科技與生活的英語文章
許多鄉村延聘農業科技人員，把這當作招財進寶的好辦法，爲了攻克技術難關，科技人員廢寢忘食，日夜奮戰。下面小編整理了關於科技與生活的英語文章，希望大家喜歡!
索尼擬進軍手機遊戲領域
Sony is set to push aggressively into mobile gaming, having watched from the sidelines as itsconsole rival Nintendo enjoyed meteoric success with the Pokémon Go augmented reality(AR) game.
在目睹遊戲機方面的競爭對手任天堂(Nintendo)享受《口袋妖怪GO》(Pokémon GO，又譯精靈寶可夢GO)這款增強現實(AR)遊戲帶來的驚人成功後，索尼(Sony)計劃積極推進手機遊戲。
[Mobile gaming] is something we are aggressively getting into, Sony chief executive Kaz Hiraitold the Financial Times at the IFA consumer electronics show in Berlin. It’s quite a shift frombeing just a console-based business to being on mobile phones as well, he said.
(手機遊戲)是我們積極進軍的領域，索尼首席執行官平井一夫(Kazuo Hirai)在柏林國際電子消費品展覽會(IFA)上向英國《金融時報》表示，從只關注遊戲機業務到同樣參與手機遊戲業務，是一次重大轉變。
Pokémon Go is a real game-changer.
《口袋妖怪GO》真正改變了行業局勢。
I’m very interested in the fact that it has the potential to really change the way people move,literally.
我對於它有可能改變人們的移動方式的情況非常感興趣。
AR, the feature that allows Pokémon Go to superimpose animated characters on to asmartphone screen showing the real world, is a great innovative idea that’s going to lift allboats for the video game industry, the Japanese boss said, adding that he would like to add ARcapabilities to his company’s stable of games.
平井一夫表示，AR是使得視頻遊戲行業的所有人受益的偉大創意 。他補充稱，他希望在索尼的遊戲中加入AR功能。該技術使得《口袋妖怪GO》在顯示現實世界的手機屏幕上疊加動畫角色。
Despite Nintendo’s surprise hit, the two Japanese console competitors have been slow to jointhe smartphone gaming party to date.
儘管任天堂造成了意想不到的轟動，但這兩家日本遊戲機競爭對手迄今在加入智能手機遊戲市場方面動作緩慢。
Sony and Nintendo own their platforms and want to retain control and make as much moneyas possible from them, says Steve Bailey, gaming analyst at IHS Markit.
索尼和任天堂都擁有自己的平臺，他們想維持控制地位，從平臺上賺到儘可能多的錢。
But the landscape has now changed considerably.
IHS Markit的遊戲行業分析師史蒂夫•貝利(Steve Bailey)說，但如今，市場狀況已發生了很大變化。
The threat from mobile is so big, they can no longer ignore it.
來自手機遊戲的威脅太大，他們再也無法對此視而不見。
Nintendo launched its first-ever mobile app, Miitomo, in March this year, while Sony has had achequered history in the market.
今年3月，任天堂推出了公司歷史上第一款移動應用Miitomo，而索尼在這一市場一直不很成功。
There have been several failed initiatives to port PlayStation games to handheld consoles and itsXperia smartphones.
索尼曾多次嘗試把PlayStation遊戲移植到掌上游戲機和它的Xperia智能手機上，但都以失敗告終。
經典關於科技與生活的英語文章蘋果遇到喬布斯式對手
Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules.
1997年蘋果(Apple)在其《非同凡“想”》(Think Different)電視廣告中讚頌道：“向瘋狂的人們致敬。向格格不入的人們、向離經叛道的人們、向惹是生非的人們、向方孔中的圓形螺絲、向以不同視角看問題的人們致敬。
And they have no respect for the status quo,” ran the eulogy of Apple’s Think Different television advertisement in 1997. In the same spirit, here’s to Margrethe Vestager.
他們不喜歡墨守成規，他們也不願安於現狀。”以同樣的精神，我要向瑪格麗特•維斯特格(Margrethe Vestager)致敬。
The EU competition commissioner insists she is not deliberately making trouble by deciding this week that Ireland should levy Euro13bn in taxes that it allowed the company to underpay over a decade.
