下载文档原格式
新视野大学英语(第二版)第四册读写教程课文翻译.An artist who seeks fame is like a dog chasing his own tail who, when he captures it, does not know what else to do but to continue chasing it.艺术家追求成名，如同狗自逐其尾，一旦追到手，除了继续追逐不知还能做些什么。
The cruelty of success is that it often leads those who seek such success to participate in their own destruction.成功之残酷正在于它常常让那些追逐成功者自寻毁灭。
"Don't quit your day job!" is advice frequently given by understandably pessimistic family members and friends to a budding artist who is trying hard to succeed.对一名正努力追求成功并刚刚崭露头角的艺术家，其亲朋常常会建议“正经的饭碗不能丢！”他们的担心不无道理。
The conquest of fame is difficult at best, and many end up emotionally if not financially bankrupt.追求出人头地，最乐观地说也困难重重，许多人到最后即使不是穷困潦倒，也是几近精神崩溃。
Still, impure motives such as the desire for worshipping fans and praise from peers may spur the artist on.尽管如此，希望赢得追星族追捧和同行赞扬之类的不太纯洁的动机却在激励着他们向前。
Unit4爱因斯坦是外星人么艾伯特爱因斯坦被搞得筋疲力尽.连续第三个晚上，他的宝贝儿子汉斯，哭泣，让家人清醒直到黎明。
当艾伯特终于睡着了是时候起床去工作。
他不能跳过一天。
他需要工作来养活家人。
他轻快地走到专利局，在那里他是一个“技术专家，第三级，”艾伯特担心他的母亲。
她越来越虚弱，她不赞成他与米列娃结婚，关系紧张。
艾伯特看了一眼路过商店的橱窗。
他的头发是一个烂摊子；他忘了梳一遍。
工作。
家庭。
使收支平衡。
艾伯特感受到任何年轻的丈夫和父亲所有的压力和责任的。
放松，他彻底改变了物理学。
1905年，在年龄26时，四年前他找到了工作作为一个物理学教授，爱因斯坦出版了五个最重要的论文在科学史”——所有在他的空余时间写的。
”他证明了原子和分子的存在。
1905年之前，科学家们不清楚那些。
他认为光是小块（后来被称为“光子”），从而奠定了量子力的学基础，。
他描述了他的狭义相对论理论：空间和时间是同一个织物的线，他提出那是可弯曲，拉伸和扭曲的。
哦，顺便说一句，E = mc2。
在爱因斯坦之前，最后一个有这样突出创意的科学家，是艾萨克牛顿先生。
它发生在1666时，牛顿隔离自己母亲的农场去避免爆发在剑桥的瘟疫。
没有什么更好的事，他提出了他的万有引力。
几个世纪以来,历史学家称为1666牛顿的“奇迹年。
现在这些话有不同的意义:爱因斯坦和1905。
联合国已经宣布2005年“世界物理年“庆祝爱因斯坦“奇迹年的100周年。
现代流行文化吧爱因斯坦画一个bushy-haired superthinker。
我们被告之他的想法，是不可能远远领先于其他科学家。
他一定是从其他星球来的——也许是牛顿长大的同一个星球。
“爱因斯坦不是外星人，”哈佛大学物理学家和科学史家彼得笑到。
“他是他那个时代的人。
”他所有的1905年的文件揭开问题正在被其他科学家研究，成败参半，“如果爱因斯坦没有出生的，[文件]将最终由他人以某种形式写出来”Galison说。
1905年值得注意的是，一个人撰写的五个文件的全部，加上原有的，爱因斯坦以不敬的方式得到自己的结论。
新编大学英语2第四册课文翻译Unit 1课内阅读参考译文享受幽默——什么东西令人开怀?1 听了一个有趣的故事会发笑、很开心，古今中外都一样。
这一现象或许同语言本身一样悠久。
那么，到底是什么东西会使一个故事或笑话让人感到滑稽可笑的呢?2 我是第一次辨识出幽默便喜欢上它的人，因此我曾试图跟学生议论和探讨幽默。
这些学生文化差异很大，有来自拉丁美洲的，也有来自中国的。
我还认真地思考过一些滑稽有趣的故事。
这么做完全是出于自己的喜好。
3 为什么听我讲完一个笑话后，班上有些学生会笑得前仰后合，而其他学生看上去就像刚听我读了天气预报一样呢?显然，有些人对幽默比别人更敏感。
而且，我们也发现有的人很善于讲笑话，而有的人要想说一点有趣的事却要费好大的劲。
我们都听人说过这样的话：“我喜欢笑话，但我讲不好，也总是记不住。
”有些人比别人更有幽默感，就像有些人更具有音乐、数学之类的才能一样。
一个真正风趣的人在任何场合都有笑话可讲，而且讲了一个笑话，就会从他记忆里引出一连串的笑话。
一个缺乏幽默感的人不可能成为一群人中最受欢迎的。
一个真正有幽默感的人不仅受人喜爱，而且在任何聚会上也往往是人们注意的焦点。
这么说是有道理的。
4 甚至有些动物也具有幽默感。
我岳母从前经常来我们家，并能住上很长一段时间。
通常她不喜欢狗，但却很喜欢布利茨恩——我们养过的一条拉布拉多母猎犬。
而且，她们的这种好感是相互的。
布利茨恩在很小的时候就常常戏弄外祖母。
当外祖母坐在起居室里她最喜欢的那张舒适的椅子上时，布利茨恩就故意把她卧室里的一只拖鞋叼到起居室，并在外祖母刚好够不到的地方蹦来跳去，一直逗得外祖母忍不住站起来去拿那只拖鞋。
外祖母从椅子上一起来，布利茨恩就迅速跳上那椅子，从它那闪亮的棕色眼睛里掠过一丝拉布拉多式的微笑，无疑是在说：“啊哈，你又上了我的当。
”5 典型的笑话或幽默故事由明显的三部分构成。
第一部分是铺垫(即背景)，接下来是主干部分(即故事情节)，随后便是妙语(即一个出人意料或令人惊讶的结尾)。
全新版大学英语(第二版)第四册课文A翻译他们说骄傲先于失败。
就拿破仑和希特勒而言，这是我第一次能够做任何事情。
以拿破仑和希特勒为例。
他们是不可战胜的，他们认为自己是不可战胜的，不可阻挡的。
但是俄罗斯冰雪卫士证明他们错了。
9冰雪卫士9尼拉·史密斯1 1812年，法国皇帝拿破仑·波拿巴率领大军进入俄罗斯。
他为保卫祖国的俄罗斯人民的激烈抵抗做好了准备。
他准备好了穿越俄罗斯国土前往首都莫斯科的长征。
