[真题答案]2011年1月考研英语真题及答案
[在线估分]2011年1月考研英语真题在线估分
[名师点评]2011年1月考研英语真题答案视频解析
[打包下载]2011年1月考研英语真题及答案下载
2011年考研英语已经结束，英语二是改革以来的第二次考试，难度较之去年稍有提高。就各部分来说，第一部分完形填空难度较之去年有所降低，涉及的是一篇社会类的文章。阅读理解A部分对考生的词汇量要求有所提高，专业性也较强，相比于2010年来说，今年阅读理解的文章和题目在难度方面有所增加。B部分新题型是以多项对应的形式出现。第三部分翻译难度与去年持平，涉及的是环境方面的话题。最后一部分小作文是常见的书信形式，要求写一封祝贺加建议信;大作文也是考纲规定的图表作文，作文部分难度都不是很大。
第一部分：完形填空
文章是取自New York Times(《纽约时报》)2010年7月3日，原文标题为Taking the Mystery Out of Web Anonymity(揭开网络匿名的面纱)。文章探讨的是网络匿名这一现象给美国社会带来的一系列严重后果，政府决定采取一些措施来解决这个问题。词汇、固定搭配这是传统的两大考点，此外也侧重于对文章意思的理解。考生要学会分析句内和句际的逻辑关系以及篇章内容。
Taking the Mystery Out of Web Anonymity
THE Obama Administration is trying to fix the Internet’s dog problem。
The problem, as depicted in Peter Steiner’s legendary 1993 New Yorker cartoon, is that on the Internet nobody knows you’re a dog. And thus the enduring conundrum over who can be trusted in cyberspace。
The Internet affords anonymity to its users — a boon to privacy and freedom of speech. But that very anonymity is also behind the explosion of cybercrime that has swept across the Web。
Can privacy be preserved while bringing a semblance of safety and security to a world that seems increasingly lawless?
Last month, Howard Schmidt, the nation’s cyberczar, offered the Obama administration’s proposal to make the Web a safer place — a “voluntary trusted identity” system that would be the high-tech equivalent of a physical key, a fingerprint and a photo ID card, all rolled into one. The system might use a smart identity card, or a digital credential linked to a specific computer, and would authenticate users at a range of online services。
The idea is to create a federation of private online identity systems. Users could select which system to join, and only registered users whose identities have been authenticated could navigate those systems. The approach contrasts with one that would require a government-issued Internet driver’s license. (Civil liberties groups oppose a government system, fearful that it could lead to national identity cards。)
Google and Microsoft are among companies that already have these “single sign-on” systems that make it possible for users to log in just once but use many different services。
In effect, the approach would create a “walled garden” in cyberspace, with (virtually) safe neighborhoods and bright (cyber) streetlights to establish a sense of a trusted community。
Mr. Schmidt described it as a “voluntary ecosystem” in which “individuals and organizations can complete online transactions with confidence, trusting the identities of each other and the identities of the infrastructure that the transaction runs on。”
Still, the administration’s plan has divided privacy rights activists. Some applaud the approach; others are apprehensive. “It seems clear,” Lauren Weinstein, the editor of Privacy Journal, wrote “that such a scheme is a pre-emptive push toward what would eventually be a mandated Internet ‘driver’s license’ mentality。”
The plan has also been greeted with skepticism by some computer security experts, who worry that the “voluntary ecosystem” envisioned by Mr. Schmidt would still leave much of the Internet vulnerable. They argue that all Internet users should be forced to register and identify themselves, in the same way that drivers must be licensed to drive on public roads。
“The privacy standards the administration wants to adopt will make the system both unwieldy and less effective and not good for security,” said Stewart Baker, a former chief counsel of the National Security Agency who favors government-issued Internet driver’s licenses。
But Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a privacy rights group, said such criticism was unfair. He said the Obama administration had created a policy framework that will make it possible for private industry to improve privacy and security technologies。
Some members of the Internet’s technical community say that the Web-of-trust approach is too little, too late to solve the Internet’s security problems. The problem is no longer just about cyberspace stalkers, thieves and con artists, but about the trustworthiness of the very fabric of the network itself。
“We’re now seeing attacks on the Internet’s plumbing,” said Rodney Joffe, senior technologist at Neustar, an Internet infrastructure firm. “If you get control of the plumbing there are lots of things you can do because the plumbing was never designed for a world where there is a lack of trust。”
The essential plumbing components are the routers, which direct traffic on computer networks. Operators of these routers — mostly private companies — share instructions with each other on how to direct that traffic. They trust the information is accurate. But at least three times this year, a substantial fraction of the global network’s messages were mis-routed through China, potentially opening millions of users to spying or tampering. Chinese Internet engineers say the misroutings were mistakes; other engineers are not so sure。