這位歐盟反壟斷專員本週認定，愛爾蘭應該向蘋果徵收130億歐元的稅款，這是十多年來愛爾蘭讓蘋果少交的稅。維斯特格堅稱，她這一決定不是在故意找麻煩。
“No rules have been changed — not one,” she retorted to the accusation that she is ripping up international tax treaties and diverting US tax revenues to Europe. She looked unperturbed by the rumpus.
對於有關她在撕毀國際稅務協議並將屬於美國的稅收引至歐洲的指控，她反駁稱：“沒有任何規則被更改了——一條也沒有。”看起來此事引起的爭議並未讓她不安。
Ms Vestager seems to have taken lessons from Apple about presentation. Her original 2014 complaint against the company was jammed with details. This week’s update was pared down and clean, making the argument simply.
維斯特格似乎已從蘋果那裏學習了關於表達方式的技巧。她2014年對蘋果最初的投訴滿紙細節。而本週的更新版本則篇幅大減，非常簡潔，簡單地陳述了論點。
Steve Jobs might have appreciated the elegant Danish design, although the content infuriated the US and Irish governments — and Tim Cook, Jobs’s successor as Apple chief executive.
史蒂夫•喬布斯(Steve Jobs)沒準會欣賞這種優雅的丹麥表達，儘管她所說的內容激怒了美國和愛爾蘭政府——以及接替喬布斯擔任蘋果首席執行官的蒂姆•庫克(Tim Cook)。
Its simplicity is both a weakness and a strength. The weakness is that it is hard to believe it will hold up in court, where the argument is heading.
這種簡潔既是弱點，也是優勢。其薄弱之處在於，很難相信它在將要走向的法庭上能夠站得住腳。
There is something a bit too neat about the way Ms Vestager sliced through the Gordian knot of transfer pricing and tax residency with one stroke by declaring Apple’s three-decade-old arrangements with Ireland invalid.
維斯特格宣稱蘋果與愛爾蘭之間長達三十年的制度安排無效，一舉突破了轉移定價和納稅居地這個複雜的戈爾迪之結，不過這種快刀斬亂麻的方式有些太過簡單化了。
Corporate tax is a complex matter: intellectual property can be moved to offshore locations and exploited at arm’s length according to intricate related-party formulas; sales in one country can become revenues in another; US companies can invert themselves to somewhere else.
公司稅是個複雜的問題：知識產權可以轉移至國外，並依照複雜的關聯方安排，方便地取用;在一國的銷售可能會變成在另一國的營收;美國企業可能會將自身“倒置”到其他地方去。
If any tax arrangement that beats others can be outlawed as selective state aid, a lot of tax lawyers are out of work.
如果任何優越的稅務安排都可被認定爲選擇性政府補助、因而非法，許多稅務律師就失業了。
Ms Vestager’s strength is that none of that makes much sense, or feels justifiable, to individual taxpayers.
維斯特格的優勢則在於，在單個的納稅人看來，上述這些都不怎麼合理，感覺上也不怎麼正當。
“If my effective tax rate would be 0.05 per cent, falling to 0.005, I would have felt that maybe I should have a second look at my tax bill,” she said. Apple insists that it paid $400m in taxes in Ireland in 2014, but her rhetoric was powerful.
維斯特格說：“如果我的有效稅率原本是0.05%，它降到0.005%時，我會感覺自己是不是看錯了稅單。”蘋果堅稱2014年它在愛爾蘭支付了4億美元稅款，然而維斯特格的說法十分有力。
Apple sounded quite flustered as it protested that things are not as they appear. On tax matters, it resembles the nerdy PC character in its “Get a Mac” campaign in the 2000s, with Ms Vestager as the cool, cocksure Mac.
蘋果抗議稱事實並不像表面看上去的那樣，這話顯得它很心慌。在稅務問題上，蘋果就像2000年代的《買臺Mac》(Get a Mac)系列廣告中代表個人電腦(PC)的那個呆頭呆腦的角色，而維斯特格則像代表Mac的那個酷酷的、自信滿滿的角色。
The more it explains that it has deferred taxation, not avoided it, the more conventionally corporate it looks.
蘋果越是解釋它是推遲、而非逃避了納稅，它看起來就越像一家傳統企業。
Its tax challenge is straightforward enough, and is common to a lot of US companies. It produces most of its value — its intellectual property and distinct approach to technology and design — in California.
