为什么要学习外语
对大部分人来说，在中国学英语的用处并不是很大。绝大部分工作并不需要很强的英语能力。但如果非要学一门外语，英语显然是用处最大的一门。比如听英语歌曲，看英语电影，阅读英语书籍等等。但绝大部分学英语的中国人的水平无法达到能够流畅阅读英语原著的程度，所以学了英语还是要依赖翻译。从这个角度说，学英语（尤其是阅读能力）对提升自己很有用，但必须达到一定程度才可以，当然学习英语还有以下好处：1.学英语很有趣。学英语是可以充满乐趣的。对于许多学生来说，学英语没多大意思。但是，我认为这是你们学习方式的问题。花点时间听音乐、看电影、玩英语版游戏可以帮助你充满乐趣地学习英语。2.英语为事业的成功助力。这对于现代社会的每一个人来说都是显而易见的事。雇主希望雇员会说英语。这可能有点不公平，但却是事实。学习英语，并且通过雅思或托福考试可以使你比别人优先获得资格，也可能会使你得到心仪的工作。3.英语促进国际交流。我们很可能住在两个不同的地方，生长在不同的文化背景之下。但我们都知道，这个世界需要更多的爱和理解。还有什么比起用英语（或其他语言）和外国友人交流更能使这个世界更加美好的呢？4.学习英语可以开拓你的思维。我们每个人都会以自己的方式来看待这个世界。这是一件好事，但在某种程度上，我们需要开拓自己的眼界。学习英语可以帮助你借助另一种语言来了解这个世界，这也会使你以一种截然不同的视觉来看待这个世界。5.学习英语对你的家人也有帮助。英语交流可以帮助你获取及发现信息。新的信息也许可以挽救亲人的生命。嗯，它当然也可以能使你帮助到那些不会说英语的家人。想象你自己正在旅行，而你负责跟人用英语交流。你的家人会感到非常骄傲的。
这句英文什么意思？
此题是一个选择问句。
be culture smart or be science intelligent?是要文化所带来的聪慧，还是要科学带来的智能？culture用来强调smart的方式。be smart, be culture smart。同理 ，science是intelligent的方式，be intelligent, be science intelligent.
例文4篇，仅供参考---
1.
Good afternoon，ladies and gentlemen，distinguished guests and honorable judges:
I’m xxxfrom E810. It is my great honour to share my viewpoints on Culture Smart or Science Intelligent with you.
This question resemble Mother or Fanther, who do you like better. Most of us will chose mother, when we were young, we always song Mum Is The Best In The World told us.
Here I wnna make an analogy, Let’s likened Culture Smart to Mother, likened Science Intelligent to father.
Formerly, as is the nature’s call:we like mother for almost five thousand years, she gives us the most long-standing history of civilization in the world. It is no exaggeration to say that the culture of our country is the most brilliant in the world. as it turned out, we have a great distance between our father Science Intelligent.Therefore he give us only the four great inventions of ancient China, which included powder ,compass, papaermaking, and printing,moreover, we didn’t make full use of it,
On the contrary, our brother western countries are fond of father Science Intelligent obviously, Because father gives them many technology which helped them become developed country.
Meanwhile we are always proud of our culture,For example, our abundant cultural deposits which made our civilization like a shining star in the darkness. When people mentioned about the human civilization, we have to refer to our China, because Chinese culture is the most historical and brilliant culture in the world.
But, by the way our technology has get far behind the western countries.
Unfortunately,one day, They attacked us with our own invention powder .our father sent his sons western countries to give us a good beating, because if we fall behind,we will be punished by those who are one-up. we do nothing about it, because what we have is just culture,rather than defence of hign technology.
Evidently ,god is fair, God closed a door and will open another window for you.
Here I wanna share a story that my history teacher told me. Once upon a time, There was a couple, they had two children ,the elder brother liked reading, he could acquire much knowledge from books in his study ,the younger brother was a behaviourist, no matter what kinds of problems in front of him, he will take action to solve it, all he believed was that the practice is the sole criterion for testing truth. So he made a plan to travel around the world, Decades years past, they both became adults ,the elder brother had become a teacher at his hometown (at the local) ,He tought Confucian culture for many children. He imparted knowledge and culture to people, However, his younger brother came back home with many manual skills, for example he learned how to make gizmos, such as windmill which helped the local farmers in Irrigating crop fields, and the round wheels which made transportation more convenient and so on.
