首页 >> 新闻 >> 正文


2018年06月18日 23:30:33来源:搜医诊疗

Georgia’s governor has vetoed a contentious religious freedom bill viewed as anti-gay following pressure from US companies, including a host of Hollywood’s biggest names. 在遭遇包括一系列好莱坞大牌公司在内的多家美国企业的压力后,美国佐治亚州州长内森#8226;迪尔(Nathan Deal)否决了一项有争议的宗教自由法案。该法案被视为一部反同性恋法案。 “I do not think that we have to discriminate against anyone to protect the faith-based community in Georgia,” Nathan Deal said at a news conference on Monday. 周一,迪尔在一个新闻发布会上表示:“我不认为为了保护佐治亚州以宗教信仰为基础的社群就非得歧视什么人。” He added that his decision was “not just about protecting the faith-based community or providing a business-friendly climate for job growth in Georgia. I believe it is about the character of our state and the character of our people. Georgia is a welcoming state.” 他补充说,他的决定“不止是出于保护以宗教信仰为基础的社群、或为了佐治亚州的就业增长而提供一个对商业友好的氛围。我认为,这么做还关乎我们这个州的品质以及我们人民的品质。佐治亚州是个好客的州。” The bill, passed by the US state’s legislature earlier in March, would have allowed faith-based organisations to deny their services and employment to people who violate their beliefs, such as perform same-sex marriages. Supporters argued it provided important protections for religious freedoms, but opponents equated it to discrimination. 本月早些时候,佐治亚州议会通过了该法案。该法案允许以宗教信仰为基础的组织拒绝向违反其信仰(比如实行同性婚姻)的人提供务和就业。该法案的持者辩称,它为宗教自由提供了重要保障,而反对者则将之与歧视相提并论。 The Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights lobby group, welcomed Mr Deal’s veto as a “victory”. 同性恋权利游说组织“人权运动”(Human Rights Campaign)对迪尔的决定表示欢迎,称此事是一次“胜利”。 Companies including Coca-Cola, Apple, Delta Air Lines, Unilever and Salesforce condemned the bill. The National Football League warned the measure could affect Atlanta’s bid to host a Super Bowl. 包括可口可乐(Coca-Cola)、苹果(Apple)、达美航空(Delta Air Lines)、联合利华(Unilever)和Salesforce在内的企业对该法案予以了谴责。美国国家橄榄球联盟(National Football League)警告称,这项举措或对亚特兰大申办超级碗(Super Bowl)赛事产生影响。 Media groups including Walt Disney and The Weinstein Company warned they would consider moving productions out of Georgia if the bill became law. 包括华特迪士尼(Walt Disney)和温斯坦公司(Weinstein Company)在内的媒体集团警告称,如果该法案被批准为法律,它们会考虑将制作活动迁出佐治亚州。 Time Warner — whose Turner division is based in Atlanta — 21st Century Fox, Sony Pictures, Viacom, Comcast, CBS, MGM, AMC, Discovery, Lionsgate and Starz also urged Mr Deal to veto the bill. HRC circulated a letter to the governor signed by well-known figures in the entertainment industry, including writer Aaron Sorkin, director Rob Reiner and actor Julianne Moore. 时代华纳(Time Warner)、21世纪福克斯(21st Century Fox)、索尼影视(Sony Pictures)、维亚康姆(Viacom)、康卡斯特(Comcast)、哥伦比亚广播公司(CBS)、米高梅(MGM)、AMC、探索通信(Discovery Communications)、狮门(Lionsgate)和Starz也敦促迪尔否决该法案。时代华纳子公司特纳(Turner)就位于亚特兰大。“人权运动”还向这位州长传递了一封有多位业知名人物签名的信,其中包括作家阿伦#8226;索尔金(Aaron Sorkin)、导演罗布#8226;赖纳(Rob Reiner)和演员朱丽安#8226;尔(Julianne Moore)。 /201603/434370。