它面臨的稅務挑戰非常簡單，對許多美國企業也十分常見。蘋果的多數價值(它的知識產權以及它在技術和設計上的獨特思路)都是在加利福尼亞州創造的。
Under existing global tax treaties, it could legitimately channel most profits from around the world back to the US through royalty fees on overseas sales.
按照現有的全球稅收協議，它可以通過對境外銷售收取的許可費，合法地將其在世界各地獲得的大部分利潤轉移回美國。
It does not want to do this because that would involve paying up to 35 per cent tax in the US on the profits compared with Ireland’s 12.5 per cent rate.
然而，蘋果不想這麼做，原因是這麼做意味着這些利潤要在美國繳納最高達35%的稅款，相比之下在愛爾蘭只需繳納12.5%。
The simple answer, as Ms Vestager points out, would be to pay the latter instead; Apple is structured so it could easily do so. Its Irish subsidiaries hold royalty rights for European sales and most profits flow there.
正如維斯特格所指出的，按照後一種稅率繳稅是很容易得出的答案。蘋果的結構讓它可以輕而易舉地這麼做。它在愛爾蘭的分公司持有歐洲銷售的許可權，這樣多數利潤就流向了那裏。
But Ireland used to offer a twist: the right to form companies that were not tax resident there or in the US. Rather than pay taxes immediately, Apple could defer them under US tax law.
不過，愛爾蘭也曾經提供了可乘之機，讓既非愛爾蘭納稅居民也非美國納稅居民的公司得以成立。按照美國稅法，蘋果可以不用馬上繳納稅款，而是過後繳納。
Hence its anger about being accused of tax dodging: where others see billions in unpaid Irish taxes, Apple and the US government see future US ones. Apple is not, overall, an aggressive tax avoider: it paid $19.1bn in taxes last year.
這正是蘋果被譴責避稅後憤怒的原因：在其他人眼中數十億未繳納的愛爾蘭稅款，在蘋果和美國政府看來卻是未來將交給美國的稅款。總體上說，蘋果並不是激進的避稅者：去年該公司繳納了191億美元的稅款。
It is not quite so simple, though. Apple has made provisions for deferred US taxes on about half of the $215bn in cash and equivalents it held overseas in 2015.
不過，事情並沒有這麼簡單。蘋果已爲其將延遲向美國繳納的稅款做了撥備，這些稅款對應的是該公司2015年在海外持有的2150億美元現金及現金等同物的約一半。
It is waiting for the US tax rate to fall before it repatriates this money to shareholders, but this could be a long time. It may never send back the rest: US companies often reinvest overseas cash in growth or acquisitions.
蘋果打算等美國調低稅率後，再把這筆資金轉回到股東手上。然而時間可能會很長。剩餘部分蘋果可能永遠都不會轉回來：美國企業經常會把在境外的現金再次投資，用於企業增長或收購。
US corporate taxation is especially peculiar and hard to grasp and is painfully dysfunctional. The US government keeps on trying to pass tax reforms, and the details of Apple’s Irish tax structures first emerged publicly during a Senate committee investigation three years ago.
美國的公司稅制特別古怪和令人費解，毛病很大。美國政府一直試圖通過稅務改革法案。蘋果在愛爾蘭的稅務結構的具體情況，是三年前在一項參議院委員會的調查中首次公開的。
The Senate identified US companies’ overseas cash as a tax target for the US not the EU.
美國參議院當時確認，美國企業在美國境外的現金，由美國而不是歐盟(EU)徵稅。
Enter Ms Vestager, with her plan to make Ireland retrieve Euro13bn, and to let other EU countries stake their own claims to the money.
維斯特格登場了。她的計劃是讓愛爾蘭收回130億歐元稅款，讓其他歐盟國家聲索對這筆錢的所有權。
Since no one else moved, she gained first mover advantage, and state aid law has given her extraordinary legal powers. It is an audacious, revolutionary and surprising move, but that was Jobs’s style too.
由於其他人沒有行動，她取得了先發制人的優勢，而國家援助法賦予了她驚人的法律力量。這是個大膽、革命性又令人驚異的舉動，不過這也是喬布斯的風格。
Her boldness will change the rules of global taxation if it survives the legal challenges. Bill Gates, Microsoft co-founder, used to get irritated that Apple was hipper than his own company but arguing with public opinion got him nowhere. In Ms Vestager, Apple faces a cool opponent.
