只用一本书提高英语听力能力!重温经典名著双语阅读小编推荐:跟着纪录片学英语不背单词和语法,轻松学英语
返回列表 回复 发帖

[文化博览] 【整理】2011-09-12 虚拟革命 免费的代价 The Cost of Free —19

提高英语听力能力 找对方法很重要!

[文化博览] 【整理】2011-09-12 虚拟革命 免费的代价 The Cost of Free —19

 

 

虚拟革命 免费的代价  | The Virtual Revolution


    一个沉默的故事,一场无声的革命。影响了地球上的每个人。网络发明后,20多年过去了。我们一起探讨网络带来的深远影响——无论好坏,数字革命是如何改变了人类的生活呢?记者兼大学教师Aleks Krotoski博士走访全球,研究网络改变一切的意义,包括我们如何学习、购物、投票、交友等等。目前全球有四分之一的人上网,一起探讨当世界剩下的四分之三的人将要上网时,我们的网络又为他们准备了什么呢?互联网是免费的,但是有代价的!本期节目就google为例,为你揭示天下没有免费的午餐。而类似亚马逊网站的推荐引擎,可以建立用户数据库,那么,个人隐私是否受侵害呢?

  

   20多年前,英国人蒂姆·博纳斯李发明了互联网。“只是因为我自己需要”他对BBC说。从那时起世界不再是以前的世界。这20年在世界历史上转瞬即逝,但全球互联网却在这20年间高速发展。网络改变了全世界的社会组织形式。社会上越来越多的部门,以爆炸性的速度并通过各种形式与网络联系在一起。

 

In the third programme of the series, Aleks gives the lowdown on how, for better and for worse, commerce has colonised the web - and reveals how web users are paying for what appear to be 'free' sites and services in hidden ways. Joined by some of the most influential business leaders of today's web, including Jeff Bezos (CEO of Amazon), Eric Schmidt (CEO of Google), Chad Hurley (CEO of YouTube), Bill Gates, Martha Lane Fox and Reed Hastings (CEO of Netflix), Aleks traces how business, with varying degrees of success, has attempted to make money on the web. She tells the inside story of the gold rush years of the dotcom bubble and reveals how retailers such as Amazon learned the lessons. She also charts how, out of the ashes, Google forged the business model that has come to dominate today's web, offering a plethora of highly attractive, overtly free web services, including search, maps and video, that are in fact funded through a sophisticated and highly lucrative advertising system which trades on what we users look for. Aleks explores how web advertising is evolving further to become more targeted and relevant to individual consumers. Recommendation engines, pioneered by retailers such as Amazon, are also breaking down the barriers between commerce and consumer by marketing future purchases to us based on our previous choices. On the surface, the web appears to have brought about a revolution in convenience. But, as companies start to build up databases on our online habits and preferences, Aleks questions what this may mean for our notions of privacy and personal space in the 21st century.

user posted image



电信下载1:
Video download          Mp3 download

电信下载2:
Video download          Mp3 download

网通下载:
Video download          Mp3 download

迅雷高速:
Video download          Mp3 download



版主提示:
一、若是自己的听写稿, 请发帖时标注'Homework'.
二、若是改稿, 请发帖时标注'on 某某人'并在修改处标红.
三、为了达到最快的下载速度,推荐使用迅雷高速下载本站音频/视频材料.

 

四、欢迎参与口译练习我爱背单词佳句背诵口语模仿在线听写训练普特播客.




kinglimk在 整理的参考文本:


------------FOR REFERENCE ONLY------------

The average person seems very pragmatic about it. As long as it works and as long as all the laws are followed, they seem perfectly happy to share personal information to make their experience better.

Eric Schmidt is right. We consumers of the web voted with our feet, we are complicit in the deal for free. Our complacency is illustrated by a little-known but quite revealing slice of web history. In 2005, a non-profit organization called the Attention Trust tried to reassert our ownership of data that we put on the web. It sounds like a no-brainer, doesn't it? The kind of thing that would be taken up by millions. I went to meet one of the founders,Seth Goldstein, to find out what happened.

It's all this attention data that we are producing online. We are spending more and more our time online, we are spending more and more our time doing social things, you know, online. How can we claim ownership of it?

So they created a piece of software that anyone could download and plug in to their web browser that would automatically store a record of our activity on the web. Crucially, we owned this record, not the Attention Trust or not Google or anyone else. And only we could exchange it with others on our terms. The result? Well, very few took up the technology, Attention Trust failed.

Did you think that we are perfectly happy, in this trade that we are engaged in?

I don’t think people know how they feel about it? So instead of perfectly happy, it’s like well, they’ve looked at all the alternatives and they’re like“ No, no, I'm happy.” I think if you said perfectly dumb about it, dumb and happy or a sort of happy and naive, yeah, that's quite more like it, just notthat important to them right now. There is no clear cost.