  • “Our goal is to build the perfect personalised newspaper for every person in the world,” said Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg in 2014. This newspaper would “show you the stuff that’s going to be most interesting to you”.2014年,Facebook的马克?扎克伯格(Mark Zuckerberg)曾表示:“我们的目标是为世界上每个人打造完美的个性化报纸。”这份报纸将“让你看到最令你感兴趣的内容”。To many, that statement explains perfectly why Facebook is such a terrible source of news.在许多人看来,这番话完美说明了为什么Facebook是一个如此糟糕的新闻来源。A “fake news” story proclaiming that Pope Francis had endorsed Donald Trump was, according to an analysis from BuzzFeed, the single most successful item of news on Facebook in the three months before the US election. If that’s what the site’s algorithms decide is interesting, it’s far from being a “perfect newspaper”.BuzzFeed的一项分析显示,美国大选前的3个月,Facebook上最热门的单条新闻是一则宣称教皇方济各(Pope Francis)已表示持唐纳德?特朗普(Donald Trump)的“假新闻”。如果这就是该网站算法选定的令人感兴趣的内容,那么它根本称不上是一份“完美的报纸”。It’s no wonder that Zuckerberg found himself on the back foot after Trump’s election. Shortly after his victory, Zuckerberg declared: “I think the idea that fake news on Facebook, which is a very small amount of the content, influenced the election in any way?.?.?.?is a pretty crazy idea.” His comment was greeted with a scornful response.难怪扎克伯格在特朗普当选后发现自己陷入了不利境地。特朗普胜选后不久,扎克伯格就宣布:“有人认为Facebook上的假新闻——只占内容极小一部分——多少影响了大选……我觉得这是一个相当愚蠢的想法。”他此番遭到了公众的嘲讽。I should confess my own biases here. I despise Facebook for all the reasons people usually despise Facebook (privacy, market power, distraction, fake-smile social interactions and the rest). And, as a loyal FT columnist, I need hardly point out that the perfect newspaper is the one you’re ing right now.在此,我应该坦白自己心中的偏见。人们常常因隐私权、市场配力、分散注意力、假笑社交等原因瞧不上Facebook,这些也都是我瞧不上Facebook的原因。而且,作为英国《金融时报》忠诚的专栏作家,我几乎不需要指出,您此刻正在读的就是一份完美的报纸。But, despite this, I’m going to stand up for Zuckerberg, who recently posted a 5,700-word essay defending social media. What he says in the essay feels like it must be wrong. But the data suggest that he’s right. Fake news can stoke isolated incidents of hatred and violence. But neither fake news nor the algorithmically driven “filter bubble” is a major force in the overall media landscape. Not yet.但即便如此,我还是要持扎克伯格,他最近发表了一篇5700字的文章为社交媒体辩护。他在文章里讲的给人的第一感觉是,他一定讲错了,但文中数据表明他是对的。假新闻可以激起个别的仇恨和暴力事件。但在整个媒体版图中,无论是假新闻,还是算法驱动的“过滤气泡”(filter bubble),都并非主要力量——至少暂时不是。“Fake news” is a phrase that has aly been debased. A useful definition is that fake news is an entirely fabricated report presenting itself as a news story. This excludes biased reporting, satire and lies from politicians themselves.“假新闻”本就是一个贬义词。一个贴切的定义是:假新闻是一种将自身包装为新闻故事的完全捏造的报道。这排除了偏见报道、讽刺作品和政客们的谎言。At first glance, such hoaxes appear to be ubiquitous on Facebook. The BuzzFeed analysis finds that the five most popular hoax stories were more successful than the five most popular true stories. (This list of true stories includes the New York Post’s “Melania Trump’s Girl-on-Girl Photos From Racy Shoot Revealed”, a reminder that not all mainstream journalism is likely to win a Pulitzer.)乍看之下,此类假新闻在Facebook上似乎无处不在。BuzzFeed的分析发现,最热门的5篇虚假报道比最热门的5篇真实报道影响力更大。(这些真实报道包括《纽约邮报》(New York Post)刊登的《梅拉尼娅?特朗普(Melania Trump)女女不雅照流出》(Melania Trump’s Girl-on-Girl Photos From Racy Shoot Revealed),提醒人们不是所有主流新闻都可能赢得普利策奖(Pulitzer)。)But hoax stories are less significant than this analysis suggests — partly because Facebook is not the main source of news for Americans (that’s still television news), and partly because true reports will generally be covered in some form by dozens of outlets, which will dilute the popularity of any one version. Each hoax, however, is unique. No wonder the most popular hoaxes outperform the most popular true reports.