“If our web of trust is corrupted or penetrated or broken, I don’t quite know what to do about that,” said Vinton Cerf, a Google vice president and one of the designers of the Internet. “That’s one of the nightmares that I worry about。”
He is pushing efforts to create standards that would secure the Internet’s plumbing, though those may take longer than a decade to be put in place globally. As for making the network more secure for users, he said he was optimistic and that he saw a relatively straightforward — though not exactly inexpensive — way to make the network more secure。
In the future, he envisions a card that each of us will carry, perhaps equipped with a fingerprint reader, that will in effect be a one-time password system. It will digitally hold all of our different personalities: who we are at work, while playing on-line games, banking and using our smart phones and make it possible for others to be sure we are who we say we are。
But Mr. Joffe said he worried that the time for such systems might already have run out。
“Imagine what would happen if people lost trust in using the Internet: what would that do to our economy?” Mr. Joffe asked. “You would have to go down to your local bank branch and you’d join 5,000 other people waiting to do their banking. That infrastructure has gone away and the banks can’t cope with it anymore。”
第二部分：阅读理解
A部分
Text 1文章取自The Economist(经济学家)2010年5月4日，原文标题为Outside directors and children first。文章分析的公司外部董事方面的内容。
Outside directors and children first
RUTH SIMMONS joined Goldman Sachs's board as an outside director in January 2000; a year later she became president of Brown University in Rhode Island. For the rest of the decade she apparently juggled both roles (as well as several other directorships) without attracting much criticism. But by the end of 2009 Ms Simmons was under fire from students and alumni for having sat on Goldman's compensation committee; how could she have let those enormous bonus payouts pass unremarked? By February Ms Simmons had left the board. The position was just taking up too much time, she said。
Ms Simmons's decision to leave makes perfect sense, according to research conducted by Rüdiger Fahlenbrach at the École Polytechnique Féderale in Lausanne, Angie Low of Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, and René Stulz of The Ohio State University. The three are co-authors of a new working paper suggesting that when trouble looms for a firm, outside directors have more incentives to quit than to stay。
Outside directors are supposed to serve as helpful, yet less biased, advisers on a firm's board. Having made their wealth and their reputations elsewhere, they presumably have enough independence to disagree with the chief executive's proposals. Leaders from other fields are frequently in demand: former presidents or Cabinet members, retired CEOs, and yes, university presidents. If the sky, and the share price, is falling, outside directors should be able to give advice based on having weathered their own crises。
The researchers used a database that covered more than 10,000 firms and more than 64,000 different directors between 1989 and 2004. Then they simply checked which directors stayed from one proxy statement to the next. The most likely reason for departing a board was age, so the researchers concentrated on those "surprise" disappearances by directors under the age of 70. They found that after a surprise departure, the probability that the company will subsequently have to restate earnings increases by nearly 20%. The likelihood of being named in a federal class-action lawsuit also increases, and the stock is likely to perform worse. The effect tended to be larger for larger firms, reported Dr Fahlenbrach。
Bail out before the bail-out
The obvious conclusion might be that outside directors, with inside knowledge of tricky times ahead, prefer to save their own reputations, rather than those of the company they are serving. But although a correlation between them leaving and subsequent bad performance at the firm is suggestive, it does not mean that such directors are always jumping off a sinking ship. Often they "trade up", leaving riskier, smaller firms for larger and more stable firms。
But the researchers believe that outside directors have an easier time of avoiding a blow to their reputations if they leave a firm before bad news breaks, even if a review of history shows they were on the board at the time any wrongdoing occurred. Firms who want to keep their outside directors through tough times may have to create incentives, such as increasing pay, says Dr Fahlenbrach. Otherwise outside directors will follow the example of Ms Simmons, once again very popular on campus。
Text 2文章取自The Economist(经济学家)2010年6月10日，原文标题为Newspapers not dead yet。文章讲述的是报纸业的衰落，并分析了其衰落的原因。
Newspapers not dead yet
Newspapers have cut their way out of crisis. More radical surgery will be needed。
