大学体验英语综合教程4_课文原文

1、v1.0可编辑可修改Un itl. The Un su ng Heroes: What About Worki ng DadsOn our first date after our twin daughters were born, my husba nd and I went tosee the movie Toy Story. We enjoyed it, but afterward my husba nd asked, Where wasthe dad At first, it seemed petty to criticize an entertainingfamily movie b

2、ecauseof one small point. The more I thought about it, however, the more glaring an omission it seemed. Not only was dad not around, he was nt eve n men ti oned - despite the fact that there was a baby in the family, so dad could nt have bee n that long gon e. It was as if the presenee- or absenee -

3、 of a father is a minor detail, not even requiring an expla nati on.This is on ly one example of the media trend toward margi nalizi ng fathers, whichmirrors enormous social changes in the United States. David Blankenhorn, in his book Fatherless America, refers to this trend as the unn ecessary fath

4、er con cept.We are bombarded by stories about the struggles of work ing mothers (as opposed tonon-work ing mothers, I suppose). Mean while, a high proport ionof media stories aboutfathers focus on abusive husba nds or deadbeat dads. It seems that the only time fathers merit atte nti on is whe n they

5、 are criticized for not help ing eno ugh with the housework (a claim that I find dubious any way, because the defi niti on of housework rarely in cludes clea ning the gutters, cha nging the oil in the car or other jobs typically done by men) or when they die. WhenMr. Blankenhorn surveyed fathers abo

6、ut the meaning of the term good family man, many responded that it was a phrase they only heard at fun erals.One excepti on to the unn ecessary father syn drome is the glowi ng media atte nti on that at-home dads have received. I do not mean to imply that at-home dads do not deserve support for maki

7、ng this commitme nt. I only mean to point out the double standard at work when at-home dads are applauded while at-home mothers and breadw inner fathers are give n little, if any, cultural recog niti on.11.v1.0可编辑可修改The very Ian guage we use to discuss mens roles ., deadbeat dads) shows a lack of ap

8、preciation 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 con sidered to be for men as much as for women. Our society acts as if family obligations are n

9、ot as important to fathers as they are to mothers - as if career satisfactionis what a mans life is all about.Even more insultingis the recent media trend of regarding at-home wives as statussymbols - like an expensive car - flauntedby the supposedly few men who can affordsuch a luxury. The implicat

10、ion 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. I n 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 t

11、hat happe ning - is obviously much more difficult whe n that job is the sole source of in come for a family. By the same toke n, sole wage earners have less flexibilitywhe nit comes to leavi ng un satisfy ing careers because of the loss of in come such a jobchange entails. In addition, many husbands

12、 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 havi ng a mother at home is importa nt to the childre n, which makes so many men gladly take on the burde n of being a

13、 sole wage earner.Today, there is widespread agreement among researchers that the absenee 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

14、society has thrown up its hands and decided that traditi onal fatherhood is at best obsolete and at worst dan gerously react ion ary.This has left many men questi oning the value of their role as fathers.As a society, we n eed to realize that fathers are just as importa nt to childre n as#.v1.0可编辑可修

15、改mothers are - not only for financial support, but for emotional support, education and discipli ne as well. It is not eno ugh for us merely to recog nize that fatherless ness is a problem - to sta nd beside the grave and mourn the loss of thegood family man and the n try to find some one to replace

16、 him (ask anyone who haslost a father though death if that is possible). We must ack no wledge how we havedevalued fatherhood and work to show men how n ecessary, how importa nt they are intheir childre ns lives.Those fathers who strive to be good family men by being there every day to love and supp

17、ort their families - those unsung heroes -need our recognition and our thanksfor all they do. Because they deserve it.33.v1.0可编辑可修改Unit2. Why Digital Culture Is Good for YouThe n ews media, along with social and behavioral scie ntists, have rece ntly sentout a multitude of warnings about the many da

18、n gers that await us out there incyberspace. The truth of the matter is that the Web is no more in here ntlydan gerousthan anything else in the world. It is not some amorphous entitycapable of inflictingharmful outcomes on all who enter. In fact, in and of itself, the Web is fairly harmless. It has

19、no special power to overtake its users and alter their very existenee. Like the old tale that the vampire cannot harm you uni ess you in vite it to cross your threshold, the Internet cannot corrupt without being in vited. And, with the excepti on of childre n and the weak-willed, it cannot create wh

