历年考研英语一阅读真题翻译(2004-2014)

2014年考研英语阅读真题
Text 1
In order to “change lives for the better” and reduce “dependency,” George Osbome,Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced the “upfront work search” scheme. Only if the jobless arrive at the job centre with a register for online job search, and start looking for work will they be eligible for benefit-and then they should report weekly rather than fortnightly. What could be more reasonable?
为了“让生活变得更美好”以及减少“依赖”，英国财政大臣乔治?奥斯本引入了“求职预付金”计划。

只有当失业者带着简历到就业中心，注册在线求职并开始找工作，才有资格获得补助金——然后他们应该每周而非每两周报告一次。

有什么比这更合理呢？
More apparent reasonableness followed. There will now be a seven-day wait for the jobseeker’s allowance. “Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on.” he claimed. “We’re doing these things be cause we know they help people say off benefits and help those on benefits get into work faster” Help? Really? On first hearing, this was the socially concerned chancellor, trying to change lives for the better, complete with “reforms” to an obviously indulgent system that demands too little effort from the newly unemployed to find work, and subsides laziness. What motivated him, we were to understand, was his zeal for “fundamental fairness”-protecting the taxpayer, controlling spending and ensuring that only the most deserving claimants received their benefits.
更加明显的合理性如下。

现在领取求职者补贴要等待七天。

“这前几天应该用来找工作，而不是办理失业登记（以获得救济金）。

”他说，“我们这样做是因为我们知道，这样会帮助人们摆脱补助并让依赖补助的人尽快就业。

”帮助？真的吗？乍一听，这是位关心社会的大臣，他努力改善人们的生活，包括对一个明显放纵的体系的“改革”，这个体系不要求新失业者付出多少努力去找工作，为其懒惰埋单。

我们将会知道，激励他的是他对“基本的公正”的热诚——保护纳税人，控制花费以及确保只有最值得帮助的申请者才能得到补助金。

Los ing a job is hurting: you don’t skip down to the job centre with a song in your heart, delighted at the prospect of doubling your income from the generous state. It is financially terrifying psychologically embarrassing and you know that support is minimal and extraordinarily hard to get. You are now not wanted; you support is minimal and extraordinarily hard to get. You are now not wanted; you are now excluded from the work environment that offers purpose and structure in your life. Worse, the crucial income to feed yourself and your family and pay the bills has disappeared. Ask anyone newly unemployed what they want and the answer is always: a job.
失业是痛苦的：你不会内心歌唱并跳跃着到就业中心去，为从这个慷慨国度得到加倍收入的前景而欣喜。

在经济上它令人生畏，在心理感到难堪，并且你还知道那种扶持的微薄和非常难以得到。

现在没人需要你；你现在被排除在工作环境之外，那里会给予你人生的目标和体制。

更糟糕的是，失去了用以养家糊口和支付账单的至关重要的收入。

问任何新失业者他
们想要什么，答案永远是：一份工作。

But in Osborne land, your first instinct is to fall into dependency- permanent dependency if you can get it-supported by a state only too ready to indulge your falsehood. It is as though 20 years of ever- tougher reforms of the job search and benefit administration system never happened. The principle of British welfare is no longer that you can insure yourself against the risk of unemployment and receive unconditional payments if the disaster happens. Even the very phrase ‘jobseeker’s allowance’invented in 1996- is about redefining the unemployed as a “jobseeker” who had no mandatory right to a benefit he or she has earned through making national insurance contributions. Instead, the claimant receives a time-limited “allowance,” conditional on actively seeking a job; no entitlement and no insurance, at ￡71.70 a week, one of the least generous in the EU.
但是在奥斯本之国，你的第一反应就是坠入依赖——永远的依赖，如果你能得到的话——它由一个非常乐意放任你弄虚作假的国家所支持。