WHATEVER happened to the death of newspapers? A year ago the end seemed near. The recession threatened to remove the advertising and readers that had not already fled to the internet. Newspapers like the San Francisco Chronicle were chronicling their own doom. America’s Federal Trade Commission launched a round of talks about how to save newspapers. Should they become charitable corporations? Should the state subsidise them? It will hold another meeting on June 15th. But the discussions now seem out of date。
In much of the world there is little sign of crisis. German and Brazilian papers shrugged off the recession (see article). Even American newspapers, which inhabit the most troubled corner of the global industry, have not only survived but often returned to profit. Not the 20% profit margins that were routine a few years ago, but profit all the same。
It has not been much fun. Many papers stayed afloat by pushing journalists overboard. The American Society of News Editors reckons that 13,500 newsroom jobs have gone since 2007. Readers are paying more for slimmer products. Some papers even had the nerve to refuse delivery to distant suburbs. Yet these desperate measures have proved the right ones and, sadly for many journalists, they can be pushed further。
Demolishing the house that Otis built
Newspapers are becoming more balanced businesses, with a healthier mix of revenues from readers and advertisers. American papers have long been highly unusual in their reliance on ads. Fully 87% of their revenues came from advertising in 2008, according to the OECD. In Japan the proportion is 35%. Not surprisingly, Japanese newspapers are much more stable。
The whirlwind that swept through newsrooms harmed everybody, but much of the damage has been concentrated in areas where newspapers are least distinctive. Car and film reviewers have gone. So have science and general business reporters. Foreign bureaus have been savagely pruned. Newspapers are less complete as a result. But completeness is no longer a virtue in the newspaper business. Just look at the fate of Otis Chandler’s creation。
Thanks to family connections, Chandler ended up in control of the Los Angeles Times in 1960. The paper he inherited was parochial and conservative, reflecting the city it served. Chandler jettisoned the anti-union dogma and set about building a west-coast rival to the New York Times. His paper was heavy on foreign news and serious, objective reporting. The result was hugely impressive—but not, as it turned out, suited to the internet era. In the past few years the paper has suffered repeated staff cuts. In 2007 it was acquired by a property magnate and in 2008 filed for bankruptcy protection。
The problem with such newspapers is that, although they do much that is excellent, they do little that is distinctive enough for people to pay for it. The Los Angeles Times’s foreign reporting is extremely good. But it is hard to argue that it is better than the stuff supplied by the New York Times or foreign papers—sources to which the residents of Los Angeles now have unfettered, largely free access via their laptops and iPhones. Similarly, it has never been clear why each major newspaper needs its own car reviewer: a Corolla is a Corolla, whether it is driven in Albuquerque or Atlanta. And by extension, it is not clear why presidential candidates or sport teams require huge journalistic entourages. Papers should concentrate on what they do best, which means, in many cases, local news and sport. If the rest is bought in from wire services or national outfits, readers are unlikely to complain—as long as there is enough competition between those larger providers to keep up standards (and thanks to the internet there probably is now). Specialisation generally means higher quality。
It is grim to forecast still more writers losing their jobs. But whether newspapers are thrown onto doorsteps or distributed digitally, they need to deliver something that is distinctive. New technologies like Apple’s iPad only make this more true. The mere acquisition of a smooth block of metal and glass does not magically persuade people that they should start paying for news. They will pay for news if they think it has value. Newspapers need to focus relentlessly on that。
Text 3文章取自The Times(时代)，原文标题为：When Less Was More。文章主要讲述的是二战后美国人在房屋设计方面观点的一些转变和趋势。
When Less Was More
We tend to think of the decades immediately following World War II as a time of exuberance and growth, with soldiers returning home by the millions, going off to college on the G.I. Bill and lining up at the marriage bureaus。
But when it came to their houses, it was a time of common sense and a belief that less truly could be more. During the Depression and the war, Americans had learned to live with less, and that restraint, in combination with the postwar confidence in the future, made small, efficient housing positively stylish。
As we find ourselves in an era of diminishing resources, could “less” become “more” again? If so, the mid-20th-century building boom might provide some inspiration。