但是他没有为在莫斯科遇到的毁灭性的敌人做好准备——俄罗斯寒冷刺骨的冬天。
1812年，法国皇帝拿破仑·波拿巴率领军队入侵俄国他准备好了，俄罗斯人民将勇敢战斗，保卫他们的祖国。
他准备长途跋涉穿越俄罗斯广袤的领土，进入首都莫斯科。
然而，他没有想到他会在莫斯科遇到他的劲敌——俄罗斯的寒冷和严冬。
2 1941年，纳粹德国领导人阿道夫·希特勒对当时被称为俄罗斯的苏联发动了攻击。
希特勒的军事力量无与伦比。
他的战争机器已经扫除了欧洲大部分地区的抵抗力量。
希特勒期待一场短暂的战役，但在1941年，纳粹德国国家元首阿道夫·希特勒袭击了当时被称为苏联的俄罗斯。
希特勒的军事力量是不可战胜的他的战争机器扫除了欧洲大部分地区的抵抗。
希特勒想要速战速决，但是，像他之前的拿破仑一样，他吸取了痛苦的教训。
帮助苏联士兵的仍然是俄罗斯的冬天拿破仑的战役1812年春天，拿破仑在俄罗斯边境集结了一支60万人的军队。
士兵们训练有素，效率高，装备精良。
这支军队被称为大陆军。
拿破仑对速战速决充满信心，1812年春天，拿破仑在俄罗斯边境驻扎了60万军队。
这些士兵训练有素，战斗能力强，装备精良。
这支军队叫做军队。
拿破仑对他的马的成功充满信心，并预言在五周内占领俄罗斯。
不久后，拿破仑的军队越过内曼河进入俄罗斯。
拿破仑所期待的快速、决定性的胜利从未发生。
令他惊讶的是，俄国人拒绝站出来战斗。
相反，他们向东撤退，不久拿破仑的军队越过内曼河进入俄罗斯。
第二单元Smart CarsMichio Kaku。
7 Two of the most frustrating things about driving a car are getting lost and getting stuck in traffic.While the computer revolution is unlikely to cure these problems, it will have a positive impact. Sensors in your car tuned to radiosignals from orbiting satellites can locate your car p recisely at any momentand warn of traffic jams. We already have twenty-four Navstar satellites orbitingthe earth, making up what is called the Global Positioning System. They make itpossible to determine your location on the earth to within about a hundred feet. At any given time, there are several GPS satellites orbiting overhead at adistance of about 11,000 miles. Each satellite contains four "atomic clocks,"which vibrate at a precise frequency,according to the laws of the quantum theory.开车最头疼的两大麻烦是迷路和交通堵塞。
名声之尾艺术家追求成名，如同狗自逐其尾，一旦追到手，除了继续追逐不知还能做些什么。
成功之残酷正在于它常常让那些追逐成功者自寻毁灭。
对一名正努力追求成功并刚刚崭露头角的艺术家，其亲朋常常会建议“正经的饭碗不能丢！”他们的担心不无道理。
追求出人头地，最乐观地说也困难重重，许多人到最后即使不是穷困潦倒，也是几近精神崩溃。
尽管如此，希望赢得追星族追捧和同行赞扬之类的不太纯洁的动机却在激励着他们向前。
享受成功的无上光荣，这种诱惑不是能轻易抵挡的。
成名者之所以成名，大多是因为发挥了自己在歌唱、舞蹈、绘画或写作等方面的特长，并能形成自己的风格。
为了能迅速走红，代理人会极力吹捧他们这种风格。
他们青云直上的过程让人看不清楚。
他们究竟是怎么成功的，大多数人也都说不上来。
尽管如此，艺术家仍然不能闲下来。
若表演者、画家或作家感到无聊，他们的作品就难以继续保持以前的吸引力，也就难以保持公众的注意力。
公众的热情消磨以后，就会去追捧下一个走红的人。
有些艺术家为了不落伍，会对他们的写作、跳舞或唱歌的风格稍加变动，但这将冒极大的失宠的危险。
公众对于他们藉以成名的艺术风格以外的任何形式都将不屑一顾。
知名作家的文风一眼就能看出来，如田纳西·威廉斯的戏剧、欧内斯特·海明威的情节安排、罗伯特·弗罗斯特或T.S.艾略特的诗歌等。
同样，像莫奈、雷诺阿、达利这样的画家，希区柯克、费里尼、斯皮尔伯格、陈凯歌或张艺谋这样的电影制作人也是如此。
他们鲜明独特的艺术风格标志着与别人不同的艺术形式上的重大变革，这让他们名利双收，但也让他们付出了代价，那就是失去了用其他风格或形式表现自我的自由。
名气这盏聚光灯可比热带丛林还要炙热。
骗局很快会被揭穿，过多的关注带来的压力会让大多数人难以承受。
它让你失去自我。
你必须是公众认可的那个你，而不是真实的你或是可能的你。
艺人，就像政客一样，必须常常说些违心或连自己都不完全相信的话来取悦听众。
全新版大学英语第二版综合教程4课文原文及翻译-第二四六单元第二单元Smart CarsMichio Kaku。
7 Two of the most frustrating things about driving a car are getting lost and getting stuck in traffic. While the computer revolution is unlikely to cure these problems, it will have a positive impact. Sensors in your car tuned to radio signals from orbiting satellites can locate your car precisely at any moment and warn of traffic jams. We already have twenty-four Navstar satellites orbiting the earth, making up what is called the Global Positioning System. They make it possible to determine your location on the earth to within about a hundred feet. At any given time, there are several GPS satellites orbiting overhead at a distance of about 11,000 miles. Each satellite contains four "atomic clocks," which vibrate at a precise frequency, according to the laws of the quantum theory.开车最头疼的两大麻烦是迷路和交通堵塞。