好像这二十年一直严厉的求职和补助金管理系统的改革从未发生过。

英国福利的原则不再是如果发生灾难，你能为自己投保失业险和得到无条件赔付。

甚至正是“求职者补贴”这个词语，在将失业者重新定义为“求职者”，他人通过缴纳国民保险金可享有补助，而求职者则没有这个基本权利。

作为替代，申请者得到的是一周71.70 英镑的限时“补贴”，条件是积极地找工作：没有津贴也没有保险，在欧盟这也是最小气之一了。

Text 2
All around the world, lawyers generate more hostility than the members of any other profession---with the possible exception of journalism. But there are few places where clients have more grounds for complaint than America.
Dur-ing the decade before the economic crisis, spending on legal services in America grew twice as fast as inflation. The best lawyers made skyscrapers-full of money, tempting ever more students to pile into law schools. But most law graduates never get a big-firm job. Many of them instead become the kind of nuisance-lawsuit filer that makes the tort system a costly nightmare.
There are many reasons for this. One is the excessive costs of a legal education. There is just one path for a lawyer in most American states: a four-year undergraduate degree at one of 200 law schools authorized by the American Bar Association and an expensive preparation for the bar exam. This leaves today’s average law-school graduate with $100,000 of debt on top of undergraduate debts. Law-school debt means that they have to work fearsomely hard.
Reform-ing the system would help both lawyers and their customers. Sensible ideas have been around for a long time, but the state-level bodies that govern the profession have been too conservative to imple-ment them. One idea is to allow people to study law as an undergraduate degree. Another is to let students sit for the bar after only two years of law school. If the bar exam is truly a stern enough test for a would-be lawy-er, those who can sit it earlier should be allowed to do so. Students who do not need the extra training could cut their debt mountain by a
third.
The other reason why costs are so high is the restrictive guild-like ownership structure of the business. Except in the District of Columbia, non-lawyers may not own any share of a law firm. This keeps fees high and innovation slow. There is pressure for change from within the profession, but oppo-nents of change among the regulators insist that keeping outsiders out of a law firm isolates lawyers from the pressure to make money rather than serve clients ethically.
In fact, allowing non-lawyers to own shares in law firms would reduce costs and improve services to customers, by encouraging law firms to use technology and to employ professional managers to fo cus on improving firms’ efficiency. After all, other countries, such as Australia and Britain, have started liberalizing their legal professions. America should follow.
在全世界，律师比任何其他职业的人都更招憎恨——新闻业可能是个例外。

但是没有多少地方能比美国更让客户有更多的理由抱怨。

在经济危机之前的十年间，美国法律服务费用的增长速度是通货膨胀的两倍。

最好的律师赚得盆满钵满，吸引着更多的学生争相进入法学院。

但是大部分法学毕业生从未获得一份大律所的工作。

他们中的许多人转而成为那种妨害行为诉讼的提交者，这使得侵权制度成了一场昂贵的噩梦。

这里面有很多原因。

其一是法律教育的费用过高。

在美国大部分州只有一条成为律师的途径；在某个无关的专业读四年取得本科学位，然后在美国律师协会授权的200 所法学院之一读三年取得法律学位，并为准备律师资格考试花费不菲。