如果能經受住相關法律挑戰的考驗，維斯特格的大膽舉動將改變全球稅收的規則。微軟(Microsoft)聯合創始人比爾•蓋茨(Bill Gates)曾經爲蘋果比微軟酷而憤慨，然而他爭不過輿論。在維斯特格這裏，蘋果遇到了一個酷對手。
關於科技與生活的英語文章無人駕駛革命的主要阻力是人
Brilliant technologies transform the magical into the banal.
卓越的科技會把神奇的東西變得平淡無奇。
An idea that seems outlandish to one generation becomes commonplace to the next.
曾經在一代人看來稀奇古怪的想法對於下一代人卻變得稀鬆平常。
So it has been with electricity, space flight and the internet.
電力、太空航行以及互聯網都是如此。
So it is likely to prove with driverless cars.
因此無人駕駛汽車可能也會如此。
The past few weeks have seen a flurry of announcements.
近幾周這個領域接連傳出許多消息。
Singapore has launched the world’s first public trial of a robo-taxi service.
新加坡展開了全球首項無人駕駛出租車的公開測試。
Uber and Volvo announced that they would pioneer an autonomous taxi fleet in Pittsburghwithin weeks.
優步(Uber)和沃爾沃(Volvo)宣佈，未來幾周內，它們將率先在匹茲堡推出一支自動駕駛出租車車隊。
Ford said it would build its first mass-market driverless car by 2021.
福特(Ford)表示，將在2021年前製造其首款面向大衆市場的無人駕駛汽車。
To their backers, autonomous cars cannot arrive quickly enough.
對於支持者而言，自動駕駛汽車越快上路越好。
Conventional cars are inefficient, dangerous and dirty.
傳統汽車低效、危險且骯髒。
They sit idle for 95 per cent of their lives, clogging up city streets and car parks.
它們有95%的時間在閒置，堵塞着城市街道和停車場。
When moving, they smash into each other, killing 3,500 people every day around the world.
在行駛中，它們會互相碰撞，全球每天有3500人死於交通事故。
Ninety per cent of accidents are caused by human error.
其中90%的事故是人爲失誤造成的。
Cars pollute the environment, accounting for 45 per cent of oil burnt.
汽車污染環境，佔石油消耗總量的45%。
The widespread adoption of fully autonomous and, still better, electric cars could therefore bea massive boon to mankind.
因此完全自動化且質量更好的電動汽車得到廣泛應用可能是人類的一大幸事。
It could lead to a far more efficient use of resources, save many lives and reduce congestionand pollution.
這可能會帶來資源的更有效利用、挽救很多生命並減少擁堵和污染。
Futurologists envisage small fleets of shareable, connected cars constantly whizzing aroundour cities picking up passengers on demand.
按照未來學家的構想，一些由可分享的聯網汽車組成的小型車隊將時刻不停地繞着我們的城市飛馳，按照需求搭載乘客。
McKinsey forecasts that 15 per cent of new cars could be fully autonomous by 2030.
麥肯錫(McKinsey)預測，到2030年，15%的新車可能實現完全自動駕駛。
But two obstacles block their widespread adoption.
但有兩個障礙因素阻礙着自動駕駛汽車的普及。
The first remains technological.
第一個仍然是技術上的。
For all the astonishing advances made in recent years, it is phenomenally difficult to replicatehumans as sensory beings.
儘管最近幾年這方面技術取得了驚人的進步，但要模仿人類打造具有感覺能力的自動駕駛系統是極其困難的。
How does a car distinguish between a plastic bag blowing across a road and a runaway dog?How does a car nudge its way through a throng of people outside a football stadium?
汽車如何區分一個被風吹過馬路的塑料袋和一條奔跑的狗?汽車如何穿過足球場外擁擠的人羣?
Engineers argue that the genius of self-driving cars is their connectedness.
工程師辯稱，自動駕駛汽車的優勢在於聯網。
When human drivers make a mistake the individual learns from it, says one Silicon Valleypioneer. When a self-driving car makes a mistake then every other car will learn from a mistakeonce an engineer has fixed it.
當人類駕駛員犯錯時，這個人會從中吸取教訓，一位硅谷先驅表示，當一輛自動駕駛汽車犯錯時，一旦工程師修復了這個問題，其他所有汽車都會相應改進。
It is just a matter of time before our technology surpasses human capacity.
