【Native Speaker每日综合训练—32系列】【32-01】文史哲

枣糕兔

Stay tuned for our latest post, follow us here! →  http://weibo.com/u/3476904471


全新系列已经开始了！过完春节的你继续坚持了吗？ （上来就自己打脸真的好吗……）

不管先前如何，全新的32系列我们一起走满！

这次选了话题平易近人的speaker，你有没有过stage fright呢？

Part I:  Speaker

How I beat stage fright

[Rephrase 1]


[Dialog: 08'03]




Source: TED
http://www.ted.com/talks/joe_kowan_how_i_beat_stage_fright.html

枣糕兔

Part II:  Speed

Bill Nye extols science while Ken Ham watches.

Photo by Answers In Genesis, from the YouTube video

The Creation of Debate

Phil Plait

[Time 2]
Last night, science advocate Bill Nye “debated” with creationist Ken Ham, the man who runs the Creation Museum in Kentucky. I was torn about the event; I think it’s important that science get its advocacy, but I also worry that by even showing up to such a thing, Nye would elevate the idea of creationism as something worth debating.

But I’ve thought about it, and here’s the important thing to remember: Roughly half the population of America does believe in some form of creationism or another. Half. Given that creationism is provably wrong, and science has enjoyed huge overwhelming success over the years, something is clearly broken in our country.

I suspect that what’s wrong is our messaging. For too long, scientists have thought that facts speak for themselves. They don’t. They need advocates. If we ignore the attacks on science, or simply counter them by reciting facts, we’ll lose. That much is clear from the statistics. Facts and stories of science are great for rallying those already on our side, but they do little to sway believers.

About last night’s debate, my colleague Mark Stern at Slate argues that Nye lost the debate just by showing up, and I see that same sentiment from people on social media. But I disagree. We’ve been losing this debate in the public’s mind all along by not showing up. Sure, science advocates are there when this topic comes up in court, and I’m glad for it. But I think that we need to have more of a voice, and that voice needs to change. What Nye did last night was at least a step in that direction, so in that sense I’m glad he did this.
[308 words]

[Time 3]
But we need more, and it’s not so much what we need as who. Let me explain.

Let me be clear: Ham is wrong in pretty much everything he says; the debate last night gave ample evidence of that. I could list a hundred statements he made that are simply incorrect or grave distortions of reality. I won’t bother; you can find that information easily, including in my own blog posts about creationism.

But Ham is insidiously wrong on one important aspect: He insists evolution is anti-religious. But it’s not; it’s just anti-his-religion. This is, I think, the most critical aspect of this entire problem: The people who are attacking evolution are doing so because they think evolution is attacking their beliefs.

But unless they are the narrowest of fundamentalists, this simply is not true. There is no greater proof of this than Pope John Paul II—who, one must admit, was a deeply religious man—saying that evolution was an established fact. Clearly, not all religion has a problem with evolution. Given that a quarter of U.S. citizens are Catholics, this shows Ham’s claim that evolution is anti-religious to be wrong.
[204 words]

[Time 4]
So evolution is not anti-religion in general. But is it atheistic? No. Evolution takes no stand on the existence or lack thereof of a god or gods. Whether you think life originated out of ever-more complex chemical reactions occurring on an ancient Earth, or was breathed into existence by God, evolution would take over after that moment. It’s a bit like the Big Bang; we don’t know how the Universe came into existence at that moment, but starting a tiny fraction of a second after that event our science does a pretty fair job of explanation.

I can’t stress this enough. The conflict over the teaching of evolution is based on the false assumption that evolution is antagonistic to religion. This is why, I think, evolution is so vehemently opposed by so many in the United States. The attacks on the specifics of evolution—the claims about irreducibility of the eye, for example, or other such incorrect statements—are a symptom, not a cause. I can talk about how we know the Universe is old until the Universe is substantially older and not convince someone whose heels are dug in. But if we can show them that the idea of evolution is not contrary to their faith, then we will make far, far more progress.
[223 words]

[Time 5]
That’s not to say I’ll stop talking about the science itself. That still needs to be discussed! But simply saying science is right and faith is wrong will never, ever fix the problem.

And this won’t be easy. As long as this discussion is framed as “science versus religion” there will never be a resolution. A religious person who doesn’t necessarily think the Bible is literal, but who is a very faithful Christian, will more likely be sympathetic to the Ken Hams than the Bill Nyes, as long as science is cast as an atheistic dogma. For example, on the Catholic Online website, the argument is made that both Ham and Nye are wrong, and casts science as an atheistic venture.

That must change for progress to be made.

And who should do this? The answer to me is clear: Religious people who understand the reality of science. They have a huge advantage over someone who is not a believer. Because atheism is so reviled in America, someone with faith will have a much more sympathetic soapbox from which to speak to those who are more rigid in their beliefs.