All right, Let's keep on track. Culture Smart or Science Intelligent like these two brothers, who is better? The answer is both are good, They are as close as two siblings, two brother can never be divided.
2.
Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen: thanks for raising your attention. It’s a pleasure for me to share my point of view of the topic with you all. Well ,the topic I’m going to deal with is “culture smart or science intelligent”.
When the topic first caught my eye , the great artist Leonardo Da Vinci occurred to me . As is known to all, Leonardo has a gift for the paining, so there are many famous painting works drawn by him which are really impressive ,such as the well-known portrait Mona Lisa, however , he is not only an artist ,but a great inventor and a scientist. Everything he saw , heard , or experienced was an opportunity to learn something new, in another word , everything fascinated him. Therefore , according to his notebook , we found many inventions that were full of imagination and some theories about optics , which did help Leonardo’s paintings to be more vivid. So , I believe that the culture and science can be compatible, rather than an alternative.
As far as I’m concerned , the intelligent one in science may be a clever one , while the smart one in culture might be wisdom. Someone once said , the elimination of culture leads to the disappearance of civilization, this proves that we need the guidance of culture smart . On one hand , the culture provides ideological power to science and technology , on the other hand , culture prevents the tendency of extremity of science and technology . Nevertheless, there’s no doubt that the science and technology take the supreme lead of the productivity. Without the advanced science and technology , no achievements or progress would be made .What the distinctive feature of science is its commitment to an open-ended exploration. Then , my conclusion is the science and culture are not antagonistic, instead , they’re the complement.
Life is a multiple-choice exam , so I believe the answer is not an only certain thing. I’d like to compare the science to the composition of a painting , while the culture to the color of the painting ; the science is just like the heart , and the culture is our mind. Culture motivate science , and science develop culture.
3.How often have we not been told that the study of physical science is incompetent to confer culture; that it touches none of the higher problems of life; and, what is worse, that the continual devotion to scientific studies tends to generate a narrow and bigoted belief in the applicability of scientific methods to the search after truth of all kinds ? How frequently one has reason to observe that no reply to a troublesome argument tells so well as calling its author a "mere scientific specialist." And, as I am afraid it is not permissible to speak of this form of opposition to scientific education in the past tense; may we not expect to be told that this, not only omission, but prohibition, of "mere literary instruction and education" is a patent example of scientific narrow-mindedness?
I think that we must all assent to the first proposition. For culture certainly means something quite different from learning or technical skill. It implies the possession of an ideal, and the habit of critically estimating the value of things by comparison with a theoretic standard. Perfect culture should supply a complete theory of life, based upon a clear knowledge alike of its possibilities and of its limitations.
What Science Offers the Humanities: Integrating Body and Culture
What Science Offers the Humanities examines some of the deep problems facing current approaches to the study of culture. It focuses especially on the excesses of postmodernism, but also acknowledges serious problems with postmodernism's harshest critics. In short, in order for the humanities to progress, its scholars need to take seriously contributions from the natural sciences-and particular research on human cognition-which demonstrate that any separation of the mind and the body is entirely untenable. The author provides suggestions for how humanists might begin to utilize these scientific discoveries without conceding that science has the last word on morality, religion, art, and literature. Calling into question such deeply entrenched dogmas as the "blank slate" theory of nature, strong social constructivism, and the ideal of disembodied reason, What Science Offers the Humanities replaces the human-sciences divide with a more integrated approach to the study of culture.
Technology and Culture have both influenced each other equally. Technology has been directed as an improvement in our lives, but on the other hand, Culture has been present in every invention, noticeable or not, and advancement in our evolving society. Technology is becoming focused upon more and more everyday, but culture is the determining factor that decides if there is a necessity for an improvement. There are endless views and perspectives that this situation can be viewed from, but without a doubt, Technology and Culture shape one another. Culture has been a part of our society, and way of life, forever. It is almost impossible to come up with an idea that isnt influenced by culture. Picture our lives without cars, television, and computers. This would be an example of everyday life without technology. People could function happily in that type of atmosphere, but technology has changed our lives forever. Technology has changed our pace and perspective on education. Students would have to go to libraries and spend a lot of time researching to find out information for class assignments, but with technology students can find almost anything on there home computers and by accessing the internet. Technology has definitely become the authoritative factor in our lives, but culture has shaped technology. Technology is made and used in such a variety of ways because many people who use the technology of today come from all walks of life and have different necessities, so to compensate for that technology must adapt to all different cultures.