科技超越人類能力只是早晚的事。
But sceptics compare autonomous car technology with Zeno’s dichotomy paradox: every leapwill take us halfway to our destination without ever reaching it.
但懷疑者將自動駕駛技術比作芝諾(Zeno)的二分法悖論：每一步跳躍都是向着目的地走出剩餘路程的二分之一，但永遠不可能到達終點。
No matter how hard the technology proves, it may be the easier part of the puzzle.
不管事實證明要攻克技術有多難，它也可能是這個難題中較爲容易的部分。
A stiffer challenge remains the human.
更爲嚴峻的挑戰仍然是人類。
Even when manufacturers and software engineers develop fully autonomous cars in which theyhave total trust, it will still take many years, if not decades, for them to be freely embraced bygovernments and consumers.
即便製造商和軟件工程師開發出他們自己完全信任的全自動駕駛汽車，也需要花費多年、甚至幾十年時間才能得到政府和消費者的安心接納。
First, there is the instinctive human resistance to handing over control to a robot, especiallygiven fears of cyber-hacking.
首先，人類天生反對將控制權交給機器人，特別是在擔心黑客攻擊的情況下。
Second, for many drivers cars are an extension of their identity, a mechanical symbol ofindependence, control and freedom.
其次，對於多數駕駛員而言，汽車是他們身份的延伸，是獨立、控制和自由的機械象徵。
They will not abandon them lightly.
他們不會輕易拋棄汽車。
Third, robots will always be held to far higher safety standards than humans.
第三，針對機器人總是要實施比人類高得多的安全標準。
They will inevitably cause accidents.
它們將不可避免的導致意外。
They will also have to be programmed to make a calculation that could kill their passengers orbystanders to minimise overall loss of life.
它們還必須經過編程做出可能導致乘客或行人死亡的計算，以將總體人員損失降至最低。
This will create a fascinating philosophical sub-school of algorithmic morality.
這將引發一個有趣的關於算法道德的哲學問題。
Many of us are afraid that one reckless act will cause an accident that causes a backlash andshuts down the industry for a decade, says the Silicon Valley engineer. That would be tragic ifyou could have saved tens of thousands of lives a year.
我們很多人擔心一個冒失的行爲將導致一場事故，進而這個行業會遭到抗議並被封殺10年，那位硅谷工程師表示，如果你原本可以每年挽救數萬人的生命，那麼這種結果將是一場悲劇。
Fourth, the deployment of autonomous vehicles could destroy millions of jobs.
第四，自動駕駛汽車的使用可能會葬送數百萬個就業崗位。
Their rapid introduction is certain to provoke resistance.
這些汽車的快速引入肯定會遭遇抵制。
There are 3.5m professional lorry drivers in the US.
美國有350萬名職業貨車司機。
Fifth, the insurance industry and legal community have to wrap their heads around sometricky liability issues.
第五，保險行業和司法界必須埋頭解決一些複雜的責任問題。
In what circumstances is the owner, car manufacturer or software developer responsible fordamage?
在何種情況下，汽車所有者、汽車製造商或軟件開發商要對損害負責?
Some governments, such as those of Singapore, China and the UK, as well as several states inthe US are creating permissive regulatory and legal environments.
新加坡、中國和英國等一些國家的政府以及美國幾個州正在創造寬鬆的監管和法律環境。
Regulators can certainly speed adoption by approving designated lanes for autonomous cars,for example, and devising international safety rules and standards.
監管機構無疑可以加速推動自動駕駛汽車的使用，比如說通過批准建設自動駕駛汽車專用道，以及制定國際安全規則與標準。
Conversely, politicians may yet succumb to the pressure of public fears and vested interestsand frustrate the roll out of self-driving cars.
相反，政治人士仍可能屈服於公衆擔憂以及既得利益羣體的壓力，阻礙自動駕駛汽車的應用。
Autonomous car visionaries may soon be able to perfect the technology.
自動駕駛汽車的夢想家們可能很快就能完善技術。
But their success may be determined by how good they are — in Stalinist terminology — asengineers of human souls.
但他們能否成功可能取決於他們作爲人類靈魂的工程師(用斯大林主義者的術語來說)有多優秀。