Are we simply sleepwalking into surveillance rather than thinking about the amount of information being give up on the web and how that might come back to us later?

普特在线文本比较普特在线听音查字普特在线拼写检查普特文本转音频

支持普特英语听力就多多发帖吧!您们的参与是对斑竹工作最大的肯定与支持!如果您觉得还不错,推荐给周围的朋友吧~
The average person seems very pragmatic about it. As long as it works and as long as all the laws are followed, they seem perfectly happy to share personal information to make their experience better.

Eric Schmidt is right. We consumers of the web voted with our feet, we are complicit in the deal for free. Our complacency is illustrated by a little-known but quite revealing slice of web history. In 2005, a non-profit organization called the Attention Trust tried to reassert our ownership of data that we put on the web. It sounds like a no-brainer, doesn't it? The kind of thing that would be taken up by millions. I went to meet one of the founders, Seth Goldstein, to find out what happened.

It's all this attention data that we are producing online. We are spending more and more our time online, we are spending more and more our time doing social things, you know, online. How can we claim ownership of it?

So they created a piece of software that anyone could download and plug in to their web browser that would automatically store a record of our activity on the web. Crucially, we owned this record, not the Attention Trust or not Google or anyone else. And only we could exchange it with others on our terms. The result? Well, very few to pick up the technology, Attention Trust failed.

Did you think that we are perfectly happy, in this trade that we are engaged in?

I don’t think people know how they feel about it? So when you say perfectly happy, it’s like they’ve looked at the alternatives like “No, I'm happy.” I think if you said perfectly dumb about it, dumb and happy or a sort of happy and naive, yeah, that's fun more like it, just not that important to them right now. There is no clear cost.

Are we simply sleepwalking into surveillance rather than thinking about the amount of information they give up on the web and how that might come back to us later?
1

评分次数

  • kinglimk

智乱天下 武逆乾坤
立即获取| 免费注册领取外教体验课一节
HW

The average person seems very pragmatic about it. As long as it works, as long as all the laws you follow, they seem perfectly happy to share personal information to make experience better.

Eric Schmidt is right. We consumers of the web voted with our feet. We are complicit in the deal for free. Our complacency is illustrated by a little known but quite revealing slice of web history.  In 2005, a non-profit organization called the Attention Trust try to reassert our ownership of data that we put on the web. It sounds like a new bringer doesn’t it? The kind of thing that will be taking by millions. I went to meet one of the co-founders, Seth Goldstein, to find out what happened.

It’s // attention data that we are producing online. We spend more and more our time online. We spend more and more of our time in social things online. How can we claim ownership of it?

So they created a piece of software anyone could download and plug in to their web browser that will automatically store record of our activity on the web. Crucially we own this record, not the Attention Trust, not Google or anyone else. And only we can exchange with others on our terms. The results, well, very few took up the technology.  Attention Trust failed.

Do you think we were perfectly happy in this trade that we were engaged in?

I don’t think people know how to feel about it. So you think you are perfectly happy as look at all the alternatives. No, I’m happy. I think it’s perfectly dumb about it, dumbed happy or sort of happy and naïve. Yes, it’s quite more like it. It’s just not bad and important to them right now. There is no clear cost.

Are we simply sleepwalking into surveillance rather than thinking about the amount of information we give up on the web and how that might come back to us later?
1

评分次数

  • kinglimk

实现无障碍英语沟通
HW:
The average person seems very pragmatic about it. As long as it works, as long as all the loss followed, they seem perfectly happy to share personal information to make their experience better.
Erick Smith is right. We consumers of the web voted with our feet, where complicates in the deal for free. Our compliancy is illustrated by a little known but quite revealing slice of web history. In 2005, a non-profit organization called the attention trust, tried to reassert our ownership of data that we put data on the web. It sounds like no brainer, doesnt it? The kind of thing that will be taken up by millions. I went to see one of the founders, Safe Golve Stein to find out what happened.
It is all attention data that we producing now online. We are getting more and more time online. //We spend more and more time on social things online. How can we claim ownership about it. So they created a piece of software that anyone could download and plog in to their web browser that would automatically store record of our activity on the web. Crucially we own this record not the attention trust and not google or anyone else and only we could exchange with others on our terms. The results well, very few took up the technology. Attention trust failed.
Do you think that we perfectly happy in this trade that were engaged in? how does people know how does she about it. So is it perfectively happy like well they look it all alternatives. Yes, now Im happy. I think it is perfectively dumb about it. Done it happy or sort of happy naïve. Yeah thats time I like it just not that important to their memory now. There is no clear cost.
Are we simply sleep walking into surveillance rather than thinking about the amount of information be give up on the web. And how that might come back to us later.
1

评分次数

  • kinglimk

口译专员推荐—>口译训练软件IPTAM口译通
on 1977:

The average person seems very pragmatic about it. As long as it works and as long as all the laws are followed, they seem perfectly happy to share personal information to make their experience better.