They were recently renovated. Economic austerity was only one of the catalysts for the trend toward efficient living. The phrase “less is more” was actually first popularized by a German, the architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, who like other people associated with the Bauhaus emigrated to the United States before World War II and took up posts at American architecture schools. These designers, including Walter Gropius and Marcel Breuer, came to exert enormous influence on the course of American architecture, but none more so than Mies。
Mies’s signature phrase means that less decoration, properly deployed, has more impact than a lot. Elegance, he believed, did not derive from abundance. Like other modern architects, he employed metal, glass and laminated wood — materials that we take for granted today but that in the 1940s symbolized the future. Mies’s sophisticated presentation masked the fact that the spaces he designed were small and efficient, rather than big and often empty。
The apartments in the elegant towers Mies built on Chicago’s Lake Shore Drive, for example, were smaller — two-bedroom units under 1,000 square feet — than those in their older neighbors along the city’s Gold Coast. But they were popular because of their airy glass walls, the views they afforded and the elegance of the buildings’ details and proportions, the architectural equivalent of the abstract art so popular at the time。
Tom Wolfe’s “From Bauhaus to Our House” aside, the trend toward “less” was not entirely foreign. In the 1930s Frank Lloyd Wright started building more modest and efficient houses — usually around 1,200 square feet — than the sprawling two-story ones he had designed in the 1890s and the early 20th century。
Even the consciously trend-setting Museum of Modern Art promoted restraint in the early postwar years. In 1945, it held an exhibition entitled “Tomorrow’s Small House: Models and Plans,” and the pioneering model houses that Marcel Breuer and Gregory Ain erected in the museum garden were small and sparsely detailed。
The “Case Study Houses” commissioned from talented modern architects by California Arts & Architecture magazine between 1945 and 1962 were yet another homegrown influence on the “less is more” trend. Aesthetic effect came from the landscape, new materials and forthright detailing. In his Case Study House, Ralph Rapson may have mispredicted just how the mechanical revolution would impact everyday life — few American families acquired helicopters, though most eventually got clothes dryers — but his belief that self-sufficiency was both desirable and inevitable was widely shared。
“Less is more” wasn’t for everyone; modernism was popular mainly with the so-called “Progressives,” the professionals and intellectuals who commissioned modern houses. But these trend-setters were not alone in assuming there would be fewer servants in the future and that modern conveniences would make housework easier to do, especially in smaller quarters。
The popularity of simpler living made it possible for one American developer, William Levitt, to realize the prewar dream of the European modern architects to use industrialization for housing. During the war, Levitt had become an expert in mass-producing homes for shipyard workers in Virginia. When it ended, Levitt and his sons created a prototype 750-square-foot, one-floor house—with a living room, kitchen/dining area, two small bedrooms, a bathroom and an unfinished “expansion attic”—to fit on a 60 x 100 foot lot. Set on concrete slabs like those at the shipyards, the new houses were built quickly and cheaply on a sort of assembly line, with pre-cut lumber and nails shipped from the Levitts’ factories in California。
Eventually, the Levitts built 140,000 houses, clustered in Levittowns on Long Island and near Philadelphia for some of the 16 million returning veterans. In the 1950s, the houses grew slightly, to 800 square feet, and came equipped with carports and built-in 12.5-inch Admiral TVs. Clearly no one considered multiple televisions, or that they would be frequently replaced。
The Levittown houses were concentrated on the East Coast, but they influenced suburban development throughout the United States, though elsewhere houses were built manually, as they would be after the postwar building boom. The standard two-bedroom house with an expandable attic became the norm for more than a decade, even as family size mushrooomed。
But like much of American society, the middle-class home began to grow over time. The average size of an American house in 1950 was 983 square feet. Slowly, though, both more square footage and more amenities became part of the American dream, so that by 2004 the average home topped 2,300 square feet。
What does all that space bring? Small, out-of-the-way bedrooms like those in the Levittown houses’ “expandable attics” can be used when children are at home or guests arrive, and the open plan of their main living spaces has become the kitchen/family room that is the center of the American home today. But many of the “must-have” elements in 2010, like formal living and dining rooms, are redundant. In an era of economic austerity and a seemingly permanent energy crisis, can “less is more” become popular again?
