， Newman曾寫(xiě)道，“我傾向于把報(bào)刊評(píng)論定義為“被某些作家所使用的一個(gè)輕蔑之詞。對(duì)真正的作家而言，他們根本就沒(méi)有學(xué)問(wèn)”。Unfortunately, these critics are virtually forgotten. Neville Cardus, who wrote for the Manchester Guardian from 1917 until shortly before his death in 1975, is now known solely as a writer of essays on the game of cricket. During his lifetime, though, he was also one of Englands foremost classical-music critics, and a stylist so widely admired that his Autobiography (1947) became a best-seller. He was knighted in 1967, the first music critic to be so honored. Yet only one of his books is now in print, and his vast body of writings on music is unknown save to specialists.可令人悲哀的是，這樣的批評(píng)家們現(xiàn)在卻被人們所遺忘。從1917年開(kāi)始一直到1975年去世不久前還在為曼徹斯特衛(wèi)報(bào)寫(xiě)文章的Neville Cardus，如今僅僅作為一個(gè)撰寫(xiě)關(guān)于板球比賽文章的作家被人們所知。然而，在他的一生中，他也是英國(guó)首屈一指的古典音樂(lè)評(píng)論家之一。他也是一位深受讀者青睞的文體家，所以1947年他的自傳一書(shū)就成為熱銷讀物。 1967年他被授予爵士稱號(hào)，也是第一位獲此殊榮的音樂(lè)評(píng)論家。然而，他的書(shū)現(xiàn)在只有一本可以在市面上買到。他大量的音樂(lè)批評(píng)，除了專門研究音樂(lè)評(píng)論的人以外，已鮮為人知。Is there any chance that Carduss criticism will enjoy a revival? The prospect seems remote. Journalistic tastes had changed long before his death, and postmodern readers have little use for the richly upholstered Vicwardian prose in which he specialized. Moreover, the amateur tradition in music criticism has been in headlong retreat.Cardus的評(píng)論還有可能享有在他死后重新流行嗎？前景似乎渺茫。在他去世以前很久，新聞業(yè)的品味早就已經(jīng)改變了，而且他所擅長(zhǎng)的措詞華麗的維多利亞愛(ài)德華時(shí)期的散文風(fēng)格對(duì)后現(xiàn)代的讀者一點(diǎn)都沒(méi)用。何況，由業(yè)余愛(ài)好者作音樂(lè)批評(píng)的傳統(tǒng)早已經(jīng)成為昨日黃花了。Text 2Over the past decade, thousands of patents have seen granted for what are called business methods. A received one for its “one-click” online payment system. Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy. One inventor patented a technique for lying a box.在過(guò)去的十年中，成千上萬(wàn)的商業(yè)方法被授予了專利權(quán)。亞馬遜網(wǎng)站獲得的專利是在線“單擊”付費(fèi)系統(tǒng)。美林公司的資產(chǎn)分配方案得到了法律保護(hù)。有個(gè)發(fā)明者的提箱技巧也獲得了專利。Now the nations top patent court appears completely-property lawyers abuzz the U.S. court of Appeals for the federal circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. In the Bilski, as the case is known, is a “very big deal”, says DennisD Crouch of the University of Missouri School of law. It “has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents.”現(xiàn)在，該國(guó)最高專利法院似乎完全準(zhǔn)備好要縮減商業(yè)方法專利，因?yàn)樯虡I(yè)方法專利自從十年前第一次批準(zhǔn)授予以來(lái)一直有爭(zhēng)議。在一項(xiàng)使得知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)律師們議論紛紛的提議中，美國(guó)聯(lián)邦巡回上訴法院聲稱它將利用某個(gè)具體案件來(lái)對(duì)商業(yè)方法專利進(jìn)行廣泛的復(fù)審。密蘇里大學(xué)法學(xué)院Dennis D. Crouch說(shuō)，“正如人們所知道的那樣，Bilski案例是一件非常大的事情”它可能將消除整個(gè)專利類別”。Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face, because it was the federal circuit itself that introduced such patents with is 1998 decision in the so-called state Street Bank case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive pinhts to specific types of online transactions. Later, move established companies raced to add such patents to their files, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might bent them to the punch. In 2005, IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.對(duì)于商業(yè)方法訴求的限制是個(gè)戲劇性的徹底變化，因?yàn)檎锹?lián)邦巡回法院自己引進(jìn)了這種專利。那是在1998年，對(duì)于所謂的美國(guó)道富銀行的案件中，聯(lián)邦巡回法院做出了判決，批準(zhǔn)了籌集共同基金資產(chǎn)的方法具有專利權(quán)。這一裁決使得商業(yè)方法專利文件以幾何數(shù)級(jí)增加，起初只是一些新興的網(wǎng)絡(luò)公司對(duì)于某些特定類型的在線交易系統(tǒng)試圖爭(zhēng)取獨(dú)家專有權(quán)。后來(lái)，更多的公司競(jìng)相添加這樣的專利權(quán)，希望這樣一個(gè)防御性的行為可以先下手為強(qiáng)。2005年，IBM公司在一份法院報(bào)告中聲稱：盡管懷疑這種專利授權(quán)的法律基礎(chǔ)，但它已經(jīng)申請(qǐng)了300多份商業(yè)方法專利。同樣，當(dāng)一些華爾街投資公司出席某些反對(duì)其金融產(chǎn)品的法庭案件時(shí)，他們會(huì)給其各類金融產(chǎn)品申請(qǐng)專利來(lái)作為自己的維權(quán)武器。The Bilski case involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the courts judges, rather than a typical panel of three and that one issue it wants to evaluate is weather it should “reconsider” its state street Bank ruling.前面提到的Bilski案例牽扯到一份已申請(qǐng)的方法專利，即關(guān)于能源市場(chǎng)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)規(guī)避方法（注：也可譯為“套期保值或?qū)_風(fēng)險(xiǎn)”）。上訴法院罕見(jiàn)地裁定，該案件將不由三位法官聽(tīng)審，而是由全部十二名法官共同進(jìn)行。另外，上訴法院還宣布，它想探討的另一件事情是是否應(yīng)該“重審”道富銀行的裁決。The Federal Circuits action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Count that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for “inventions” that are obvious. The judges on the Federal circuit are “reacting to the anti_patent trend at the supreme court”, says Harole C.wegner, a partend attorney and professor at aeorge Washington University Law School.聯(lián)邦巡回法院的這一裁決效仿了最高法院。最高法院最近做出了一系列的判決，縮小了專利持有者的受保范圍。例如，去年四月，法官們認(rèn)定太多的專利授予了一些顯而易見(jiàn)的“發(fā)明”。喬治華盛頓大學(xué)法律學(xué)院的專利法律師Harold C. Wegner教授表示，“聯(lián)邦巡回法院的法官們正在對(duì)最高法院的反專利動(dòng)態(tài)做出反應(yīng)”。Text 3In his book The Tipping Point, Malcolm aladuell alques that social epidemics are dliven in large part by the acting of a tiny minority of special individuals, often called influentials, who are unusually informed, persuasive, or we connect. The idea is intuitively compelling, but it doesnt explain how ideas actually spread.在引爆流行這本書(shū)中，作者M(jìn)alcolm Gladwell認(rèn)為社會(huì)流行潮流在很大程度上是由一小部分特殊個(gè)體的行為引起的，這些人就是人們常說(shuō)的影響者。他們異乎尋常的博聞多識(shí)，能言善辯，人脈廣泛。從直覺(jué)上講，Malcolm Gladwell的理論似乎很有說(shuō)服力，但是它沒(méi)有解釋流行觀念的實(shí)際傳播過(guò)程。The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plansible sounding but largely untested theory called the “tow-step flow of communication”. Information allows from the media to the influentials and from them to everyone else Marketers have embraced the two-step flow because it suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials, those select people will do most of the work for them. The theory also seems to explain the sudden and unexpected popularity of people was wearing, promoting or developing whatever it is before anyone else paid attention. Anecdotal evidence of this kind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people can drive trends.