I know a lot of religious folks read my blog. I am not a believer, but I hope that my message of science, of investigation, of honesty, of the joy and wonder revealed though it, gets across to everyone. That’s why I don’t attack religion; there’s no need. I am fine with people believing in what they want. I only step up on my own soapbox when a specific religion overreaches, when that belief is imposed on others.
[284 words]

Source: Slate
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/02/05/creationism_debate_should_we_engage_anti_science.html

Now you can tailor the schmaltz that comes after this blue screen.

You Can Now Edit Your Cheesy Facebook "Look Back" Video

Lily Hay Newman

[Time 6]
In honor of its 10th birthday, Facebook released an automatic video generator called "Look Back" that pulls popular photos and statuses from a user's Facebook history and turns them into a sentimental puddle that's ripe for sharing. But even people who like the intense sentimentality have been complaining about the videos because they're bad. The algorithms behind the service have their digital hearts in the right place but definitely make mistakes. So Facebook added an edit button today.

Take, for example, my original Look Back video (below). The video rightly states that I joined Facebook in 2006 but can't dig back to my early stuff for some reason and instead shows photos from 2010 and 2011 as my "first moments." Also I think I've only made the peace sign for two photos ever, and both are in my Look Back video. The algorithms behind the video were also unable to find a bunch of my posts that are actually my most "liked."

The edit button can't solve all of these problems, but it can help. It doesn't actually give you full access to all of your photos or posts and instead provides a sampling to pick from. So for the first-moments issue, I can't really change anything because none of the photos it offers me are actually old. I guess it would involve too much data processing and load time to make our entire histories available in the video editor, though this seems incongruous since we can scroll back through all of our posts and videos anytime we want.

As TechCrunch reported, Facebook had been planning to release Look Back with an editing feature all along, but the tool wasn't complete by the anniversary, so Look Back launched without it. There may be fewer limitations at some point if the edit feature is further improved, and the choices that are currently there certainly offer better ability to tailor our online personas so we look maximally fun, popular, cool, etc.

The edit button signals that we haven't seen the last of automated Facebook videos incorporating our content. Since extensive development went into the product, Facebook may keep it around in modified forms for things like year-end retrospectives. Facebook already customizes "Year in Review" content roundups for each user, and the company may be trying to compete with Google Plus' Auto Awesome feature, which created short, custom slideshows for each active user at the end of 2013. Depending on your view, this is either companies' appeals to our love of saccharine reminiscence or a not-so-subtle reminder that they hold data we're emotionally attached to.
[432 words]

Source: Slate
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/02/07/edit_facebook_s_look_back_videos_so_they_have_the_stuff_you_want_in_them.html?wpisrc=burger_bar

枣糕兔

Part III:  Obstacle

The Beatles step onto the tarmac at JFK Airport on February 7, 1964, arriving for their first performance in the U.S.

Photo via Library of Congress

When the Beatles Arrived in America, Reporters Ignored the Music and Obsessed Over Hair

——They'd go on to change American music forever, but the press focused on the moptops

February 6, 2014  |  Joseph Stromberg   

This is part of a new series called Vintage Headlines, an examination of notable news from years past.

[Paraphrase 7]
February 9 marks the 50th anniversary of the Beatles' legendary first performance on the "Ed Sullivan Show." At the time, the band was already wildly successful in Britain—over the previous three years, they'd rapidly become the country's most popular group, and were met by hordes of screaming teenagers at every public appearance—but in the United States, they were known for only a few fast-selling singles released by Capitol Records, along with rumors of the Beatlemania that had struck the U.K.

An estimated 74 million people—a full 38 percent of the American population—tuned into CBS at 8 p.m. to see the band's American debut (they played "She Loves You" and "I Want to Hold Your Hand," among other songs). Today, music scholars look back at the performance as a watershed moment, a turning point in the history in American music that inextricably influenced a huge proportion of all the pop and rock that's come since.
At the time, though, reporters and critics had a much more important concern: the Beatles' unconventional appearances, starting with their shaggy, untrimmed hair.

Shortly before they arrived, the New Yorker introduced the band thusly (subscription required): "Their appearance, to judge by photographs of them in the English press, is distinctive, their getup including identical haircuts in dishmop—or as one London newspaper put it, Ancient British—style, and lapelless suits patterned after a Pierre Cardin design."

After they landed, Time observed that "They look like shaggy Peter Pans, with their mushroom-haircuts and high white shirt collars." Identifying them as "four shrewdly goofy-looking lads" and running a full-page spread with their moptops atwirl, Life magazine reassured American moms and dads that "British parents do not mind their offspring's mania because Beatles lyrics are clean and happy. As one critic observed, 'Their hair is long and shaggy, but well-scrubbed.'" In conveying the Beatlemania phenomenon that had already engulfed Britain, Life informed us that 20,000 Beatle wigs had been sold and quoted the headmaster of an English school that had banned the haircut: "'This ridiculous style brings out the worst in boys,' he said. 'It makes them look like morons.'"