但假新闻也并不像上述分析显示的那么影响重大,部分原因在于Facebook并非美国人的主要新闻来源(主要来源仍是电视新闻);另一部分原因是,真实新闻通常被几十家媒体以不同形式报导,这将稀释任一版本报道的普及度。但每条假新闻都是独一无二的。最热门的真实报道敌不过最热门的假新闻就不足为奇了。In January 2017, two economists, Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow, published research studying exactly how prevalent fake news had been before the election. Their clever method tested people’s recall of fake news, as compared with true news stories and “placebo” stories — fake fake news, invented by the researchers. People didn’t remember many fake news stories, and claimed to remember quite a few placebos. Overall, there just didn’t seem to be enough fake news to swing the election result — unless it was potent stuff indeed, even in small doses.2017年1月,经济学家亨特?阿尔科特(Hunt Allcott)与马修?根茨科(Matthew Gentzkow)发表了一项针对大选前假新闻究竟多么泛滥的研究。他们用巧妙的办法测试了人们对假新闻的,并与真实新闻报道和“安慰剂”报道(两位研究人员编造的假新闻)进行比较。人们并未记住多少假新闻,而且声称记住了不少安慰剂报道。总而言之,似乎没有足够多的假新闻来左右选举结果——除非内容的确劲爆,即便剂量很小。“The average voter saw one fake news story before the election,” Gentzkow told me. “That number is a very different picture from what you might get from watching the public discussion.”根茨科告诉我:“大选前,平均每个选民会看到一条假新闻报道。这一数字可能与你从公共讨论中得到的印象大相径庭。”Of more concern is that Facebook — and its “most interesting to you” algorithm — simply supplies news that panders to each user’s ideological biases. It’s undoubtedly true that we surround ourselves with people who agree with us on social media. But it’s not clear that Facebook’s algorithm is the biggest problem here. Twitter was politically polarised even in the days when it used no algorithm at all. And newspapers have ideological biases too.更令人担心的是,Facebook(及其“令你最感兴趣的”算法)提供了迎合每位用户意识形态偏见的新闻。毫无疑问,我们在社交媒体上把自己包裹在与我们持相同看法的人群里。但这并不能说明Facebook的算法是这方面的最大问题。即便在没有使用任何算法的时候,Twitter在政治上也处于两极分化。而报纸同样也存在意识形态偏见。One recent study of online news ing was conducted by Seth Flaxman, Sharad Goel and Justin Rao, who had access to browser data from Microsoft, and used it to examine how people consumed news online. They found a mixed picture: social media did seem to push stories that were further from the centre of the political spectrum but they also exposed people to a greater variety of ideological viewpoints. That makes sense. Reading the same newspaper every day is a filter bubble too.塞思?弗拉克斯曼(Seth Flaxman)、沙拉德?戈埃尔(Sharad Goel)和贾斯汀?拉奥(Justin Rao)最近就在线新闻阅读进行了一项研究,他们获取了微软(Microsoft)的浏览器数据,并据此研究人们如何在线阅读新闻。他们发现了一个复杂现象:社交媒体的确似乎在推送那些距离政治谱系中心较远的报道,但它们也向人们呈现更多样化的意识形态观点。这很有意义。毕竟,每天阅读同一份报纸也是一种过滤气泡。Gentzkow studied the contrast between online and offline news using data from 2004-2009, working with fellow economist Jesse Shapiro. They found little evidence then that online news consumption was more polarised than traditional media. But things are changing quickly. “My guess is that segregation is noticeably and meaningfully higher than in the past,” Gentzkow says, “but still quite modest.”根茨科与经济学家同事杰西?夏皮罗(Jesse Shapiro)合作,利用2004至2009年的数据对线上和线下新闻之间的差异进行了研究。但他们发现,几乎没有据表明在线新闻消费比传统媒体消费更加极化。但情况正在飞快变化。“我的猜测是,人们之间的分隔显著而切实地提高了,”根茨科说,“但仍不算严重。”This feels like an important moment. Fake news is not prevalent, but it could become so. Filter bubbles are probably no worse than they have been for decades — but that could change rapidly too.现在感觉像是一个重要时刻。假新闻还未遍地都是,但或许会有这么一天。