题目内容
E-Mail Madness: Breaking Rules and Loving It
For all the cultural upheavals being wrought by new technology, the spread of writing may be one of the biggest. Everybody, it seems, is writing these days.
The catalyst is e-mail messages and Web chat. In electronic messages and conversations, millions of people who thought that after their schooling ended they would never have to worry about a semicolon again are spending time, lots of it, writing.
"E-mail is basically a kind of grass-roots rediscovery of writing," said Rob Writing, the director of Tank20, which puts fiction on the Web. "People didn't have a rule-based way of thinking about e-mail when they first got it. It was purely utilitarian. The verbal play and inventiveness of spoken conversation was able to jump the barrier into the new medium and get combined with visual things."
The e-mail-chat culture may be ushering in the demise of the things that sustain it: grammar, syntax, spelling and, eventually, because of the visual, shorthand, hypertextual nature of the medium, possibly even some words. As with any cultural upheaval, the changes are eventually appropriated by the era's artists.
A typical e-mail message does away with commas and capital letters, and is riddled with misspellings, some of which are deliberate, most probably not. There is a lot of white space Because the return key functions as punctuation. Acronyms and little pictures, called glyphs or emoticons, communicate thoughts and expressions. The freedom implicit in jettisoning grammatical rules could be what has enabled the e-mail-chat revolution to occur, unlocking the inner writer in everyone. Not having to abide by grammatical rule, as chat room visitors might say, makes them smile.
But is writing e-mail and chatting really writing？
Some writers who still believe in the importance of things like etymology and spelling and grammar say more people writing more often can only help the march of literature itself.
"Anything that takes away the fear of writing has got to be very healthy," said William Zinsser, who teaches writing at the New School University in New York. "What has been given back to people by e-mail is really their natural right to talk to someone else on paper without all these inhibitions that the school systems have foisted on them."
The ease of writing on the Internet may also be fostering a legion of would-be writers. Depending on one's point of view, this may or may not be a good thing.
Proponents of electronic literature say that in addition to unlocking the writer within, e-mail and chat are fostering a new wave of literacy. As a result, a hew language is developing, and like all Internet phenomena, it is evolving quickly.
But Cynthia Ozick, the essayist, novelist and short-story writer, said that the speed and ease of composing on the computer doesn't help the language change but rather, it stunts it. Writing on the computer, she added, foster prolixity; ease of use deprives the author of much-needed time to ponder. That disappoints her.
"At the start," Ozick said, "there was this excitement: we're going to enter an age like the new 18th-century epistolary, glorious age. We do have an epistles age--it consists of grunts."
Writing, who puts some of his writings on the Tank20 Web site, said that people should expect that writing will evolve. "Many people who are really smart make the mistake of identifying the beauty of language, love of language, history of language with their own beloved style," he said. "If there's anything that we learn from the long view of literary history it's that styles change."
The ease and speed and casualness of writing found on the Internet has infected some authors who write work to be published online, including Ozick, who mostly uses pen and paper to write. In 1997, Ozick wrote a diary for the online magazine Slat
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
The discovery of the Antarctic not only proved one of the most interesting of all geographical adventures, but created what might be called "the heroic age of Antarctic exploration". By their tremendous heroism, men such as Shckleton, Scott, and Amundsen caused a new continent m emerge from the shadows, and yet that heroic age, little more than a century old, is already passing. Modem science and inventions are revolutionizing the techniques of former explorers, and, although still calling for courage and feats of endurance, future journeys into these icy wastes will probably depend on motor vehicles equipped with caterpillar traction rather than on the dogs that earlier discoverers found so invaluable.
Few realize that this Antarctic continent is almost equal in size to South America, and enormous field of work awaits geographers and prospectors. The coasts of this continent remain to be accurately chartered, and the mapping of the whole of the interior presents a formidable task to the cartographers who undertake the work. Once their labors are completed, it will be possible to prospect the vast natural resources which scientists believe will furnish on the of the largest treasure hoards of metals and minerals the world has yet known, and almost inexhaustible sources of copper, coal, uranium, and many other ores will become available to man. Such discoveries will usher in an era of practical exploitation of the Antarctic wastes.
The polar darkness which hides this continent for the six winter months will he defeated by huge batteries of light, and make possible the establishing of air-fields for the future inter-continental air services by making these areas as light as day. Present flying routes will be completely changed, for the Antarctic refueling bases will make flights from Australia to South America comparatively easy over the 5,000 miles journey.
