大学体验英语综合教程4_课文原文

Unit1. The Unsung Heroes: What About Working Dads? On our first date after our twin daughters were born, my husband and I went to see the movie Toy Story. We enjoyed it, but afterward my husband asked, Where was the dad? At first, it seemed petty to criticize an entertaining family movie because of one small point. The more I thought about it, however, the more glaring an omission it seemed. Not only was dad not around, he wasnt even mentioned - despite the fact that there was a baby in the family, so dad couldnt have been that long gone. It was as if the presence- or absence - of a father is a minor detail, not even requiring an explanation. This is only one example of the media trend toward marginalizing fathers, which mirrors enormous social changes in the United States. David Blankenhorn, in his book Fatherless America, refers to this trend as the unnecessary father concept. We are bombarded by stories about the struggles of working mothers (as opposed to non-working mothers, I suppose). Meanwhile, a high proportion of media stories about fathers focus on abusive husbands or deadbeat dads. It seems that the only time fathers merit attention is when they are criticized for not helping enough with the housework (a claim that I find dubious anyway, because the definition of housework rarely includes cleaning the gutters, changing the oil in the car or other jobs typically done by men) or when they die. When Mr. Blankenhorn surveyed fathers about the meaning of the term good family man, many responded that it was a phrase they only heard at funerals. One exception to the unnecessary father syndrome is the glowing media attention that at-home dads have received. I do not mean to imply that at-home dads do not deserve support for making this commitment. I only mean to point out the double standard at work when at-home dads are applauded while at-home mothers and breadwinner fathers are given little, if any, cultural recognition. The very language we use to discuss mens roles (i.e., deadbeat dads) shows a lack of appreciation for the majority of men who quietly yet proudly fulfill their family responsibilities. We almost never hear the term working father, and it is rare that calls for more workplace flexibility are considered to be for men as much as for women. Our society acts as if family obligations are not as important to fathers as they are to mothers - as if career satisfaction is what a mans life is all about. Even more insulting is the recent media trend of regarding at-home wives as status symbols - like an expensive car - flaunted by the supposedly few men who can afford such a luxury. The implication is that men with at-home wives have it easier than those whose wives work outside the home because they have the luxury of a full-time housekeeper. In reality, however, the men who are the sole wage earners for their families suffer a lot of stresses. The loss of a job - or even the threat of that happening - is obviously much more difficult when that job is the sole source of income for a family. By the same token, sole wage earners have less flexibility when it comes to leaving unsatisfying careers because of the loss of income such a job change entails. In addition, many husbands work overtime or second jobs to make more needed money for their families. For these men, it is the family that the job supports that makes it all worthwhile. It is the belief that having a mother at home is important to the children, which makes so many men gladly take on the burden of being a sole wage earner. Today, there is widespread agreement among researchers that the absence of fathers from households causes serious problems for children and, consequently, for society at large. Yet, rather than holding up ordinary fathers as positive role models for the dads of tomorrow, too often society has thrown up its hands and decided that traditional fatherhood is at best obsolete and at worst dangerously reactionary. This has left many men questioning the value of their role as fathers. As a society, we need to realize that fathers are just as important to children as mothers are - not only for financial support, but for emotional support, education and discipline as well. It is not enough for us merely to recognize that fatherlessness is a problem - to stand beside the grave and mourn the loss of the good family man and then try to find someone to replace him (ask anyone who has lost a father though death if that is possible). We must acknowledge how we have devalued fatherhood and work to show men how necessary, how important they are in their childrens lives. Those fathers who strive to be good family men by being there every day to love and support their families - those unsung heroes - need our recognition and our thanks for all they do. Because they deserve it. Unit2. Why Digital Culture Is Good for You? The news media, along with social and behavioral scientists, have recently sent out a multitude of warnings about the many dangers that await us out there in cyberspace. The truth of the matter is that the Web is no more inherently dangerous than anything else in the world. It is not some amorphous entity capable of inflicting harmful outcomes on all who enter. In fact, in and of itself, the Web is fairly harmless. It has no special power to overtake its users and alter their very existence. Like the old tale that the vampire cannot harm you unless you invite it to cross your threshold, the Internet cannot corrupt without being invited. And, with the exception of children and the weak-willed, it cannot