Sadly, many of the small, architect-designed houses of the postwar period have been demolished to make way for McMansions. But those that remain, and those we know about from blueprints and photographs, have much to teach us — about the efficient use of space for storage, integrated indoor and outdoor space and the way careful design can facilitate natural ventilation. When you think about how many rooms you actually use, it seems obvious that various ideas from that optimistic era could make the next decade a happier, saner one than the overstuffed times we’ve just lived through。
Text 4文章取自The Economist(经济学家)2010年7月10日，原文标题为Staring into the abyss; The future of Europe.。文章属于经济类题材，讲的是欧盟统一的货币体系，它的现状，各国对其的看法以及评价。文章涉及到一些专业词汇和文化背景知识，在做题时还是有一定的难度。
Staring into the abyss; The future of Europe
As the euro-zone crisis spooks governments, opinions are diverging dramatically about what the union is for
WILL the European Union make it? The question would have sounded outlandish not long ago. Now even the project's greatest cheerleaders talk of a continent facing a "Bermuda triangle" of debt, demographic decline and lower growth。
As well as those chronic problems, the EU faces an acute crisis in its economic core, the 16 countries that use the single currency. Markets have lost faith that the euro zone's economies, weaker or stronger, will one day converge thanks to the discipline of sharing a single currency, which denies uncompetitive stragglers the quick fix of devaluation。
Yet the debate about how to save Europe's single currency from disintegration is stuck. It is stuck because the euro zone's dominant powers, France and Germany, agree on the need for greater harmonisation within the euro zone, but disagree about what to harmonise。
Germany thinks the euro must be saved by stricter rules on borrowing, spending and competitiveness, backed by quasi-automatic sanctions for governments that stray. These might include threats to freeze EU funds for poorer regions and EU mega-projects, and even the suspension of a country's voting rights in EU ministerial councils. It insists that economic co-ordination should involve all 27 members of the EU club, among whom there is a small majority for free-market liberalism and economic rigour; in the inner core alone, Germany fears, a small majority favour French dirigisme。
A "southern" camp headed by France wants something different: "European economic government" within an inner core of euro-zone members. Translated, that means politicians meddling in monetary policy and a system of redistribution from richer to poorer members, via cheaper borrowing for governments through common Eurobonds or outright fiscal transfers. Finally, figures close to the French government have murmured, euro-zone members should agree to some fiscal and social harmonisation: eg, curbing competition in corporate-tax rates or labour costs。
It is too soon to write off the EU. It remains the world's largest trading block. At its best, the European project is remarkably liberal: built around a single market of 27 rich and poor countries, its internal borders are far more porous to goods, capital and labour than any comparable trading area. It is an ambitious attempt to blunt the sharpest edges of globalisation, and make capitalism benign。
The problem is that the "European social model" has become, too often, a synonym for a very expensive way of doing things. It has also become an end in itself, with some EU …
从今年考研英语二的文章来看，阅读部分文章均是摘自美国专业刊物，特别是The Economist(经济学家)，如果平时没有一定的阅读积累，做起来还是比较困难的。所以对于后面的考生来说，在平时多阅读一些这样的期刊杂志，积累一些经济、文化方面的专业词汇还是很有必要的。
B部分
文章取自The Observer(观察家报)，文章标题为UK doctors declare war on junk food(英医学界号召打击垃圾食品)。选的是大纲中第一种备选题型：多项对应。背景知识：英国两家皇家医学院的院长敦促政府对不健康食物的广告和赞助宣传进行限制。他们建议英国政府对垃圾食品征收“脂肪税”，同时向儿童发出同“吸烟有害健康”同等级的垃圾食物食用警告。
UK doctors declare war on junk food
Leading doctors in Britain will today demand tough government action to curb the nation's addiction to unhealthy food, and so help halt spiralling rates of obesity, diabetes and heart disease。
Senior medical figures want to stop fast-food outlets opening near schools, restrict the advertising of products high in fat, salt or sugar and limit sponsorship of sports events by fast-food producers such as McDonald's。
They also want "fat taxes" to be imposed on foods that cause the most dietary harm and introduce cigarette-style warnings for schoolchildren about the dangers of a bad diet。
Professor Terence Stephenson, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said the consumption of unhealthy food should be seen to be just as damaging as smoking or binge drinking。
"Thirty years ago, it would have been inconceivable to have imagined a ban on smoking in the workplace or in pubs, and yet that is what we have now. Are we willing to be just as courageous in respect of obesity? I would suggest that we should be."。
Professor Stephenson's comments will reignite the debate over the role of regulation in tackling public health problems。
Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said last week that "no Government campaign or programme can force people to make healthy choices. We want to free business from the burden of regulation, but we don't want, in doing that, to sacrifice public health outcomes"。
Mr Lansley has alarmed health campaigners by saying manufacturers of potato crisps and sweets could play a central role in the Change4Life campaign, the centrepiece of government efforts to boost healthy eating and fitness。
He has also criticised chef Jamie Oliver's high-profile attempt to improve the quality of school lunches in England as an example of how "lecturing" people was not the best way to change their behaviour。
Professor Stephenson suggested potential curbs could include banning TV ads for foods high in fat, salt or sugar before the 9pm watershed and limiting them on billboards or in cinemas。
"If we were really bold, we might even begin to think of high-calorie fast food in the same way as cigarettes - by setting stringent limits on advertising, product placement and sponsorship of sports events."