20、at does not already exist.(1) Like alcohol, the Web simply magni fies what is already there: Experts areconcerned that the mask ing that goes on on li ne poses a dan ger for every one who isa part of the Digital Culture. Before we know it, the experts tell us, we will alluse fake ide ntities, become

21、 fragme nted, and will no Ion ger be sure of just who weare. Wrong. The only people who feel compelled to mask, and otherwise misrepresent themselves on li ne 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 res

22、t of us, gett ing take n in by these people is a low probability. Weknow who these folks are in the real world. The Internet does not cause people to disguise as someth ing they are not. As for the Digital Culture getti ng cheated by these dish on est folks, well, there are just as many cues on li n

23、e to decipher decepti on as there are in the real world. The compete nt WebHeadca n recog nize many red flags give n off by the on li ne behavior of others. Often times theinten ti ons offellow users is crystal clear, especially over time.When some one is tryi ngto deceive us on li ne,incon siste nc

24、ies,the esse nee that they #.v1.0可编辑可修改are trying too hard or are just plain unbelievable, often come through loud andclear. 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

25、 but negativityor unpleasant things to say about others,and those who feel compelled to un derm ine others and who think they must blow out the other guys can dles in order for their own to shine can be spotted a cybermile away.(2) The Webcan bring out the best in people: Gregarious, frank folks in

26、real life usually carry these same traits over to their online life. Most are just as fun-loving on li ne if not more so, as they are at a party, at work, or at the local bar. Thoughadmittedly, some are not quite as much fun to be around without a stiff drink.Shy folks have a safer environment onlin

27、e than in the real world and can learnto express themselves more freely on the Net (youve n ever see n anyone stutter one-mail, have you) allowi ng them to gain con fide nce and com muni cati on skills thatcan eventually spill over into other aspects of their lives. Helpful people in real life are o

28、fte n just aswilli ng to come to some on es assista nceon li ne as any whereelse.(3) People are judged differe ntly on the Web: On the Internet people are judged by their pers on ality, beliefs and on li ne acti ons, NOT by their physical appeara nce.This is good. It not only gives ugly folks an aid

29、, but causes Beautiful People tohave 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 Intern et.(5) Were conn ected:

30、Members of the Digital Culture know full well that there isa wealth of importa nt in formati on and life-cha nging opport un ities out there incyberspace. The Webhas opened doors for many of us that otherwise would never have55.v1.0可编辑可修改bee n an opti on.Research possibilities and n etwork ingare ju

31、st two suchopport un ities.(6) WeLearn the Power of Words and to be Better Listeners: With no facial expressions, body Ianguage, or physical appearanee to distract us, members of the Digital Culture have lear ned the power of words . both their own, and others. We know very well how a simple string

32、of words can harm, hurt and offend, or how they can offer humor, help, support and encouragement. Most experieneed members of the online culture have learned to become wordsmiths, carefullycraftingthe words they use to convey exactlywhat they mean so as not to be misun derstood.Many of us have also

33、learned to become far better listenersthanks to the Internet.Not only do we choose our words more carefully but we (especially those who com muni cate via email as opposed to chat rooms) are forced to wait un til the other pers on fini shes before we can speak or resp ond.#.v1.0可编辑可修改Unit3. Big Myth

34、s About CopyrightIf it does nt have a copyrightno tice, its not copyrighted. This was true in thepast, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyrightconvention.Forexample, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected w

35、hether 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 uni essyou know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protect ionwithout no tice, but fran kly you should not risk it uni ess you know for sure.2) If I dont

36、 charge for it, its not a violation. False. Whether you charge canaffect the damages awarded in court, but thats the main differe nee un der 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 except

37、ion for personal copy ing of music, which is not a violati on, though courts seem to have said that does nt in clude wide-scale anonym ous pers onal copy ing as Napster. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal actio n.3) If its posted

38、 to Usenet its in the public doma in. False. Noth ing moder n isin the public doma in anymore uni ess the owner explicitly puts it in the public doma in. Explicitly, as you have a note from the author/owner saying, I grant this to the public doma in.4) My posting was just fair use! The fair use exem

39、ption to .) copyright law was77.v1.0可编辑可修改created to allow things such as comme ntary, parody, n ews report ing, research and educati on about copyrighted works without the permissi on of the author. Thats importa nt so that copyright law does nt block your freedom to express your own works. Intent

