大学体验英语4课文原文

【www.yin56.com--标准答案】

　　当今社会是一个经济全球化化的时代。所以要想得到发展就必须重视英语，英语是当今世界上最通用的语言之一，学好英语十分重要，下面小编收集了大学体验英语4课文原文及译文，供大家参考。

　　Unit1. The Unsung Heroes: What About Working Dads?

　　On our first Toy Story. We enjoyed it, but afterward my husband asked, 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 wasn't even mentioned - despite the fact that there was a baby in the family, so dad couldn't 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.

　　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 other jobs typically done by men) or when they die. When Mr. Blankenhorn surveyed fathers about the meaning of the term heard at funerals.

　　One exception to the 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 men's 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 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 man's life is all about.

　　Even more insulting is the recent media trend of regarding at-home wives as 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 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 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 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 children's 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.

　　译文：

　　单元1 无名英雄：工作爸爸怎么样？

　　在我们的第一个玩具总动员。我们很享受，但后来我的丈夫问：“是爸爸吗？”起初，由于一个小点，批评一部有趣的家庭电影似乎很少。然而，我想到的越多，看起来就越明显。不仅父亲不在身边，他甚至没有提到 - 尽管家里有一个婴儿，所以爸爸不可能早已离去。就好像父亲的存在或缺席是一个小细节，甚至不需要解释。

　　这只是媒体趋向将父亲边缘化的一个例子，这反映了美国巨大的社会变化。大卫·布兰肯霍恩（David Blankenhorn）在他的“无父美国”（Fatherless America）一书中将这一趋势称为“

　　我们受到有关工作母亲挣扎的故事的轰动（我认为，相对于不工作的母亲而言）。与此同时，媒体关于父亲的故事的比例很高，主要集中在虐待丈夫或不守规矩的父亲身上。似乎父亲唯一值得注意的是，当他们被批评为没有足够的家务帮助时（无论如何，由于其他工作通常由男人完成的定义），或者当他们死亡时，我都觉得这个说法是可疑的。布兰肯霍恩（Blankenhorn）先生就父亲对葬礼上所听到的这个词的含义进行了调查。

　　爸爸的一个例外已经收到。我并不是想暗示家里的爸爸不应该为此作出支持。我只是想指出工作中的双重标准，当家里的父亲得到鼓掌时，家庭中的母亲和养家的父亲得到的文化承认甚少（如果有的话）。

　　我们用来讨论男人角色的语言（即无礼的父亲）表明，对于大多数默默无声地自豪地履行家庭责任的男人来说，他们缺乏赞赏。我们几乎从来没有听说过和男人一样的男人。我们的社会就好像家庭责任对父亲来说不像母亲那样重要 - 就好像职业满意度是一个人的生命一样。

　　更令人侮辱的是，最近媒体对于在家中的妻子的看法就像是一辆昂贵的汽车 - 被所谓能够负担得起这种奢侈的少数男人所标榜。这意味着，有妻子的家庭比拥有妻子的家庭更容易，因为家庭的唯一打工仔受到很多压力。当这项工作是家庭唯一的收入来源时，丧失工作甚至是发生这种工作的威胁显然要困难得多。同样的道理，单靠“打工仔□，如果因为失去收入而导致工作上的不尽人意，就会缺乏弹性。另外，许多丈夫加班加点地打二次工，为他们的家庭多花点钱。对于这些人来说，工作支持的这个家庭是值得的。相信有一个在家的母亲对孩子来说很重要，这使得很多男人乐意承担单一的“打工收入”的重任。

　　今天，研究人员之间有广泛的一致意见，从父亲的缺席家庭给儿童造成严重的问题，从而给整个社会造成严重的问题。然而，社会却往往不举起明天父亲作为积极榜样，而是决定传统的父亲充其量是过时的，最坏的是反动的。这使许多人质疑他们作为父亲的价值。

　　作为一个社会，我们需要认识到父亲对于孩子和母亲一样重要，不仅是为了财政上的支持，也是为了情感上的支持，教育和纪律。我们仅仅承认孤独是一个问题是不够的 - 站在坟墓旁边，如果可能的话，悼念失去了父亲的死亡的人也是如此。我们必须承认我们如何贬低父权，并努力向男人表明男人有多么重要，他们在子女的生活中有多重要。

　　那些努力成为好家庭的父亲每天都在那里热爱和支持他们的家庭 - 那些无名英雄 - 需要我们的承认和我们对他们所做的一切感谢。因为他们应得的。

　　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.As for the rest of us, getting taken in by these people is a low probability. We know who these folks are in the are not. As for the Digital Culture getting cheated by these dishonest folks, well, there are just as many online to decipher deception as there are in the worldThe 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 hard(it's all about 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 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 environment online than in the worldand can learn to express themselves more freely on the Net (you've 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 lifeare often just as willing to come to someone's 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) We're 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.

