Moon in Tranquility

通过手机上网或者短消息查阅RSS Feeds已经不是什么新鲜事了，语音搜索也已经不再是个热门话题，但是通过手机来“听”Feeds，恐怕就显得那么与众不同了，一家名为Jott的Text-to-Speech网站就推出了这样一种服务。只需拨打指定号码，当问到“Who do you want to Jott?”时说出“Jott Feed”，就能够享受到语音版的RSS Feed输出。

Jott Feeds预置了5个Feed，当然你可以把它们替换成你喜欢的RSS地址，当在电话中问到“Which Feed”的时候，说出Feed名称（在网页中根据个人习惯设置）即可。该网站还提供了按键绑定功能，用户可以把经常访问的RSS Feed绑定到电话的数字按键上，省去了记住名字的麻烦，在听Feed的过程中可以按1键或3键听下一条或前一条Feed。

目前这项服务似乎只有美国用户能够享受到（在注册Jott的时候需要拨打电话进行帐号验证），不过这为国内的某些类似网站提供了某些思路，不过，相对于听着经过Text-to-Speech转换后有点点怪异的人工语音，我还是更喜欢高效率的直接阅读。

Read the Words是一个Text to Speech的网站，它基于Web 2.0技术，可以将文本内容朗读出来，同时还可以把相应的音频保存为MP3文件供下载。提供手动粘贴或输入文字、上传文本文件、网页以及RSS四种在线转换方式。有15个虚拟人物可供选择，值得一提的是，该网站不但提供英语的朗读方式，还提供了法语和西班牙语两种语言的朗读（文本内容可以不是法文或西班牙文，也就相当于在线翻译了），功能十分强大。

这个网站可以作为一个不错的练习听力的地方，不用再去苦苦搜索听力资源了。而且最重要的是转换之后的朗读效果不论从发音、语气语调、重音上来说都是做得不错的。我在科学美国人上随便找了一篇文章，将文章的一部分转换为了MP3文件，除了语速有点快之外（语速在转换之前可以调整）整体感觉效果是不错的。你可以将文本与转换之后的朗读效果对比一下：

声音文件：

文本：
What should we do about climate change? The question is an ethical one. Science, including the science of economics, can help discover the causes and effects of climate change. It can also help work out what we can do about climate change. But what we should do is an ethical question.

Not all “should” questions are ethical. “How should you hold a golf club?” is not, for instance. The climate question is ethical, however, because any thoughtful answer must weigh conflicting interests among different people. If the world is to do something about climate change, some people—chiefly the better-off among the current generation—will have to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases to save future generations from the possibility of a bleak existence in a hotter world. When interests conflict, “should” questions are always ethical.

Climate change raises a number of ethical questions. How should we—all of us living today—evaluate the well-being of future generations, given that they are likely to have more material goods than we do? Many people, some living, others yet to be born, will die from the effects of climate change. Is each death equally bad? How bad are those deaths collectively? Many people will die before they bear children, so climate change will prevent the existence of children who would otherwise have been born. Is their nonexistence a bad thing? By emitting greenhouse gases, are the rich perpetrating an injustice on the world’s poor? How should we respond to the small but real chance that climate change could lead to worldwide catastrophe?

Many ethical questions can be settled by common sense. Sophisticated philosophy is rarely needed. All of us are to some extent equipped to face up to the ethical questions raised by climate change. For example, almost everyone recognizes (with some exceptions) the elementary moral principle that you should not do something for your own benefit if it harms another person. True, sometimes you cannot avoid harming someone, and sometimes you may do it accidentally without realizing it. But whenever you cause harm, you should normally compensate the victim.