An estimated 4000 fans waited for the Beatles' flight to arrive at JFK.

Image via Library of Congress

A few days after their "Ed Sullivan Show" performance, pop psychologist Joyce Brothers wrote a column "Why They Go Wild Over the Beatles," opining that the explanation couldn't possibly be the music alone. "The Beatles display a few mannerisms which almost seem a shade on the feminine side, such as tossing of their long manes of hair," she wrote. "These are exactly the mannerisms which very young female fans (in the 10-to-14 age group) appear to go wildest over."

The press spilled a lot of ink trying to explain the Beatles—commenting on how squadrons of police officers and the use of disguises were needed to protect the Beatles from mobs of teenage girls, and how impressed Queen Elizabeth had been with their Royal Command Performance concert—but paid curiously little attention to their music itself (Life dismissed it as "standard rock 'n' roll with a jackhammer beat"). This might have something to do with a sentiment that was quite common in 1964: that the era of rock 'n' roll was finished.

"By early 1964, in fact, America had mostly left rock & roll behind," Mikal Gilmore recently wrote in Rolling Stone. "Buddy Holly had died, Jerry Lee Lewis and Chuck Berry had been blacklisted, Elvis had joined the Army, and pioneering rock DJ Alan Freed had been booted off the air—all these events neutered rock's early spirit and hindered its future." Many thought that rock was essentially dead, and the last thing they expected was that a rock band from Britain—which had recently been the recipient of American music culture, rather than a contributor to it—would make a mark on U.S. music. The Beatles, many music critics assumed, were a passing fad.

Of course, we're now well-aware that American rock was anything but dead, and that the Beatles' "Ed Sullivan Show" performance was just the start of a remarkable run that would see them top the charts for a full third of the time between 1964 and their break-up, in 1970. Ultimately, they'd become the best-selling artists of all time in the U.S., usher in the British Invasion—a pop music phenomenon that saw the Rolling Stones, the Who and other U.K. bands achieve successes stateside—and fundamentally influence the music industry for all the artists that followed. Among many other precedents, they staged the first concerts in large sports stadiums and filmed the predecessors of first music videos, A Hard Day's Night and Help!

After playing three nights on the "Ed Sullivan Show" and public concerts in New York, Washington, DC, and Miami, the Beatles flew home to Britain on Feburary 22. The New Yorker's wrap up (again, subscription required), written in the voice of an imaginary teenage boy:

Conclusion: The Beatles' tour of New York was a success because they are nice guys and the girls think they look cute. Also, they are worth listening to, even if they aren't as good as the Everly Brothers, which they really aren't.

[864 words]

Source: Smithsonian
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-beatles-arrived-america-reporters-obsessed-over-their-hair-180949653/

疏离无罪

32系列  第一个沙发~~开个好头 THX兔兔
今天的材料好新鲜啊
LX的 好啊~~~
Spearker:the speaker writed a song about the stage fright,in which describe all the feeling of himself and the audience.Through this song,he makes himself less nervous and let audience not feel bad to him.Then go on the later performance with less stree.

01:55
Scientists always do less to support evolution because they think that facts speak for themselves.Actually it is wrong.Scientists should give out their own voice to normals.

00:58
More people in science field are needed to give out voice.And the people who are attacking evolution are doing so because they think evolution is attacking their beliefs.But clearly not all religion has a problem with evolution.

01:02
The evolution is opposed by many people because most of them think that evolution is atheistic.But the fact is not.

01:06
Simply say one side is wrong or right can never ever fix the problem.A debate process should be changed and religious people who understand the reality of science should be envolved in this debate.

02:10
Facebook released the uncomplete Look Back to celebrate its 10th anniversary.But many users complained about its mistakes.So they released an eit button.

05:07
Main Idea: Beatlets influenced the American Music greatly but at that time most people forcus on their appearance.
February 9 is the 50th anniversary of Beatlets' first performance in the USA.
Their performance had great impacts on American music.Since the rock and roll was behind in the USA,this rock band bring it back and influence large proportion of americans.
But at that time,most people and media focus on their appearance and hair and think that is the main reason why Beatlest is so attractive.

olivia瓜瓜

hi~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ LS.
谢谢兔兔  

Time 2: 1m44s

Last night , science advocate the nelye,and i think it’s the first step to the direction of science.

Time3: 1m22s

Ham is wrong, the most important aspect is the anti-religious revolution.

Time 4: 1m11s

evolution is not anti-religious, if the american people know that the evolution is not contrary to their faith, it may be a good progress.

Time 5: 1m20s

The must progress should be done by the believers who are believe the science.

Time 6: 2m25s

Face book report a look back video service, but it have many mistakes.