4.
Culture Smart or Science Intelligent
Good evening，ladies and gentlemen，distinguished guests and honorable judges:
It is my great honour to share my viewpoints on Culture Smart and Science Intelligence with all of dear audience present.
As is known to us all that our contemporary lives and the society in current are undergoing profound changes with the promoting development of science and technology. However, have we realized the estrange and departure of our culture against the background on which the positive achievements have been brought by science and technology. Which course should we take in culture smart and science intelligence as the issue on social development is concerned in the process of ultrahigh-speeded urbanization? My viewpoint is clear an firm, that is the cultue smart.
It is generally accepted by the broad mass that science and technology take the supreme lead of the productivity. No achievements nurtured by civilization in our contemporary society can be created without the development of science and technology and the society will fall to its stagnant pace. Thanks to the progress made by the advancing science and technology, especially the development of intelligentization, schemed out by robots, unmanned driving and digital platform, offers great convienience to both the production and daily lives of human beings and promotes the social progress.
But under no circumstances should we admit that a series of problems on environment and social ethics concerning environment pollution, ozonocavity, greenhouse effect, colon human and nuclear deterrent occurred against the prosperity carried out by science and technology. So how can we spare no effort on keeping such problems from deterioration in all possibilities? What development pattern will be on science and technology in future?
The answer is that we need the guidance of culture smart. When we talk about culture, we may regard it as the tradition and history, but how can the intelligentization of science and technology be guided by the culture smart? Here I want to put it that culture is not like a pond filled with stagnant water, but a dynamic system. We can never draw a conclusion of culture as “the deposit of history”, what’s more, we should make it clear that the culture defines our present and future. Modernization, of any kind or shape, shares no alteration on its starting point but the commencement of culture. If not the modernization will inevitably fall to the situation where the water has no source and the tree has no root. The development of science and technology takes no exception on this.
The ultrahigh speed of the development of contemporary science and technology contributes no efforts on science and technology itself, but the ideological motivation and the promotion spurred by the ideological power offerd by culture smart. Karl Poopper once said, the elimination of culture leads to the disappearance of civilization. It is obviously that if the promotion effect had been omitted, the science and technology could have been far-reached.
The culture smart guides our society into stability and prosperity. We need culture smart because on the one hand, culture provides ideological power to science and technology, on the other hand, culture prevents the tendency of extremity of science and technology. The current problem concerning colon human, outerspace utilitization and nuclear weapon byproducted by contemporary science and technology call for the development in a just course on the sphere of culture. The wisdom-vacanted culture and the extremized science and technology will throw a great threat to the survival of us human beings and the world peace.
So, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the culture wisdom is our “root” and we need the root that supports our belief, the negation of the root casts its reflections on history and the existence of us human beings. So only in the manner of settling on the basis of culture smart can we make it helpful to the development of science and technology in a just course, the continual progress of human society, the prosperity and peace.
Thank you!
Both science itself, and the human culture of which it is a part, would benefit from a story of science that encourages wider engagement with and participation in the processes of scientific exploration. Such a story, based on a close analysis of scientific method, is presented here. It is the story of science as story telling and story revising. The story of science as story suggests that science can and should serve three distinctive functions for humanity: providing stories that may increase (but never guarantee) human well-being, serving as a supportive nexus for human exploration and story telling in general, and exemplifying a commitment to skepticism and a resulting open-ended and continuing exploration of what might yet be. Some practical considerations that would further the development and acceptance of such a story of science as a widely shared nexus of human activity are described.
Culture Smart or Science Intelligent?
Science and Culture
What is science? How does it relate to our lives as individual human beings? to other aspects of our social and cultural communities?
What is our future? ...our own role in and responsibility for the future? Can empirical inquiry help with such questions?
How does empirical understanding relate to other kinds of understanding? Are they necessarily antagonistic or can they usefully complement one another?