　　译文：

　　单元2 为什么数字文化对你有好处？

　　新闻媒体以及社会和行为科学家最近发出了许多关于网络空间等待我们的危险的警告。事实的真相是，网络并不比世界上其他任何东西都更危险。这不是一些能够对所有进入者造成有害结果的无定形实体。事实上，Web本身是相当无害的。它没有特殊的力量来超越用户，改变他们的存在。就像吸血鬼不会伤害你的老故事，除非你邀请它跨越你的门槛，互联网就不会被邀请腐败。而且，除了孩子和意志薄弱之外，它不能创造现在还不存在的东西...

　　（1）像酒精一样，网络只是放大已经存在的东西：专家们担心，网络上的遮蔽对每个参与数字文化的人都是一种危险。在我们知道之前，专家告诉我们，我们都会使用虚假的身份，变得分散，不再确定我们是谁。错误。唯一觉得不得不掩盖自己，或者在网上歪曲自己的人，就是那些神秘莫测，

　　至于我们其他人，被这些人接受的概率很低。我们知道这些人是谁在“不”。至于数字文化被这些不诚实的人欺骗了，那么在网上就可以破解“世界”中的欺骗行为了。主管的Web头可以识别出其他人的在线行为给出的许多红旗。通常情况下，用户的意图是清晰的，特别是随着时间的推移。

　　当有人试图在网上欺骗我们，不一致的地方，他们正在努力的本质（这是关于他人的本质，以及那些不得不破坏他人，认为他们必须吹掉其他人的蜡烛为了自己的发光可以被发现一个cybermile了。

　　（2）网络能够带出最好的人：在这些相同的特质中，坦率的，坦率的人们过着他们的网络生活。如果不是更多的话，大多数人都喜欢上网，因为他们在派对上，在工作上或在当地的酒吧里。虽然可以肯定的是，有些人没有一个僵硬的饮料没有那么多的乐趣。

　　害羞的人有一个在线环境，而不是在“世界”，可以学习在网络上更自由地表达自己（你从来没有见过任何人在电子邮件口吃，是吗？），让他们获得信心和沟通技巧，最终会蔓延到他们生活的其他方面。“生活”中的有帮助的人常常愿意在别处寻求在线帮助。

　　（3）人们对网络的判断是不一样的：在互联网上，人们是根据自己的性格，信仰和在线行为来判断的，而不是通过自己的外表来判断。这很好。它不仅给丑陋的人们提供了一种援助，而且使美丽的人们不得不说出一些值得倾听的东西来引起注意。

　　（4）人们开放更多：现在很多人开放了很多，因为他们不需要在互联网上使用自己的真实姓名和真实身份。

　　（5）我们息息相关：数字文化的成员充分认识到，网络空间中存在着丰富的重要信息和改变生活的机会。网络有对于我们许多人来说，这是不可能的。研究可能性和网络只是两个这样的机会。

　　（6）学习语言的力量，成为更好的听众：数字文化的成员没有面部表情，身体语言或外表来分散我们的注意力，他们已经学会了语言的力量......既是他们自己的，也是其他'。我们很清楚，一串简单的单词可能会伤害，伤害和冒犯，或者他们如何提供幽默，帮助，支持和鼓励。大多数有经验的在线文化的成员已经学会了成为词汇，精心制作他们用来表达他们的意思，以免被误解的词语。

　　由于互联网，我们中的许多人也学会了成为更好的听众。我们不仅要更仔细地选择我们的话，而且我们（尤其是那些通过电子邮件而不是聊天室进行交流的人）被迫等到对方完成之后才能发言或回应。

　　Unit3. Big Myths About Copyright

　　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 people's 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) awarded in court, but that's the main difference under the law. It's 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 doesn't 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) it's posted to Usenet it's 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,

　　4) allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's important so that copyright law doesn't 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 couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your readers to have to pay for the New York Times web site? They aren't  5) you don't defend your copyright you lose it.- has that name copyrighted!False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly given away. You also can't trademarks, which apply to names, and can be weakened or lost if not defended. Like an computer. Apple Computer 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 doesn't mean complete control.