这给现在这些普通的法学院毕业生留下在本科债务之外10 万美元的债务。

法学院债务意味着他们不得不拼命地努力工作。

改革这一体系会对律师和他们的客户都有所帮助。

明智的想法已经存在了好长时间，但是管理该职业的州级机构对实施它们太保守了。

一个想法是准许人们读本科学位时学习法律。

另外一个是，让学生在法学院只读两年之后就参加律师资格考试。

如果这一考试对于一名准律师来说确实是足够严格的测试，那么就应该准许那些有能力提早参加的学生们参加。

不需要额外培训的学生就可以削减他们债务大山的三分之一。

费用如此之高的另外一个原因是该行业限制性的同业公会式的所有权结构。

除哥伦比亚特区外，非律师人员不得持有律所的任何股份。

这使得费用居高不下而创新脚步缓慢。

在行业内部存在要求变革的压力，但是监管部门中的反对变革者坚称，将局外人排除在律所之外，可以让律师与赚钱的压力隔离而合乎职业道德标准地为客户服务。

实际上，准许非律师人员参股，通过鼓励律所采用新技术和聘请职业经理人来致力于提高律所效率，可以降低成本并改善对顾客的服务。

毕竟，其它国家如澳大利亚和英国都已开始使其法律行业自由化。

美国应该效仿。

Text 3
The US$3-million Fundamental physics prize is indeed an interesting experiment, as Alexander Polya-kov said when he accepted this year’s award in March. And it is far from the only one of its type. As a News Feature article in Nature discusses, a string of lucrative awards for researchers have joined the Nobel Prizes in recent years. Many, like the Fundamental Physics Prize, are funded from the telephone-number-sized bank accounts of Internet entrepreneurs. These benefactors have succeeded in their chosen fields, they say, and they want to use their wealth to draw attention to those who have succeeded in science.
What’s not to like? Quite a lot, according to a handful of scientists quoted in the News Feature. You cannot buy class, as the old saying goes, and these upstart entrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobels. The new awards are an exercise in self-promotion for those behind them, say scientists. They could distort the achievement-based system of peer-review-led research. They could cement the status quo of peer-reviewed research. They do not fund peer-reviewed research. They perpetuate the myth of the lone genius.
The goals of the prize-givers seem as scattered as the criticism. Some want to shock, others to draw people into science, or to better reward those who have made their careers in research.
As Nature has pointed out before, there are some legitimate concerns about how science prizes—both new and old—are distributed. The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences, launched this year, takes an unrepresentative view of what the li fe sciences include. But the Nobel Foundation’s limit of three recipients per prize, each of whom must still be living, has long been outgrown by the collabora-tive nature of modern research—as will be demonstrated by the inevitable row over who is ignored when it comes to acknowledging the discovery of the Higgs boson. The Nobels were, of course, themselves set up by a very rich individual who had decided what he wanted to do with his own money. Time, rather than intention, has given them legitimacy.
As much as some scientists may complain about the new awards, two things seem clear. First, most researchers would accept such a prize if they were offered one. Second, it is surely a good thing that the money and attention come to science rather than go elsewhere, It is fair to criticize and ques-tion the mechanism—that is the culture of research, after all—but it is the prize-givers’ money to do with as they please. It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace.
300 万美元的基础物理学奖的确是一个有趣的尝试，正如亚历山大?帕里雅科夫三月份领取今年奖项时所言。

而且该类奖项远非仅此一例。

按照《自然》杂志新闻特写栏目一篇文章所讨论的，近年来一系列奖金丰厚的研究奖项已经加入诺贝尔奖的行列。

许多奖项（如基础物理学奖）来自于互联网企业家的资助，其银行账户是电话号码数量级的。

据称，这些慈善家在各自从事的领域已经获得成功，想用自己的财富去让那些有科学成就的人士受到关注。

这有什么让人不喜欢的呢？据新闻特写栏目中援引一小部分科学家所言，非常之多。

古语云，有钱买不到社会地位，这些暴富的企业家并不能为他们的奖金买来诺贝尔奖的声望。

科学家称，新设奖项是那些幕后人自抬身价的一种举动。

它们会扭曲基于成就并由同行评议引导的研究体系。

它们会巩固同行评议研究的现状。

它们并不资助同行评议研究。

它们延续了孤独天才的神话。

正如《自然》杂志以前已经指出的那样，对于科学奖项——新设的和原有的——如何分配，存在某些忧虑是合理的。

今年推出的“生命科学突破奖”，对生命科学的范畴所持观点并不具代表性。

但是诺贝尔基金会对每一奖项只能由三名仍在世者获得的限制，由于现代科学研究的协作特性而早已不再适宜——这将由当论及确认希格斯波色子的发现时，对于谁可忽略而引起不可避免的争论这一情况来证实。