过滤气泡可能不比过去几十年更糟,但这种状况同样可能迅速改变。“A lot ultimately hinges on what the motivations of American voters are,” says Gentzkow. “Do people actually care at all about getting the truth and having accurate information?”“很多事最终取决于美国选民的动机是什么,”根茨科说,“人们真的那么在乎获知真相、得到准确信息吗?”He’s hopeful that, deep down, people watch and the news because they want to learn about the world. But if what voters really want is to be lied to, then Facebook is the least of our problems.他从心底希望,人们看新闻、读新闻是因为他们想了解这个世界。但如果选民真正想要的是哄骗,那么Facebook最不该成为我们的难题。 /201703/498403。
  • The authorities in Shengzhou, Zhejiang Province, were encouraging people to collect discarded cigarettes from the streets and hand them in, the Sohu news website reports. 据搜狐新闻网报道,浙江省嵊州市政府鼓励人们收集街道上丢弃的香烟,交给政府。For every 50 that were collected, the city was offering a pack of tissues in return. 每收集50个烟蒂,政府就给兑换一包纸巾。But the apparently meagre reward had people turning out in droves.这看似小小的奖励却引得人们蜂拥而至。The sanitation task force was soon flooded with cigarette butts, receiving almost five million of them in three weeks, and costing them 100,000 packets of tissues. 该市环卫处很快就堆满了烟蒂,这里在3周内收到了近500万个烟蒂,兑换出10万包纸巾。One elderly woman turned up with more than 9,000 butts, Sohu says. 搜狐称,有位老妇人送来9000多个烟蒂。People were counting out their used cigarettes in little piles outside the office, the Zhejiang Radio and TV Group reports.据浙江广播电视集团报道,人们在办公室外一小堆一小堆的数着烟蒂。Officials soon felt that something was amiss, suspecting that those taking part had either been sent cigarettes by people beyond Shengzhou, or had travelled in from elsewhere. 当地官员很快就发现事情不太对劲,他们怀疑要么有外地人给参与活动的人送来烟蒂,要么就是外地人来参与兑换。That prompted them to cancel the campaign.活动因此被取消了。;Many of the cigarette butts we received were fairly clean - they were not soiled or soaked in any way, and they didn#39;t look like they were picked up from the ground,; an unnamed official tells The Paper. 一位不具名的官员告诉澎湃新闻,我们收到许多相当干净的烟蒂——上面完全没有沾染泥土、水渍,看起来不像是从地面上捡的。;We couldn#39;t be sure where the butts were collected, so we had no choice but to accept them all.;我们不能确定这些烟蒂是从哪里收集来的,所以不得不全部收下。Many social media users feel the government can only blame itself for how things turned out. 许多社交媒体用户认为,事情演变成这样政府只能怪自己。;It is just that the authorities haven#39;t prepared it well enough,; one says on the Sina Weibo microblogging site. 一位新浪微网友表示,这只能说明政府没有做好充分的准备。While some are unimpressed that people tried to cheat the system, others point out a potentially unintended consequence: the scheme could simply encourage smokers to light up more often. 虽然一些人对于人们试图欺诈的行为不以为然,但也有人指出政府此举可能带来意想不到的后果:这一方案可能只会鼓励吸烟者吸更多烟。;It#39;s no different from welfare for smokers,; one person writes. 有网友写道,这和给吸烟者发福利没什么区别,;Save your cigarette butts, we#39;ll give you tissues in exchange.;留下烟蒂,我们就给你兑换纸巾。 /201611/475304。