Eric Schmidt is right. We consumers of the web voted with our feet, we are complicit in the deal for free. Our complacency is illustrated by a little-known but quite revealing slice of web history. In 2005, a non-profit organization called the Attention Trust tried to reassert our ownership of data that we put on the web. It sounds like a no-brainer, doesn't it? The kind of thing that would be taken up by millions. I went to meet one of the founders, Seth Goldstein, to find out what happened.

It's all this attention data that we are producing online. We are spending more and more our time online, we are spending more and more our time doing social things, you know, online. How can we claim ownership of it?

So they created a piece of software that anyone could download and plug in to their web browser that would automatically store a record of our activity on the web. Crucially, we owned this record, not the Attention Trust or not Google or anyone else. And only we could exchange it with others on our terms. The result? Well, very few took up the technology, Attention Trust failed.

Did you think that we are perfectly happy, in this trade that we are engaged in?

I don’t think people know how they feel about it? So instead of perfectly happy, it’s like well, they’ve looked at all the alternatives  “ and you know, I'm happy.” I think if you said perfectly dumb about it, dumb and happy or a sort of happy and naive, yeah, that's fun more like it, just not that important to them right now. There is no clear cost.

Are we simply sleepwalking into surveillance rather than thinking about the amount of information being give up on the web and how that might come back to us later?
都是高手呀,我来看看,

[Homework]2011-09-12 虚拟革命 免费的代价 The Cost of Free —19

the average person seems very pragnalic  about it,as long as they wks ala all the wks they  follow ,they seem perfectly happy to share oersonal information to make their experience better.
ES is right ,we consumer web as our feet ,we r complist the deal for free.
A complacense illustrated by a little known but quite revealing life of web history.
in 2005, a known profit orgnization called the attention trust try to reassert ownership of  data that we put on the web. it sounds like a no brainer. the kind of thing that will be taken up by millions.i went to meet one of the funders  sgs to find out wht happened.it is all attention data that we edition on line ,we r spending more and more time online,we are spending more and more attending social things online.how can we play ownership of it? so they creat a piece oftware that anyone can download and plugegame to their webblowser that were automatically store record our activity on the web.crucially we own this record not the attention trust not gg or anyone else.and only we can exchange with others on our terms.results ,very few to get the technology.attention trust failed.do u think they will perfectly happy and distrade that we were engaged in.thousandpeople know how they feel about it.so they perfecty hav as well this look as they r alternatives and now i m happy.i think this perfectly dumb about it ,dumb and happy ,or sort of happy and naive.yeah that s quite more like it.it s just not that important to them right know. there is no clear cost.r we simply  sleep working into cervalan rather than thinking about the emounon information that give up on the web
and how they com bk to us later

This post was generated by put listening repetition system,  Check the original dictation thread!
1

评分次数

  • kinglimk

实现无障碍英语沟通

[Homework]2011-09-12 虚拟革命 免费的代价 The Cost of Free —19

The average person seems very pragmatic about it. As long as it works, as long as all the laws are followed, they seem perfectly happy to share personal information to make their experience better.
Erik Smith is right. We consumers of the web voted with our feet while complicit in the deal for free. Our complaisance is illustrated by a little known but quite revealing slice of web history. In 2005, a non-profit organization called the Attention-trust tried to reassert our owership of data that we put on the web. It sounds like a no-brainer, doesn't it? The kind of things that would be taken up by millions. I went to meet one of the founders, Seth Goldstem, to find out what happened.
It's all this attention data that we are producing now online, we are spending more and more of our time online, we are spending more of our time on social things online. How can we claim ownership of it?
So they created a piece of software that anyone could download and plug in to their web browser that would automatically store record of our activity on the web. Crucially we own this record, not the Attention-trust, and not Google or anyone else, and only we could exchange it with others on our terms. The results? Well, very few took up the technology, Attention-trust failed.
Do you think that we are perfectly happy in this trade that we are engaged in.
I don't think people know how they feel about it. So when you say perfectly happy is like, well, they look at all the alternatives and like no, I'm happy. I think if you said perfectly dumb about it. Dumb and happy, or sort of happy and naive. Yeah, that's kind of more like it. Just not that important to memorize now. There is no clear cost.
Are we simply sleep-walking into surveillance rather than thinking about the amount of information we give up on the web and how that might come back to us later.

This post was generated by put listening repetition system,  Check the original dictation thread!
1

评分次数

  • kinglimk

返回列表