当然，诺贝尔奖本身就是由一位富豪个人设立的，他决定了用自己的金钱去做他想要做的事。

赋予诺贝尔奖合理性的是时间，而非设立的初衷。

有些科学家常常会抱怨新的奖项，有两件事却是显而易见。

第一，如果被授予这样的奖项，大部分研究人员会接受它。

第二，金钱和
关注度投向科学而不是其它地方，这无疑是好事。

批评和质疑这种机制是公平合理的——毕竟这是做研究的文化——但它是奖金提供者按
照自己的意愿处置的金钱。

以感谢的心情和优雅的风度接受这样的礼物是明智的。

Text 4
“The Heart of the Matter,” the just-released report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS), deserves praise for affirming the importance of the humanities and social sciences to the prosperity and security of liberal democracy in America. Regrettably, however, the report's failure to address the true nature of the crisis facing liberal education may cause more harm than good.
In 2010, leading congressional Democrats and Republicans sent letters to the AAAS asking that it identi-fy actions that could be taken by "federal, state and local governments, universities, foundations, educa-tors, individual benefactors and others" to "maintain national excellence in humanities and social scientif-ic scholarship and education."In response, the American Academy formed the Commission on the Humanities and Social Sciences. Among the commission's 51 members are top-tier-university presi-dents, scholars,lawyers, judges, and business executives, as well as prominent figures from diplomacy, filmmaking, music and journalism.
The goals identified in the report are generally admirable. Because representative government presuppos-es an informed citizenry, the report supports full literacy; stresses the study of history and government, particularly American history and American government; and encourages the use of new digit-al technologies. To encourage innovation and competition, the report calls for increased investment in research, the crafting of coherent curricula that improve students' ability to solve problems and communicate effectively in the 21st century, increased funding for teachers and the encouragement of scholars to bring their learning to bear on the great challenges of the day. The report also advo-cates greater study of foreign languages, international affairs and the expansion of study abroad programs.
Unfortunate-ly, despite 2? years in the making, "The Heart of the Matter" never gets to the heart of the matter: the illiberal nature of liberal education at our leading colleges and universities. The commission ig-nores that for several decades America's colleges and universities have produced graduates who don't know the content and character of liberal education and are thus deprived of its benefits. Sadly, the spirit of inquiry once at home on campus has been replaced by the use of the humanities and social sciences as vehicles for publicizing "progressive," or left-liberal propaganda. Today, professors routinely treat the progressive interpretation of history and progressive public policy as the proper subject of study while portraying conservative or classical liberal ideas—such as free markets or self-reliance —as falling outside the boundaries
of routine, and sometimes legitimate, intellectual investigation. The AAAS displays great enthu-siasm for liberal education. Yet its report may well set back reform by obscuring the depth and breadth of the challenge that Congress asked it to illuminate.
美国艺术与科学院刚发布的报告《问题的核心》，因肯定了人文和社会科学对美国自由民主的繁荣和安全的重要性而值得赞扬。

然而，遗憾的是该报告没有论及通才教育所面临危机的真正本质，这可能造成弊大于利的结果。

2010 年，首要的国会民主党人和共和党人致函美国艺术与科学院，要求其确定可由“联邦、州和地方政府、大学、基金会、教育工作者、个人捐助者和其他人”采取的措施，以“保持国家在人文和社会科学学术和教育方面的优势”。

作为回应，美国艺术与科学院成立了人文和社会科学委员会。

该委员会51 名成员中有顶级大学的校长、学者、律师、法官和公司执行总裁，也有来自外交、电影、音乐和新闻界的杰出人物。

这份报告中确立的目标大体上是值得称赞的。

因为代议制政府的前提是公民知情，该报告支持全面的文化素养；强调学习历史和政治，特别是美国历史和美国政治；以及鼓励使用新的数字技术。

为了鼓励创新和竞争，报告呼吁增加研究投资，对紧密结合的课程要精益求精（它们会提高学生在21 世纪有效地解决问题和交流沟通的能力），增加对教师的资助和鼓励学者转化所学知识以面对当今的巨大挑战。

报告还主张加强对外语、国际事务的学习和扩展留学计划。

不幸的是，尽管撰写报告用了两年半的时间，《问题的核心》却从未触及到问题的核心：我们一流院校的通才教育本质上是狭隘的。

委员会忽视了几十年来美国各院校输送的毕业生不明白通才教育的内容和特点，因而丧失了它的益处。

令人痛心的是，国内校园内曾有的探索精神，已经被利用人文和社会科学作为宣扬“进步的”或左翼民主的宣传工具所代替。

如今，教授们通常将进步的历史观和公共政策视为正统的学习科目，而将保守的或古典自由主义的观点——例如：自由市场和自力更生——描述为逾越了常规、合理事物和理性调研的界限。

2013年考研英语阅读真题
Text 1
In the 2006 film version of The Devil Wears Prada, Miranda Priestly, played by Meryl Streep, scold her unattractive assistant for imagining that high fashion doesn’t affect her. Priestly explains how the deep blue color of the assistant’s sweater descended over the years from fashion shows to department stores and to the bargain bin in which the poor girl doubtless found her garment.
This top-down conception of the fashion business couldn’t be more out of date or at odds with feverish world described in Overdressed, Elizabeth Cline’s three-year
indictment of “fast fashion”. In the last decades or so, advances in technology have allowed mass-market labels such as Zara, H&M, and Unable to react to trends more quickly and anticipate demand more precisely. Quicker turnarounds mean less wasted inventory, more frequent releases, and more profit. Those labels encourage style-conscious consumers to see clothes as disposable——meant to last only a wash or two, although they don’t advertise that——and to renew their wardrobe every few weeks. By offering on-trend items at dirt-cheap prices, Cline argues, these brands have hijacked fashion cycles, shaking an industry long accustomed to a seasonal pace. The victims of this revolution, of course, are not limited to designers. For H&M
to offer a $5.95 knit miniskirt in all its 2,300-plus stores around the world, it must rely on low-wage, overseas labor, order in volumes that strain natural resources, and use massive amounts of harmful chemicals. Overdressed is the fashion world’s answer to consumer-activist bestsellers like Michael Pollen’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma. “Mass-produced clothing, like fast food, fills a hunger and need, yet is non-durable, and wasteful,” Cline argues. Americans, she finds, buy roughly 20 billion garments a year——about 64 items per person –and no matter how much they give away, this excess leads to waste.
To-wards the end of Overdressed, Cline introduced her ideal, a Brooklyn woman named Sarah Kate Beau-mont, who since 2008 has made all of her own clothes——and beautifully. But as Cline is the first to note, it took Beaumont dec ades to perfect her craft; her example can’t be knocked off.
Though several fast-fashion companies have made efforts to curb their impact on labor and the environ-ment——including H&M, with its green Conscious Collection Line——Cline believes lasting change can only be effected by the customer. She exhibits the idealism common to many advocates of sustainabili-ty, be it in food or in energy. Vanity is a constant; people will only start shopping more sustainably when they can’t afford not to.
Text 1 在2006年电影版的《时尚女魔头》中，梅丽尔?斯特里普扮演的米兰达?普雷斯丽责备她其貌不扬的女助手，因为她认为高端时尚并不能影响到自己。