Division and specialization of function – science school and culture school
The intention is to retain traditional methods of teaching science, but to adjust the quantity of this kind of rigorous education to the abilities and attitudes of the student. This implies that it would be more educationally efficient for weaker students to spend just one or two hours per day learning science in a rigorous and ‘didactic’ classroom situation than to spend much longer in less-structured forms of classroom experience. At least, it is known from extensive experience (with elite students) that traditional methods are an effective and efficient way of teaching science.
A general understanding of efficiency in systems suggests some principles which would be likely to lead to greater science education efficiency. Perhaps the most frequent way in which human (and biological) systems are able to increase their efficiency is the principle of ‘division of labour’ which was first articulated by the economist Adam Smith. Division of labour increases the complexity of organization by specialization of function, and coordination of these specialized functions. Smith’s famous example involved a pin factory, in which the procedure for making a pin was broken down into numerous simpler, more-specialized sequential steps; and these steps were coordinated by managers leading to vastly increased efficiency (as measured by the numbers of pins produced per person per day) [8].
When the modern school is examined in this light, it can be seen that there is already considerable specialization. For example teachers are specialized according to age of children taught, subject matter expertise, and administrative responsibilities. Schools are also internally specialized by age stratification and academic aptitude of students (also, sometimes, by the sex or socio-economic class of students). However, logically there is a further possible division of function. My proposal is that the efficiency of science teaching might be increased by introducing a functional division between science education, and what might be termed cultural education - which would include arts, sports, ethics, social aspects of schooling and any other educational objectives such as good citizenship.
Schools might have an internal functional division into ‘science school’ and ‘culture school’. This functional division should be reflected in terms of physical plant, separate administrative structures, and the recruitment of differently-specialized teaching personnel. These divisions would be characterized by the nature of their system-characteristic internal evaluations. For instance, the evaluations within science school would be relatively narrow and more examination-focused than in the culture school. In science school the performance of both teaching staff and students would be judged mainly (although not exclusively) by scientific criteria, including formal examination results. Science school would be distinguished by its academic ethos and scholarly expectations. The focus of science school would be to inculcate the aptitude for abstract systematic cognition.
For example, an existing school might become physically divided between science and cultural parts, each on distinct parts of the campus. Each student would spend some significant part of each day (depending on their aptitude and motivation) in the ‘science school’, experiencing a traditional-style, didactic, disciplined and rigorous academic education which is (so far as we can tell) the best way to teach real science at the basic level. Science school teaching would need to be stratified according to ability and aptitude, since this is more efficient than teaching widely-mixed classes. Different strata of students could be taught from a broadly common curriculum (enabling educational credit accumulation and transfer); but different abilities of student would cover different amounts of subject matter, different specific subjects, and progress at different speeds.
The remainder of the students’ time at school would be spent in the cultural division, which would focus on broader aspects, and aiming to generate a more rounded and social individual. Examinations in culture school would be much more based on participation, sustained effort, attitudes, attendance etc. Inevitably, since it has many aims and a wider focus, culture school would apply many evaluations to its teachers and students. Inevitably, too, these evaluations would be less clear-cut and more contested.