  • Spring is coming in the oil market. That was the message from the heads of the world’s largest trading houses at the FT’s commodities conference in Lausanne this week. The overwhelming consensus among these influential figures in the market is that crude is unlikely to return to the prices below per barrel that it reached in January, and the trend is now upwards. 石油市场将迎来春天。这是全球各大交易商的掌门人在本周英国《金融时报》洛桑大宗商品会议上传递出的信息。这些在石油市场举足轻重的人物达成了压倒性的共识,声称油价不太可能回到今年1月触及的每桶30美元以下的水平,现在的趋势是上行。 The markets do seem to support that interpretation. After a 4 per cent jump on Tuesday, internationally traded Brent crude is almost 60 per cent above its low point in January. 市场走势似乎确实持这种解读。在周二大涨4%以后,在国际上交易的布伦特原油(Brent)价格较1月低点高出近60%。 Even now, prices of about per barrel are still below the level that most people in the oil industry would consider sustainable for the long term, so it is certainly plausible to think that the correction is now under way. 即便现在,每桶约44美元的价格仍低于石油行业多数人认为长期可持续的水平,因此认为油价正在修正的看法貌似是合理的。 Before oil producers start planning for happier days, though, there are a couple of more gloomy points that they need to consider. 然而,在石油生产商开始为更美好的日子做打算时,它们需要思考两种较为悲观的观点。 First, there are good reasons to think that oil prices could go down again in the short term. And second, even if the longer term trend is upwards, it will be hard to see a return to the prices of about 0 per barrel that seemed normal only two years ago. 首先,我们有充足的理由认为油价短期内可能会再次走低。其次,即便较长期趋势是上涨,人们也很难看到油价重新回到每桶100美元左右的水平——两年前这个水平还显得很正常。 One immediate spur to prices has been the prospect of the meeting of oil-producing countries, including Russia and most members of Opec, in Doha on Sunday. Several countries have been talking up the prospect that they will confirm the “freeze” in oil production that was provisionally agreed by Russia and Saudi Arabia in February, signalling to the market that the excess supply that has been driving down prices will soon disappear. 目前刺激油价的一个直接因素是产油国本周日将在多哈召开会议,包括俄罗斯和石油输出国组织(Opec,简称欧佩克)的多数成员国。几个国家一直在谈论这种前景:他们将实由俄罗斯和沙特在2月暂时约定的“冻结产量”计划,从而向市场表明,拉低油价的供应过剩局面将很快消失。 But when Igor Sechin, chairman of the Russian state-controlled oil group Rosneft, told the FT conference that “everyone is expecting the successful outcome of our work” in Doha, he was indulging in wishful thinking. 俄罗斯政府控股的俄罗斯石油公司(Rosneft)董事长伊戈尔#8226;谢欣(Igor Sechin)在洛桑会议上表示,“所有人都期待我们(在多哈)的工作取得成功的结果。”他这样想未免太一厢情愿了。 For some countries, including Russia, promising not to increase production will merely confirm what they were doing anyway. Others are showing less than resolute commitment to solidarity with other producers. Iraq is rapidly increasing production before the freeze, while Iran has said it will not join in any deal and plans to continue raising its output. 对于包括俄罗斯在内的一些国家而言,承诺不增产只会实他们现在正在做些什么。至于其他国家,它们与其他产油国抱团的决心算不得坚定。伊拉克正抢在冻产之前迅速增加产量;伊朗已表态不会加入任何协议,并计划继续提高产量。 Regardless of what is said at Doha, the global oil market is likely to remain oversupplied for a while. 不管多哈会议上说了什么,全球石油市场的供应过剩局面可能仍会持续一段时间。 We have been here before, exactly a year ago. After the steep crash from the summer of 2014, oil rebounded from January to April 2015, and held on over for some time. It looked then as though the worst had passed, too. But in July the oversupply started weighing on the market again, and another leg down in prices began. 我们以前曾经历过这种情况,准确来说是一年前。在经过2014年夏季油价暴跌后,从2015年1月到4月,油价出现反弹,并在60美元上方维持了一段时间。当时也是这样,看上去好像最糟糕的时期已经过去。但去年7月,供应过剩开始再次令市场承压,油价再度下跌。 Since then, the US shale industry has been battling to cut costs and raise productivity so it can survive at lower prices. 此后,美国页岩油行业一直在努力降低成本和提高生产率,以求在低油价时期维持生存。 