Professor Dinesh Bhugra, president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said: "Some types of processed foods are harmful to the physical, and consequently mental, health of individuals。
"There ought to be serious consideration given to banning advertising of certain foods and certain processed foods and to levying tax on fatty, unhealthy foods."
He said school pupils needed to be told more about the effects of bad diet. He also urged councils to impose "fast-food free zones" around schools and hospitals。
Mr Lansley received unexpected support from Professor Stephenson and Professor Steve Field, chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, who said he was right to stress the importance of personal responsibility, as well as government action, in ending the country's dysfunctional relationship with food。
Both strongly criticised parents for setting their children a bad example by overeating, serving poor-quality food and exercising too little。
"Parents are role models for their children. It's crucial that they set the tone for what the children eat and their physical activity," said Professor Stephenson。
"The fact that one-third of our children are now overweight ... must mean their parents are allowing them to eat excessive amounts of food and not ensuring they take enough exercise."
Professor Field, a family doctor in Birmingham, said: "Too many parents show too little responsibility in the vital business of passing on good eating and drinking habits to their children."
A Health Department spokesperson said: "We need to create a new vision for public health where all of society works together to get healthy and live longer. This includes creating a new 'responsibility deal' with business, built on social responsibility, not state regulation."
第三部分：英译汉
文章取自New Statesmen(新政治家)，原文标题为The green IT myth，作者为Jason Stamper。出题者在原文基础上稍作了改写。涉及的还是热点环境问题，在难度上与2010年持平。
The green IT myth
Who would have thought that, globally, the IT industry produces about the same volume of greenhouse gases as the world's airlines do - roughly 2 per cent of all CO2 emissions?
Many everyday tasks take a surprising toll on the environment. A Google search can leak between 0.2 and 7.0 grams of CO2, depending on how many attempts are needed to get the "right" answer. At the upper end of the scale, two searches create roughly the same emissions as boiling a kettle。
To deliver results to its users quickly, Google has to maintain vast data centres around the world, packed with powerful computers. As well as producing large quantities of CO2, these computers emit a great deal of heat, so the centres need to be well air-conditioned - which uses even more energy。
However, Google and other big tech providers such as BT, IBM, Microsoft and Amazon monitor their efficiency closely and make improvements. (Google claims to be more efficient than most。) Recently, industry and government agencies from the US, Europe and Japan reached an agreement, orchestrated by the Green Grid, an American industry consortium, on how to benchmark the energy efficiency of data centres. Monitoring is the first step on the road to reduction, but there's much more to be done, and not just by big companies。
Simple things - such as turning devices off when they are not in use - can help to reduce the impact of our love affair with all things digital. Research from the National Energy Foundation in the UK found that nearly 20 per cent of workers don't turn their PCs off at the end of the day, wasting 1.5 billion kWh of electricity per year - which equates to the annual CO2 produced by 200,000 small family cars。
Technology could have a huge role to play in reducing energy consumption - just think of the number of car and bus journeys saved by something as simple as online banking. But the sector must still work harder to get its own house in order。
Jason Stamper is NS technology correspondent and editor of Computer Business Review。