　　6)False. U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called 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 else's work, you need that author's permission.

　　7)If you violate copyright you would not be charged with a crime, but usually get sued.

　　8) so copyright violation isn't 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 didn't charge was acquitted because he didn't charge, but congress amended the law to cover that.

　　9) want the free ads or not. If they want them, they will be sure to contact you. Don't rationalize whether it hurts the owners or not, ask them. Usually that's not too hard to do. Even if you can't 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 people's flamewars.

　　10) 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, don't 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 won't get any damages if you sue them.

　　译文：

　　UNIT3 关于版权的大神话

　　几乎所有的大国都遵循伯尔尼的版权惯例。例如，在美国，1989年4月1日以后私下原创的几乎所有东西都有版权保护，无论是否有通知。你应该为其他人的作品默认的是他们受版权保护，除非你知道，否则不得复制。有些老作品在没有通知的情况下就失去了保护，但坦率地说，除非你知道，否则不应该冒险。2）在法庭上授予，但这是法律的主要区别。如果你把它拿走，那还是违法的 - 如果你损害了财产的商业价值，那么还是会有严重的损失。个人复制音乐是个例外，虽然法院似乎并没有违法，包括广泛的匿名个人复制作为Napster。如果这项工作没有商业价值，违规行为主要是技术性的，不可能导致诉讼。3）它被发布到Usenet它在公共领域 False。除非所有者明确地将其置于公有领域，否则现代公共领域不再有任何现代性。显然，正如你从作者/所有者那里注意到的那样，“

　　4）在未经作者许可的情况下允许评论，模仿，新闻报道，研究和教育等有关版权作品的内容。这一点很重要，所以版权法不会阻碍你表达自己作品的自由。对工作的商业价值的意图和损害是重要的考虑因素。你是否复制了“纽约时报”的一篇文章，是因为你没有时间写出自己的故事，或者不希望读者为“纽约时报”网站付费？他们不是 5）你不捍卫你的版权你失去它。 - 有这个名称的版权！假。除非明确地提供，否则版权实际上从来没有丢失。您也不能使用适用于名称的商标，如果不予以保护，商标可能会被削弱或丢失。就像一台电脑。苹果电脑“这个词应用于电脑，尽管它也是一个普通的词。Apple Records在应用于音乐时拥有它。既不拥有这个词，只是在背景下，拥有一个商标并不意味着完全的控制。

　　6）假。美国版权法非常明确地规定，作品基于或衍生于另一版权作品的作品，是作品所有者的专有权。即使制作这些新作品是一个非常有创意的过程，情况也是如此。如果您使用别人作品中的设置或角色撰写故事，则需要获得作者的许可。

　　7）如果您侵犯版权，您不会被指控犯罪，但通常会被起诉。

　　8）所以版权侵犯不是犯罪或什么？其实，最近在美国的商业版权

　　涉嫌超过10份，价值超过2500美元的违法行为被判重罪。所以小心。另一方面，这是一个相当新的，未经检验的法规。在一起案件中，没有指控的盗版BBS的经营者因为没有指控而被无罪释放，但是国会修改了法律来弥补这一点。

　　9）要免费广告与否。如果他们想要他们，他们一定会联系你的。不要理性化是否伤害业主，问问他们。通常这不是很难做到。即使你不能想到作者或所有者如何受到伤害，想一想网络上的盗版会伤害每个想要使用这个奇妙的新技术的人去做的事，而不是去阅读别人的火焰之战。

　　10）你写的电子邮件是受版权保护的。但是，除非事先同意，否则电子邮件不是。所以你可以肯定地报告你发送的电子邮件，并揭示它说的是什么。你甚至可以引用其中的一部分来演示。坦率地说，一个发起普通信息的人几乎肯定不会受到任何损失，因为这个信息没有商业价值，但是如果你想严格遵守法律，你应该先问。另一方面，如果有人张贴您发送的电子邮件，请不要发疯。如果是普通的非商业秘密个人信件，没有版权声明（如99.9％的电子邮件），如果你起诉他们，你可能不会受到任何损害。

本文来源：http://www.yin56.com/zhuanti/551846/