The shale industry, which was largely responsible for the oil crash in the first place because of the production boom that began in 2010, has been mauled by lower prices, but its output has not collapsed as many analysts expected, and the principal producers are still in business. Even heavily indebted Chesapeake Energy, seen as one of the most vulnerable, this week managed to secure its future for a while longer with a renegotiated bn bank lending facility. 美国页岩油行业始于2010年的生产热潮是最初油价暴跌的主要原因,而油价下跌反过来对该行业造成重创,但其产量并没有像很多分析人士预期的那样大幅下滑,主要生产商仍在运营。甚至连被视为最脆弱的生产商之一、负债累累的切萨皮克能源公司(Chesapeake Energy)本周也争取到按重新谈判的条件维持40亿美元的信贷额度,从而确保自己能够存活得更久一点。 The US shale industry does not work with oil at , but at and certainly at , companies say they can drill plenty more wells that would be financially viable. Once oil starts returning to those levels, we can expect to see more drilling and more production from the US, in effect putting a ceiling on prices. 如果油价在每桶40美元,美国页岩油行业无法实现盈利,但生产商们表示,如果油价在50美元,它们可以在财务可行的情况下钻探更多油井,如果油价在60美元的话就更没问题了。一旦油价向这些水平回归,我们预计将看到来自美国的更多钻探和生产活动,从而有效为油价构筑上限。 Nothing lasts forever in commodity markets and it is quite possible that rising demand will eventually push crude back above 0 again. But while the worst may now be over for oil producers, those halcyon days of two years ago are likely for the foreseeable future to remain a golden memory. 在大宗商品市场,没有什么是永恒的,需求上升很有可能最终将油价重新拉升至100美元以上。然而,尽管对于石油生产商而言,最糟糕的时期可能已经过去,但在可预见的将来,两年前的那种盛况仍将是一段美好回忆。 /201604/437945。
  • An official with China#39;s top family planning authority on Sunday refuted the rumors that newlyweds must pay a deposit before getting married to encourage couples to give birth to a second child.中国最高计划生育机构一名官员星期日驳斥了新婚夫妇在结婚前必须缴纳押金以鼓励二胎生育的谣言。;The collection of a #39;second-child deposit#39; is totally a rumor, and we have never issued such a policy,; an official with the National Health and Family Planning Commission (NHFPC) told the Global Times on Sunday. ;The NHFPC has not received any complaints about the collection of such deposits,; added the official.“#39;二胎保金#39;完全是个谣言,我们从来没有发布过这样的政策,”国家卫生和计划生育委员会(卫计委)的一位官员星期日告诉《环球时报》。“卫计委没有收到任何关于收取保金的投诉,”这位官员补充道。Some Net users have complained on social media platform Sina Weibo that local marriage registry offices were collecting ;second-child deposits; ranging from 1,000 yuan (5) to 8,000 yuan. They claimed that the money would be returned after the family#39;s second child is born. Similar information about such ;deposits; has been circulating on the Internet since 2011.一些网友在新浪微上抱怨当地婚姻登记处收取了1000元(155美元)到8000元不等的“二胎保金”。他们表示,在家里的第二个孩子出生后,这些钱将退回。类似的“保金”传言自2011年以来就已经在互联网上流传了。China introduced its family planning policy in the 1970s. The policy was relaxed for the first time in 2013, allowing couples to have a second child if either parent was an only child.中国在20世纪70年代开始实行计划生育政策,该政策在2013年第一次放松,允许夫妻双方都是独生子女的家庭生育二胎。China further relaxed the family planning policy in January 2016, allowing all couples to have a second child. Population experts previously interpreted the move as a shift in the mindset from regarding population as a burden to encouraging childbearing as a way to tackle problems caused by a labor shortage and an aging society.在2016年1月,中国进一步放宽了计划生育政策,允许所有夫妇可以生育二胎。人口专家之前对此做出了解读,表示这是从以人口为负担到鼓励生育的观念上的转变,政府希望以此来解决劳动力短缺和社会老龄化造成的问题。 /201602/426884。
分页 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29