So facebook provide a button, which can be used by user to self definite.

sherlock1992

Thx, 兔子~
-----------------------------------------------------
2'03''
1'14''
1'26''
1'53''
3'01''

6'08''

AceJ

谢谢兔兔，32系列大家继续加油~~

Speaker
How I beat stage fright
By thinking about my audience, by embracing and exploiting my problem, I was able to take something that was blocking my progress, and turn it into something that was essential for my success.

Speed
The Creation of Debate
Time2: 1'56" The author agrees with Nye, because he advocated science, what he did was at least in that direction
Time3: 1'24" Ham is insidiously wrong on one important aspect: He insists evolution is anti-religious
Time4: 1'35" So evolution is not anti-religion in general. But is it atheistic? No. But if we can show them that the idea of evolution is not contrary to their faith, then we will make far, far more progress.
Time5: 1'43" This won't be easy, who should do this? Religious people who understand the reality of science

You Can Now Edit Your Cheesy Facebook "Look Back" Video
Time6: 2'50" Facebook released an automatic video generator called "Look Back", which added edit button now because it initially had many bugs

Obstacle
When the Beatles Arrived in America, Reporters Ignored the Music and Obsessed Over Hair
Time7: 6'45"
The first performance by Beatles may change American pop and rock music forever, but all media focused on their appearance, especially haircut
Why did this happen? This might have something to do with a sentiment that was quite common in 1964: that the era of rock 'n' roll was finished

Talitha

thank you

1:something about creation. Nye claimed that half of the population believe in creationism half does not.

2: believe in evolution does not mean anti-religion.

3:evolution does not contradict religion. It is only a list of fact not cause. evolution  does not take a stand on the existing of God.

4: author thinks that as long as there is science verse religion, there will be no resolution. So there is no point to argue.

5:facebook look back video has some problems. It does not really trace back to accurately. Author gives example that he joined Facebook on 2006 but his first moment was a photo taken 2010.

6:main idea:when Beatles arrived US, people paid more attention on their hairstyle.
-Beatles arrived US. many fans went airport to see them.
-author explains why they were so welcomed by teenager girls.
-Beatles music might not be the top music, but Beatles was very welcomed.

MAGGIEHE1993

还有首页哈哈~~~~~~~~~~~~谢谢兔兔楼主~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speaker: The speaker talked about his stage fright and how he beat it by writing a song of stage fright. And then he played
         the song of stage fright for the audience.

time1: 1min 48"
       The writer thinks that science ideas need advocates and debates.

time2: 1min 24"
       The writer thinks it is wrong in pretty much everything he said and Ham's claim that evolution is anti-religious was wrong.

time3: 1min 38"
       The writer believes that the theory of evolution is not contrary to religious beliefs.

time4: 1min 50"
       The writer thinks simply saying science is right and faith is wrong will never fix the problem. He thinks there is no need to
       attack religion.

time5: 3min 10"
       Facebook released an automatic video generator called "Look Back" but it receives much complaints stating that the technique
       was bad. Facebook added an edit button today.

Obstacle: 7min 35"
          The Beatles hit a big success in Britain in 1960s but was not as popular in America.
          The debut was a turning point in the history of American mucic. But the American media focused more on the Beatle's unconventional
          appearances.
          New Yoker introduction of the appearance of the Beatles.
          The Beatles' haircut was very popular among teenagers at that time in America.
          A pop psychologist wrote a column "Why they go wild over the Beatles".
          The press explained that the hit of the Beatles might have something to do with a sentiment that the era of rock 'n' roll was finished.
          In the 1960s many thought that rock was essentially dead and assumed that the Beatles were a passing fad.
          The contributes of the Beatles.

ieveline

谢谢楼主！

Speaker:
Playing stage fright sing helps the speaker overcome the fright

Speed
1--01:41
Half of the american believe in creatism.
Even scientist have the facts speak for themselves,but they did not do much to advocate.
The debate is the last step of the direction to public's mind.
2--01:11
The creatism advocator Ham was wrong in lots of his statement.
Evolution is not anti-religious, but anti-ham's-religion.
Not all religion has a problem with evolution.
3--01:18
Admit evolution doest not have conficts in existence of God.
Prove that the idea of evolution is not contrary to their faith is the base to make more progress.
4--01:25
The frame as science versus religion will never be the resolution.
Author does not say anyone's belief is wrong, but the facts of science are true.
People with belief who also admit the facts of science should help the others to accept the facts.
5--02:38
The new service "look back" in Facebook does not work well.
It could not find the right thing in the timeline and user does not have the authority to modify the error.
Even after Facebook added a button, the error is still there.
Facebook need to do more about this.
Obstacle--05:25
Beatles have profunding influence to US rockinng music.
Even the time Beatles visited US is an watershed to the band and US rocking music, the presses were focus on the appearances and hair cuts rather than their music.