普雷斯丽说明了她助手的深蓝色毛衣如何在数年间从时尚秀场降到百货商店，又沦为便宜货。

毫无疑问，这个贫穷的女孩肯定就是从便宜货里淘的衣服。

这种自上而下的时尚商业观早已过时了，也和伊丽莎白?克莱因在《过度穿着》中描写的狂热世界不一致。

《过度穿着》是伊丽莎白?克莱因花了三年时间写成的对“快时尚”的控诉作品。

在过去十年左右的时间，技术的进步已经使得诸如Zara、H&M、优衣库之类的大众市场品牌能够对流行趋势反应得更快，并能更准确的预料到消费者的需求。

更快的转变意味着更少的存货浪费、更频繁的发布新品、更高的利润。

这些品牌鼓励对时尚敏感的消费者把衣服当成是一次性用品——洗过一两次后就不再穿了，尽管他们没在广告上明说——然后每几周就更新衣橱。

克莱因说，这些品牌通过以极其低廉的价格销售时髦的商品，已经把持了时尚的周期，动摇了一个习惯以季节为周期的产业。

当然，这场变革的受害者，不仅仅是设计师们。

为了能在其全世界2300多家商店里以5.95美元的价格出售超短裙，H&M必须依赖低工资的海外劳动力、大批量采购原材料导致严重危害自然资源、并大量使用有害的化学物质。