40、and damage to the commercial value of the work are importantconsiderations.Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you could nt find time to write your own story, or did nt want your readers to have to pay for theNewYork Times web site They arent fair use. Fair use is usually

41、a short excerpt.5) If you dont defe nd your copyright you lose it. - Somebody has that n amecopyrighted! False. Copyright is effectivelyn ever lost these days,uni essexplicitlygiven away. You also cant copyrighta name or anything short like that,such as almost all titles. You may be thinking of trad

42、emarks, 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 whe n applied to music. Neither owns the word on its own, only incon text, and owning

43、a mark does nt mea n complete con trol.6) If I make up my own stories, but base them on ano ther work, my new work bel ongsto me. False. . Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called derivative works - works based on or derived from ano ther copyrighted work - is the exclusive

44、 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 sett ings or characters from somebody elses work, you n eed that authors permissi on.7) They cant get me, defendants in court have powerful rig

45、hts! 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 copyrightviolationisnt a crime or anything Actually,recentlyin theUSA commercial copyright#.v1.0可编辑可修改violati on in volvi ng more tha n 10 copies and value over $250

46、0 was made a felony. Sowatch out. On the other hand, this is a fairly n ew, un tested statute. In one casean operator of a pirate BBSthat did nt charge was acquitted because he did nt charge, but con gress ame nded the law to cover that.9) It does nt hurt an ybody - in fact its free advertis in g.It

47、s up to the ownersto decide if they want the free ads or no t. If they want them, they will be sureto con tact you. Dont rati on alize 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

48、 piracy on the net hurts everybody who wantsa cha nee to use this won derful new tech no logy to do more tha n read other peoples flamewars.10) They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it. To have a copy is not to have thecopyright. All the E-mail you write is copyrighted. However, E-mail is not uni e

49、sspreviously 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 dem on strate. Fran kly, somebody who sues over an ordinary message would almost surely get no damages, because the message has no commercial value, but if you wan

50、t to stay strictly in the law, you shouldask first. On the other hand, dont go nuts if somebody posts E-mail you sent them. If it was an ordi nary non-secret pers on al letter of mi ni mal commercial value with no copyright notice (like % of all E-mail), you probably wont get any damages ifyou sue t

51、hem.99.v1.0可编辑可修改Unit4The study of literature is not only civilized and civilizi ng en compass ing, asit does, philosophy, religi on, the history of eve nts and the history of ideasbut popular and practical. One- sixth of all those who receive bachelor s degreesfrom the College of Arts and Sciences

52、are En glish majors. These graduates qualifyfor a surprising range of jobs. Their experience puts the lie to the popularsuperstiti on that En glish majors must choose betwee n journ alism and teach ing: infact, English majors also receive excellentpreparation for future careers in law,medic ine, bus

53、 in ess, and gover nment service.Un dergraduates look ing forward to law school or medical school are ofte n advisedto follow a strict regime n of courses con sidered directly releva nt to their career choices. Future law-school students are advised to take courses in political science, history, acc

54、o un ti ng, bus in ess adm ini strati on even huma n an atomy, and marriageand family life. Future medical school students are steered into multiple science#.v1.0可编辑可修改courses actually far more scienee courses than they need for entrance into medical school. Surpris in gly, many law schools and medi

55、cal schools in dicate that such specialized preparati on is not only unn ecessary, but un desirable. There are nopre-law courses: the best preparati on for law school and for the practice oflaw is that preparation which makes a student capable of critical thinking; of clear, logical self-expression;

56、 of sensitiveanalysis of the motives, the actions,and the thoughts of other human beings. These are skills which the study of English is desig ned to teach.Entrance into law school, moreover, gen erally requires a bachelor s degree froman accredited in stituti on, a minimum grade point average, and

57、an acceptable score on the Law School Admissi on Test 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 controlof English grammarand usage, abilityto orga nize wri

58、tte nmaterials, and compete nee to edit. The thirdpart evaluates the student s general knowledge of literature, art, music, and the n atural and social scie nces. Clearly an un dergraduate major in En glish is stro ng preparatio n for theAs for medical schools, the main requirement for admission is only thirty-two hours of scienee courses. This requirement is certainlyno impediment to a majo