电纸书NOOK和亚马逊哪个屏幕结实点，耐用些，，NOOK出到3代了，亚马逊也出到5带了，情说说第几代比较好？
我用的nook2，在公交上被人挤压过也掉地上摔过，。
nook2和kindle比较，做工都相当不错。nook2比kindle略重，也厚实，屏幕在电纸书里是有名的结实，我拆过一台，屏幕后是金属衬板，怪不得会重。
nook2屏幕设计比较过硬，因为后边衬了一层金属板，一般的挤压和轻度摔碰都不会坏，但是过度重压的还是不行。（所以nook2比较沉）
比如我的第一台nook2吧，掉地上没摔坏过。不过在一次挤公交被别人书包上的金属扣硌到，屏上就裂，裂成了六块，不过居然仍可以显示。
后来又买了一台，配了个原装书套，一直用了一年多还好好的。
nook2的触摸屏，这个比kindle有优势。
kindle屏就脆，我朋友那个放屁兜里，后来拿出来看的时候发现屏整个都黑了，不得不换了一个。
如果不破解的情况下，两种电纸书在阅读功能方面都差不太多。
Nook 2破解过由于采用的是开放的Android系统，经过简单的破解后，就变成了一台使用eink屏幕的平板电脑，众多Android平台上的软件（尤其是阅读软件）能够在Nook 2上完美运行，使它成为市场上发售的六寸电子书中实力最强大、潜力最无限的一位。
相比之下，Kindle虽然在书籍资源、推送等方面也有优势，但系统比较封闭，应用数量少的多。
kindle3跟nook电纸书哪个好一点 希望通过的童鞋们现身说法~
kindle是美国品牌，刷机什么的比较麻烦，再说kindle在国内还没有正式上市，出问题了维修也是个难题。kindle的书也只能在亚马逊下载，每本都收钱。作为一本电子书的话，很不合算~~ 我个人还是比较推荐e人e本。 e人e本电子书内置了1000本畅销书、50多种杂志，还提供了数千本文本格式的国内外名著供使用者免费阅读。与其它电子书的黑白屏幕不同，e人e本的屏幕是彩色的，能够减轻单色画面的视觉疲劳感。原笔迹手写邮件的功能也是个很大的亮点。 e人e本的商务功能及实用性都较强。也很轻薄，携带方便。开机速度较快，点开power键便可进入应用系统。100小时的待机时间及强悍的音乐、视频、游戏功能足够出差、旅行途中的无聊解闷之用。 e人e本支持无限、有限、3G三种联网方式，还带有邮件收发、原笔迹手写记事、管理名片、office办公、多语言翻译、GPS地图&航班查询、酒店预订、股市行情查询、个人理财等商务功能，图像、指纹的双重加密功能，让资料更为安全。我用的是壹人壹T2产品，感觉确实不错，功能全面，性价比高。现在国产品牌的挺不错的，售后也方便。
电纸书，推荐1000—1200元的，有比亚马逊金读Kindle 3，更诱人的没？
功能上来说最诱人的就是kindle了吧……它唯一的缺点是没有手写批注功能。
不过你这个价位，国内的ONYX也是可以比的，它的优势在于国产的保修比较方便（目前没听到有投诉他们的售后服务的），并PDF功能比较强。如果你肯在你给的价位上加80，就可以买到它家的A60，有手写批注功能，支持WIFI。
国外的话现在NOOK2也出来了，只是今天刚看的评测视频说触屏不太灵敏；NOOK的第一代也在这个价位上下，设计得很特别，双屏，6寸电子墨水屏下面有一个小的彩屏触控区。
如果楼主不急的话，等年底据说kindle3准备降到100美元以内；还有一款外国产品kobo eReader也快出来了，价位也是这样，触屏。
nook2 注册
1、如果查看注册状态：
点击N键，选择“设置”，然后再选择“设备信息”，再选择“关于您的NOOK2”，然后就会看到注册情况了。此时“主人”栏是注册姓名，“帐号”是注册邮箱。
2、耗电情况是根据你看书的时间来确定的，如果是一天看书几小时以上，耗电20%是可以接受的，如果只是待机一天就耗电20%，就不正常。
3、如果没有注册，一般情况下是进不了NOOK2的阅读界面的，需要跳过注册才可以进入主页。如果买的是二手机，有可能是用前主人的帐号注册的。可以试试先在巴诺书店官方网站用自己的邮箱注册一个帐号，再在NOOK2上的“设备信息”中选择“擦除&注销设备”，然后重新用自己的帐号注册。
电子书Kindle3 Nook2 买哪个好呢？（我主要看mobi&扫描版PDF）
lz是内行，了解得相当清楚了，我只说说个人爱好。
nook倒是应该也能装kindle的软件，反正本质上也是安卓。（nook2我没有摸过）
不过按我性格还是会选kindle3. 一方面屏幕本身是同一代的，而且个人觉得k3的显示效果还要好过kindle touch（肯定不是心理作用，不知道是人品问题还是加了触摸层的关系，总觉得底不够白）；另一方面，kindle对你的需求来看基本还是够了（毕竟是6寸e-ink，看PDF再方便也是有限的）；再有，推送实在太方便了（root后nook应该也有替代方案，不过应该也是修修补补，没有kindle本家那么浑然天成），然后就是send to kindle 的插件一定要装。
广告版刚出的时候就买了kindle3, 现在是妈妈在用，正常服役中。