人們之所以認(rèn)為影響者很重要，是因?yàn)槭艿搅恕皟杉?jí)傳播”理論的影響，即信息先從媒體流向影響者，然后再?gòu)挠绊懻吡飨蚱渌?。這一理論看似合理，但未經(jīng)驗(yàn)證。營(yíng)銷人員接受兩級(jí)傳播理論是因?yàn)樵摾碚撜J(rèn)為，如果他們能夠找到影響者，并對(duì)他們施加影響，這些精英們就會(huì)替他們完成大部分的營(yíng)銷傳播工作。這一理論似乎還可以解釋某些裝扮、品牌或社區(qū)為何會(huì)突然受到出乎意料的追捧。對(duì)于許多諸如此類的情況，如果只是走馬觀花地尋找原因，你會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)總是有一小群人開(kāi)風(fēng)氣之先，率先穿上、宣傳和開(kāi)發(fā)人們此前從未留意的東西。這種事實(shí)證據(jù)與該觀點(diǎn)正好一拍即合只有一些特別的人才能引領(lǐng)潮流。In their recent work, however, some researchers have come up with the finding that influentials have far less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed. In fact, they dont seem to be required of all.但是，在最近的研究中，一些研究人員發(fā)現(xiàn)，影響者對(duì)社會(huì)流行潮流的影響力遠(yuǎn)比人們認(rèn)為的要小。事實(shí)上，他們似乎根本就是無(wú)關(guān)緊要。The researchers argument stems from a simple observing about social influence, with the exception of a few celebrities like Oprah Winfrey-whose outsize presence is primarily a function of media, not interpersonal, influence-even the most influential members of a population simply dont interact with that many others. Yet it is precisely these non-celebring influentials who according to the two-step-flow theory, are supposed to drive social epidemics, by influcenciny their friends and colleagues directly. For a social epidemic to occur, however, each person so affected, must then influence his or her own acquaintances, who must in turn influence theirs, and so on; and just how many others pay attention to each of these people has little to do with initial influential. If people in the network just two degrees removed from the initial influential prove resistant, for example the casecade of change wont propagate very far or affect many people.研究者的觀點(diǎn)源于對(duì)社會(huì)影響力的簡(jiǎn)單觀察：除了少數(shù)像Oprah Winfrey 這樣的名人之外（她強(qiáng)大的人氣影響力主要來(lái)自媒體影響力，而非她與觀眾互動(dòng)的人際影響力），即使人群中最有影響力的人也無(wú)法與那么多的“其他人”互動(dòng)，從而引領(lǐng)潮流。然而，根據(jù)兩級(jí)傳播理論，正是這些非名人影響者直接影響了他們的朋友和同事，從而推動(dòng)了社會(huì)流行潮流。但是，要讓一種社會(huì)流行潮流真正發(fā)生，每個(gè)受影響的人還必須影響他的熟人，而他的熟人又必須影響其他熟人，依此類推；但是會(huì)有多少人去關(guān)注這些熟人中的每個(gè)人，與最初的影響者幾乎沒(méi)有關(guān)系。舉個(gè)例子來(lái)說(shuō)，在這個(gè)人際影響的網(wǎng)絡(luò)中，如果第一個(gè)影響者受到兩次抵制，那么他的連鎖影響范圍就不會(huì)繼續(xù)擴(kuò)大，或者說(shuō)影響的人不會(huì)很多。Building on the basic truth about interpersonal influence, the researchers studied the dynamics of populations manipulating a number of variables relating to peoples ability to influence others and their tendencies to be.基于這一人際影響力的基本事實(shí)，研究者們研究了社會(huì)影響的動(dòng)力機(jī)制。我們對(duì)不同人群進(jìn)行了成千上萬(wàn)次計(jì)算機(jī)模擬，不斷調(diào)整人們影響他人和受他人影響的各種變量。