create what does not already exist. (1) Like alcohol, the Web simply magnifies what is already there: Experts are concerned that the masking that goes on online poses a danger for everyone who is a part of the Digital Culture. Before we know it, the experts tell us, we will all use fake identities, become fragmented, and will no longer be sure of just who we are. Wrong. The only people who feel compelled to mask, and otherwise misrepresent themselves online are the same people who are mysterious and unfrank in real life.the Net just gives them one more tool to practice their deceit. As for the rest of us, getting taken in by these people is a low probability. We know who these folks are in the real world. The Internet does not cause people to disguise as something they are not. As for the Digital Culture getting cheated by these dishonest folks, well, there are just as many cues online to decipher deception as there are in the real world. The competent WebHead can recognize many red flags given off by the online behavior of others. Oftentimes the intentions of fellow users is crystal clear, especially over time. When someone is trying to deceive us online, inconsistencies, the essence that they are trying too hard or are just plain unbelievable, often come through loud and clear. Likewise, just like in the real world, a host of other unacceptable tendencies can be readily recognized online. Narcissism (its all about meeeee), those people who have nothing but negativity or unpleasant things to say about others, and those who feel compelled to undermine others and who think they must blow out the other guys candles in order for their own to shine can be spotted a cybermile away. (2) The Web can bring out the best in people: Gregarious, frank folks in real life usually carry these same traits over to their online life. Most are just as fun-loving online if not more so, as they are at a party, at work, or at the local bar. Though admittedly, some are not quite as much fun to be around without a stiff drink. Shy folks have a safer environment online than in the real world and can learn to express themselves more freely on the Net (youve never seen anyone stutter on e-mail, have you?) allowing them to gain confidence and communication skills that can eventually spill over into other aspects of their lives. Helpful people in real life are often just as willing to come to someones assistance online as anywhere else. (3) People are judged differently on the Web: On the Internet people are judged by their personality, beliefs and online actions, NOT by their physical appearance. This is good. It not only gives ugly folks an aid, but causes Beautiful People to have to say something worth listening to in order to get attention. (4) People open up more: Many people are opening up a whole lot more these days since they are not required to use their real name and provide their real identity in the Internet. (5) Were connected: Members of the Digital Culture know full well that there is a wealth of important information and life-changing opportunities out there in cyberspace. The Web has opened doors for many of us that otherwise would never have been an option. Research possibilities and networking are just two such opportunities. ?(6) We Learn the Power of Words and to be Better Listeners: With no facial expressions, body language, or physical appearance to distract us, members of the Digital Culture have learned the power of words . both their own, and others. We know very well how a simple string of words can harm, hurt and offend, or how they can offer humor, help, support and encouragement. Most experienced members of the online culture have learned to become wordsmiths, carefully crafting the words they use to convey exactly what they mean so as not to be misunderstood. Many of us have also learned to become far better listeners thanks to the Internet. Not only do we choose our words more carefully but we (especially those who communicate via email as opposed to chat rooms) are forced to wait until the other person finishes before we can speak or respond. Unit3. Big Myths About Copyright If it doesnt have a copyright notice, its not copyrighted. This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other peoples works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure. 2) If I dont charge for it, its not a violation. False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but thats the main difference under the law. Its still a violation if you give it away - and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property. There is an exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesnt include wide-scale anonymous personal copying as Napster. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action. 3) If its posted to Usenet its in the public domain. False. Nothing modern is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain. Explicitly, as you have a note from the author/owner saying, I grant this to the public domain. 4) My posting was just fair use! The fair use exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. Thats important so that copyright law doesnt block your freedom to express your own works. Intent and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you couldnt find time to write your own story, or didnt want your readers to have to pay for the New York Times web site? They arent fair use. Fair use is usually a short excerpt. 