1、将以下文章翻译成中文
A JURISDICTIONAL TANGLE
A RULING by Australia's high court on Tuesday December 10th has further complicated the already murky question of which laws and whose courts have jurisdiction over the Internet. In a closely watched libel case, the court has confirmed a lower-court ruling that Dow Jones can be sued in the Australian state of Victoria over an article that appeared on its website. The court rejected the American company's claims that any libel action should be heard in New Jersey, where its web servers reside. A range of media groups and Internet firms--including CNN, Yahoo!, the NEW YORK TIMES, the WASHINGTON POST, Britain's GUARDIAN, Reuters and Amazon--had joined the case on Dow Jones's side, fearing that a ruling against the firm would set an important precedent which could make all Internet publishers open to lawsuits in any of the 190 countries where the Internet can be accessed and so curb free speech everywhere.
The case has been brought by Joseph Gutnick, a wealthy Australian businessman, over an article in BARRON'S, a weekly financial magazine and corporate cousin of the WALL STREET JOURNAL, Dow Jones's main publication. Mr Gutnick objected to an article in the October 2000 issue that appeared both in print and on Dow Jones's popular Internet site. The article claimed that Mr Gutnick was "the biggest customer" of a convicted money launderer. Melbourne-based Mr Gutnick sued Dow Jones in the state court of Victoria, which has some of the severest libel laws in any established democracy.
Dow Jones acknowledged that it had several hundred online subscribers in Victoria, but argued that the case should be heard where the articles were "published" and said that publication took place when the article was uploaded to its computer servers in New Jersey, where Mr Gutnick's chances of winning a libel suit would be much slimmer. The Victoria court ruled that, in fact, publication also took place in Victoria when the articles appeared on subscribers' computer screens, and so the case could be tried locally. Dow Jones appealed. The Australian high court has now confirmed the earlier ruling. Mr Gutnick will be able to pursue his case in the lower state-court.
However, the outcome of the Australian case may not be as damaging as these companies fear. For one thing, it was not much of a surprise. Settled law in most countries has long allowed defamation suits to be brought against publishers wherever their publication is circulated, irrespective of where they based their operations or did their printing. For example, Britain, where libel laws have long favoured the plaintiff, has always been a favourite forum for such suits, even against foreign newspapers with minimal circulations in Britain.
In the Australian case, the high court limited its ruling by saying that a libel action could be brought only if the person had a reputation in the place where the material was published, in this case Mr Gutnick's home city of Melbourne. If the ruling is followed as a precedent by other nations' courts, as publishers fear, then this limitation alone could stop a frenzy of jurisdiction-shopping by plaintiffs. Moreover, libel cases are expensive to pursue. The threat of a wave of cases may be more theoretical than realistic. Not many people have the deep pockets of Mr Gutnick, who made his money in mining.
2、将以下文章翻译成英文
花钱的事
据说，我家祖上若干代都是典型的乡下土财主，愚昧、吝啬：一辈子守望着土地，盼望年年都能收获很多粮食，很多粮食卖出很多钱，再把钱埋在地下，自己还是一个邋遢老头。
我怀疑我身上遗传着土财主的心理，挣点儿钱愿意存起来。果然有人就挖苦我，“老鼠的儿子会打洞”。“看你不傻嘛，不知道钱是干吗的？钱是花的！钱是为人服务的。普天之下，从古至今，最愚蠢的人莫过于守财奴。” 接着，还搬出大哲学家的思想来开导我：货币就好比筑路、搭桥，本不是目的，把钱当成目的就好比是把家安在了桥上。
明智之士的话听起来也都不错，但细想就有问题。钱，只要花，才是为人服务吗？设若银行里有些储备，从而后顾无忧，可以信马由缰地干些想干而不必赢利的事，钱是否也在为人服务呢？我的意思是：钱是为了花的，并不都是为了花掉的。就好比桥是为了过河的，总不至于有了桥，你就来来回回地总去过河吧？
在我看来，钱的最大用处是买心安。必须花时，不必吝啬，无须它们骚扰时，就让它们都到隔壁的银行里去闹吧，你心安理得地干些你想干的事、做些你想做的梦。偶尔想起它们，知其“召之即来，来之能用”，便又多了一份气定神闲。
听说最时髦的消费观是超前消费。但是那些“按揭综合症”者——为住一所大宅，月以继月地省吃俭用，连自由和快乐也抵押进去；日出而作，日落而不敢息，夜深人静还在盘算。这算不算是住在了桥上？
但明智之士还是说我傻：“人家倒是住了一辈子好房子！你呢，到死还有钱躺在银行里，你冤不冤？” 这倒像是致命一击。
不过此题还有一解：倘若到死都还有钱躺在银行里，岂不是说我一生都很富足、从没为钱着急过吗？我一生享受着不以物喜、不为钱忧的轻松，岂不快慰？
我还是相信庄子的一句话：乘物以游心。什么是奴？一切违心之劳，皆属奴为。当然，活于斯世而彻底不付出奴般辛苦的，先是不可能，后是不应该——凭啥别人造物，单供你去游心呢？但是，若把做奴之得，继续打造成一副枷锁，一辈子可真就要以桥为居了。
[责任编辑:judycai]
频道精彩内容推荐
新闻·焦点
高考| 2008年各省高考冲刺卷
考研| 中国高校研究生院排行
公务员| 地震影响陕公考查分
自考|
四月各地成绩查询汇总
会计| 08年注会考试大纲发布
司法| 08年司法考试大纲公布
成考| 北京成人学位英语真题
外语| 应聘时先听懂英语提问
求职|
07毕业生薪酬调查报告
留学| 华人为祖国的地震揪心
| 关于腾讯 | About Tencent | 服务条款 | 广告服务 | 腾讯招聘 | 腾讯公益 | 客服中心 | 网站导航 | |
| Copyright © 1998 - 2008 Tencent Inc. All Rights Reserved |  |
| 腾讯公司 版权所有 | |