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)，人們所說(shuō)的“全球連鎖反應(yīng)” 發(fā)生的主要前提，并不取決于是否存在著那么幾個(gè)影響者，而主要取決于易受影響的人們是否達(dá)到了臨界數(shù)量。Text 4Bankers have been blaming themselves for their troubles in public. Behind the scenes, they have been taking aim at someone else; the accounting standard-setters. Their rules, moan the banks, have forced them to report enormous losses, and its just not fair. These rules say they must valve some assets at the price a third party would pay, not the price managers and regulators would like them to fetch.臺(tái)面上，銀行家們將他們的麻煩歸咎于己身，臺(tái)面下，他們一直把目標(biāo)對(duì)準(zhǔn)他人：會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定者。銀行業(yè)抱怨會(huì)計(jì)規(guī)則迫使他們報(bào)告巨大損失，認(rèn)為這不公平。規(guī)則規(guī)定他們必須以第三方付出價(jià)格來(lái)評(píng)估部分資產(chǎn)的價(jià)值，而非按照管理者和監(jiān)管者期望該資產(chǎn)能夠獲得的價(jià)格。Unfortunately, banks lobbying now seems to be working. The details may be unknowable, but the independence of standard-setters, essential to the proper functioning of capital markets, is being compromised. And, unless banks carry toxic assets at prices that attract buyers, reviving the banking system will be difficult. 不幸的是，銀行的游說(shuō)活動(dòng)看來(lái)已顯成效。其中細(xì)節(jié)可能無(wú)法獲知，但是準(zhǔn)則制定者在獨(dú)立性方面這正是資產(chǎn)市場(chǎng)正常運(yùn)行的關(guān)鍵已經(jīng)做出妥協(xié)了。銀行如果不以能夠吸引買家的價(jià)格計(jì)量有毒資產(chǎn)，銀行系統(tǒng)的復(fù)蘇將會(huì)非常困難。After a bruising encounter with Congress, Americas Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rushed through rule changes. These gave banks more freedom to use models to value illiquid assets and more flexibility in recognizing losses on long-term assets in their income statement. Bob Herz, the FASBs chairman, cried out against those who “question our motives.” Yet bank shares rose and the changes enhance what one lobby group politely calls “the use of judgment by management.”美國(guó)FASB（財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)）在與國(guó)會(huì)激烈摩擦之后，匆匆通過(guò)了規(guī)則的修改。這些修改使得銀行在使用模型評(píng)估非流動(dòng)資方面用有更大的自由，同時(shí)使得它們確認(rèn)收益表中長(zhǎng)期資產(chǎn)損失時(shí)更為靈活。FASB主席Bob Herz大聲反對(duì)那些“懷疑我們的動(dòng)機(jī)”的人們。然而銀行股票上漲了，這些修改強(qiáng)化了“管理層使用理性判斷”的說(shuō)法，這種說(shuō)法是一個(gè)游說(shuō)團(tuán)的客氣之言。European ministers instantly demanded that the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) do likewise. The IASB says it does not want to act without overall planning, but the pressure to fold when it completes it reconstruction of rules later this year is strong. Charlie McCreevy, a European commissioner, warned the IASB that it did “not live in a political vacuum” but “in the real world” and that Europe could yet develop different rules.歐洲的部長(zhǎng)們立刻要求國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)(IASB)也這么做。IASB表示它不想沒(méi)有完整計(jì)劃就冒然行動(dòng)，但它在今年下半年完成規(guī)則修訂時(shí)必須屈服的壓力十分巨大。4月1日，歐洲委員會(huì)委員Charlie McCreevy警告IASB說(shuō)：它不是“處在政治真空中”而是“在現(xiàn)實(shí)世界里”，并表