5) If you dont defend your copyright you lose it. - Somebody has that name copyrighted! False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly given away. You also cant copyright a name or anything short like that, such as almost all titles. You may be thinking of trademarks, which apply to names, and can be weakened or lost if not defended. Like an Apple computer. Apple Computer owns that word applied to computers, even though it is also an ordinary word. Apple Records owns it when applied to music. Neither owns the word on its own, only in context, and owning a mark doesnt mean complete control. 6)If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new work belongs to me. False. U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called derivative works - works based on or derived from another copyrighted work - is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work. This is true even though the making of these new works is a highly creative process. If you write a story using settings or characters from somebody elses work, you need that authors permission. 7)They cant get me, defendants in court have powerful rights! Copyright law is mostly civil law. If you violate copyright you would not be charged with a crime, but usually get sued. 8) Oh, so copyright violation isnt a crime or anything? Actually, recently in the USA commercial copyright violation involving more than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony. So watch out. On the other hand, this is a fairly new, untested statute. In one case an operator of a pirate BBS that didnt charge was acquitted because he didnt charge, but congress amended the law to cover that. 9) It doesnt hurt anybody - in fact its free advertising. Its up to the owners to decide if they want the free ads or not. If they want them, they will be sure to contact you. Dont rationalize whether it hurts the owners or not, ask them. Usually thats not too hard to do. Even if you cant think of how the author or owner gets hurt, think about the fact that piracy on the net hurts everybody who wants a chance to use this wonderful new technology to do more than read other peoples flamewars. 10) They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it. To have a copy is not to have the copyright. All the E-mail you write is copyrighted. However, E-mail is not unless previously agreed. So you can certainly report on what E-mail you are sent, and reveal what it says. You can even quote parts of it to demonstrate. Frankly, somebody who sues over an ordinary message would almost surely get no damages, because the message has no commercial value, but if you want to stay strictly in the law, you should ask first. On the other hand, dont go nuts if somebody posts E-mail you sent them. If it was an ordinary non-secret personal letter of minimal commercial value with no copyright notice (like 99.9% of all E-mail), you probably wont get any damages if you sue them. Unit4 The study of literature is not only civilized and civilizing encompassing, as it does, philosophy, religion, the history of events and the history of ideas but popular and practical. One-sixth of all those who receive bachelors degrees from the College of Arts and Sciences are English majors. These graduates qualify for a surprising range of jobs. Their experience puts the lie to the popular superstition that English majors must choose between journalism and teaching: in fact, English majors also receive excellent preparation for future careers in law, medicine, business, and government service. Undergraduates looking forward to law school or medical school are often advised to follow a strict regimen of courses considered directly relevant to their career choices. Future law-school students are advised to take courses in political science, history, accounting, business administration even human anatomy, and marriage and family life. Future medical school students are steered into multiple science courses actually far more science courses than they need for entrance into medical school. Surprisingly, many law schools and medical schools indicate that such specialized preparation is not only unnecessary, but undesirable. There are no pre-law courses: the best preparation for law school and for the practice of law is that preparation which makes a student capable of critical thinking; of clear, logical self-expression; of sensitive analysis of the motives, the actions, and the thoughts of other human beings. These are skills which the study of English is designed to teach. Entrance into law school, moreover, generally requires a bachelors degree from an accredited institution, a minimum grade point average, and an acceptable score on the Law School Admission Test (L.S.A.T.). This test has three parts. The first evaluates skills in reading comprehension, in figure classification, and in the evaluation of written material. The second part of the test evaluates control of English grammar and usage, ability to organize written materials, and competence to edit. The third part evaluates the students general knowledge of literature, art, music, and the natural and social sciences. Clearly an undergraduate major in English is strong preparation for the L.S.A.T. As for medical schools, the main requirement for admission is only thirty-two hours of science courses. This requirement is certainly no impediment to a major in English. Moreover many medical schools require a minimum score on the Medical College Admissions Test, another test which offers an advantage to the well-rounded liberal arts student. The M.C.A.T. evaluates four areas of competence: skill with synonyms, antonyms, and word association; knowledge of basic mathematics from fractio