The climate is not likely to offer an insuperable problem, for the explorer Admiral Byrd has shown that the climate is possible even for men completely untrained for expeditions into those frozen wastes. Some of his party were men who had never seen snow before, and yet he records that they survived the rigors of the Antarctic climate comfortably, so that, provided that the appropriate installations are made, we may assume that human beings from all countries could live there safely. Byrd even affirms that it is probably the most healthy climate in the world, for the intense cold of thousands of years has sterilized this continent, and rendered it absolutely germfree, with the consequences that ordinary and extraordinary sicknesses and diseases from which man suffers in other zones with different climates are here utterly unknown. There exist no problems of conservation and preservation of food supplies, for the latter keep indefinitely without any signs of deterioration; it may even be that later generations will come to regard the Antarctic: as the natural storehouse for the whole world.
Plans are already on foot to set up permanent bases on the shores of this continent, and what sift fear years was regard as a "dead continent" now promises to be a most active center of human life and endeavor.(517)
When did man begin to explore the Antarctic？
如有下程序： #include＜iostream＞ using namespace std； long fun(int n) { if(n＞2) return(fun(n-1)+fun(n-2))； else return 2； } int main() { cout＜＜fun(3)＜＜endl； return 0； } 则该程序的输出结果应该是()。
有如下程序： #include＜iostream＞ using namespace std； class Con { char ID； public： Con()：ID('A'){cout＜＜1;} Con(char ID)：ID(ID'){cout＜＜2；} Con(Con&c)：ID(c.getID()){cout＜＜3；} char getID()const{returnID；} }； void show(Con c){to
Moral responsibility is all very well, but what about military orders？ Is it not the soldier's duty to give instant obedience to orders given by his military superiors？ And apart from duty, will not the soldier suffer severe punishment, even death, if he refuses to do what he is ordered to？ If, then, a soldier is told by his superior to burn this house or to shoot that prisoner, how can he be held criminally accountable on the ground' that the burning or shooting was a violation of the laws of war？
These are some of the questions that are raised by the concept commonly called "superior orders", and its use as a defense in war crimes trials. It is an issue that must be as old as the laws of war themselves, and it emerged in legal guise over three centuries ago when, after the Stuart restoration in 1660, the commander of the guards at the trial and execution of Charles I was put on trial for treason and murder. The officer defended himself on the ground "that all I did was as a soldier, by the command of my superior officer whom I must obey or die," but the court gave him short shrift, saying that "When the command is traitorous, then the obedience to that command is also traitorous①."
Though not precisely articulated, the rule that is necessarily implied by this decision is that it is the soldier's duty to obey lawful orders, but that he may disobey—and indeed must, under some circum stances-unlawful orders. Such has been the law of the United States since the birth of the nation. In 1804, Chief Justice John Marshall declared that superior orders would justify a subordinate's conduct only "if not to perform. a prohibited act," and there are many other early decisions to the same effect.
A strikingly illustrative case occurred in the wake of that conflict which most Englishmen have never heard (although their troops burned the White House) and which we call the War of 1812. Our country was baldly split by that war too and, at a time when the United States Navy was not especially popular in New England, the ship-in-the-line Independence was lying in Boston Harbor. A passer-by directed abusive language at a marine standing guard on the ship, and the marine, Bevans by name, ran his bayonet through the man. Charged with murder, Bevans produced evidence that the marines on the Independence had been ordered to bayonet anyone showing them disrespect. The case was tried before Justice Joseph Story, next to Marshall, the leading judicial figure of those years, who charged that any such order as Bevans had invoked "would be illegal and void," and, if given and put into practice, both the superior and the subordinate would be guilty of murder②. In consequence, Bevans was convicted.
The order allegedly given to Bevans was pretty drastic, and Boston Harbor was not a battlefield; per haps it was not too much to expect the marine to realize that literal compliance might lead to bad trouble. But it is only too easy to conceive of circumstances where the matter might not be at all clear. Does the sub ordinate obey at peril that the order may later be ruled illegal, or is protected unless he has a good reason to doubt its validity？
It can be inferred from the first paragraph that if a soldier obeys his superior's order to burn a house or to kill a prisoner, ______.
微信支付 
支付宝支付