《过度穿着》就仿佛是时尚界交给像迈克尔?波伦的《杂食者的困境》一样的消费者维权畅销书的答案。

“大批量生产的服装，就好像快餐一样，充满着渴望和需求，却既不耐用也不经济”，克莱因说到。

她发现，美国人每年要买大约200亿件服装——平均每人64件——无论他们捐赠多少，这种无节制的购买行为都导致浪费。

在《过度穿着》的结尾，克莱因介绍了她的理想典范，一个叫萨拉?凯特?博蒙特的布鲁克林女人，她从2008年起就自己做所有的衣服，而且做得相当漂亮。

不过正如克莱因是第一个注意到的那样，博蒙特花了几十年完善自己的手艺，她的事例不能轻易复制。

尽管包括H&M在内的几家快时尚公司已经努力控制其对劳动力和环境的影响，引入了绿色环保自觉生产线，克莱因相信只有消费者才能促成持久的变革。

她展示了对于无论在食物还是在能源方面都提倡可持续性的人而言共同的理想主义。

虚荣是常态，人们只有在付不起钱的时候才会开始以更加可持续的方式购物。

Text 2
An old saying has it that half of all advertising budgets are wasted—the trouble is, no one knows which half. In the internet age, at least in theory, this fraction can be much reduced. By watching what people search for, click on and say online, companies can aim “behavioural” ads at those most likely to buy.
In the past couple of weeks a quarrel has illustrated the value to advertisers of such fine-grained informa-tion: Should advertisers assume that people are happy to be tracked and sent behavioural ads? Or should they have explicit permission?
In Decem ber 2010 America’s Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed adding a “do not track” (DNT) option to internet browsers, so that users could tell advertisers that they did not want to be fol-lowed. Microsoft’s Internet Explorer and Apple’s Safari both offer DNT; Google’s Chrome is due to do so this year. In February the FTC and the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA) agreed that the industry would get cracking on responding to DNT requests.
On May 31st Microsoft set off the row. It said that Internet Explorer 10, the version due to appear with windows 8, would have DNT as a default.
Advertis-ers are horrified. Human nature being what it is, most people stick with default settings. Few switch DNT on now, but if tracking is off it will stay off. Bob Liodice, the chief executive of the
Associa-tion of National Advertisers, says consumers will be worse off if the industry cannot collect informa-tion about their preferences. People will not get fewer ads, he says. “They’ll get less meaningful, less targeted ad s.”
It is not yet clear how advertisers will respond. Getting a DNT signal does not oblige anyone to stop tracking, although some companies have promised to do so. Unable to tell whether someone real-ly objects to behavioural ads or whether they are sti cking with Microsoft’s default, some may ignore a DNT signal and press on anyway.
Al-so unclear is why Microsoft has gone it alone. After all, it has an ad business too, which it says will comp-ly with DNT requests, though it is still working out how. If it is trying to upset Google, which relies al-most wholly on advertising, it has chosen an indirect method: There is no guarantee that DNT by de-fault will become the norm. DNT does not seem an obviously huge selling point for windows 8—though the firm has compared some of its other products favourably with Google’s on that count be-fore. Brendon Lynch, Microsoft’s chief privacy officer, blogged: “We believe consumers should have more control.” Could it really be that simple?
有句老话说的好，一半的广告预算都浪费了——麻烦的是，没人知道哪一半浪费了。

在互联网时代，至少在理论上，可以大大减少这种浪费。

通过观察人们搜索什么、点击什么、在网上说些什么，公司可以锁定目标，将“行为”广告（即，“有作为的”或“有用的”广告）
投放给最有可能的购买产品的人。

在过去几周，三次交易和一次争论已经向广告商（以及他们的软件提供商）展示了这种经过精细处理的信息的价值：广告商应该假设人们喜欢被跟踪，并发送行为广告吗？还是他们应该先得到明确的许可才行？
在2010年12月，美国联邦贸易委员会提出，应该在网络浏览器上添加“拒绝跟踪”（DNT）选项，这样一来，用户就可以告诉广告商他们不想被追踪。

微软公司的IE浏览器和苹果公司的Safari浏览器都提供拒绝跟踪；谷歌公司的Chrome浏览器今年也即将要提供类似功能。

在二月份，联邦贸易委员会和数字广告联盟达成一致，浏览器开发业要继续努力，以应对拒绝跟踪的要求。

5月31日，微软公司率先采取行动：该公司发布公告称，在该公司的新操作系统windows8中的IE10浏览器上，将会默认附带拒绝跟踪选项。

广告商们诚惶诚恐。

人性使然，人们总是习惯保持默认的设置。

现在几乎没人打开“拒绝跟踪”按钮，可如果跟踪处于关闭状态，就会一直是关闭状态。

鲍勃?利奥狄斯是数字广告联盟的成员组织之一——全国广告协会——的首席执行官。

他说如果软件业无法收集到关于消费者喜好的信息，那消费者只能境况更糟。

人们不会少收到广告，他说，“他们会收到更没意义更没针对性的广告。

”
现在还不清楚广告商们会怎样采取行动。

拒绝跟踪信号并不会强制任何人停止跟踪，尽管有些公司（包括推特公司在内）已经承诺收到拒绝跟踪信号就会停止跟踪。

由于无法辨认人们是真正反对行为广告，还是他们只是没有改动微软的默认设置，有些公司可能会忽视拒绝跟踪信号，依然强行跟踪。

同样不清楚的是，微软为什么要孤军奋战。

毕竟，微软自己也有广告业务，却声称自己的广告业务也要遵守拒绝跟踪要求，不过它也还在寻求解决办法。

如果微软试图激怒几乎完全依赖广告业务的谷歌，那么它就已经选择了一个间接的方法：并不能保证默认拒绝跟踪模式会成为标准范例。

虽然公司以前还拿自己的其他几个产品同谷歌的产品在这方面做过比较，
“我但拒绝跟踪也不像是windows8的巨大卖点。

微软首席隐私官布兰登?林奇在博客中写到：
们相信用户应该有更多的操控权限。

”真是那么简单吗？
Text 3
Up until a few decades ago, our visions of the future were largely —though by no means uniformly —glowingly positive. Science and technology would cure all the ills of humanity, leading to lives of fulfillment and opportunity for all.
Now utopia has grown unfashionable, as we have gained a deeper appreciation of the range of threats facing us, from asteroid strike to epidemic flu to climate change. You might even be tempted to assume that humanity has little future to look forward to.。