全新版大学英语第二版综合教程4课文原文与翻译They say that pride comes before a fall. Inthe case of both Napoleon and Hitler, the many victories they enjoyed led them to believe that anything was possible, that nothing could stand in their way. Russia's icy defender was to prove them wrong.人道是骄兵必败。
就拿拿破仑和希特勒两人来说吧,他们所向披靡,便以为自己战无不胜,不可阻挡。
但俄罗斯的冰雪卫士证明他们错了。
The Icy DefenderNila B. Smith1 In 1812, Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of the French, led his GrandArmy into Russia. He was prepared for the fierce resistance of theRussian people defending their homeland. He was prepared for the longmarch across Russian soil to Moscow, the capital city. But he was notprepared for the devastating enemy that met him in Moscow -- the raw,bitter, bleak Russian winter.冰雪卫士奈拉·B·史密斯1812年,法国皇帝拿破仑·波拿巴率大军入侵俄罗斯。
他准备好俄罗斯人民会为保卫祖国而奋勇抵抗。
他准备好在俄罗斯广袤的国土上要经过长途跋涉才能进军首都莫斯科。
Unit-6-Risks新编大学英语第二版第四册课文翻译Unit 6 RisksRisks and YouAt some time or other, all of us have played the part of a hypochondriac, imagining that we have some terrible disease on the strength of very minor symptoms. Some people just have to hear about a new disease and they begin checking themselves to see if they may be suffering from it. But fear of disease is not our only fear, and neither is risk of disease the only risk we run. Modern life is full of all manner of threats-to our lives, our peace of mind, our families, and our future. And from these threats come questions that we must pose to ourselves: Is the food I buy safe? Are toys for my children likely to hurt them? Should my family avoid smoked meats? Am I likely to be robbed on vacations? Our uncertainties multiply indefinitely.Anxiety about the risks of life is a bit like hypochondria; in both, the fear or anxiety feeds on partial information. But one sharp difference exists between the two. The hypochondriac can usually turn to a physician to get a definitive clarification of the situation-either you have the suspected disease or you don't. It is much more difficult when anxiety about other forms of risk is concerned, because with many risks, the situation is not as simple.Risks are almost always a matter of probability rather than certainty. You may ask, "Should I wear a seat belt?" If you' re going to have a head-on collision, of course. But what if you get hit from the side and end up trapped inside the vehicle, unable to escape because of a damaged seat belt mechanism? So does this mean that you should spend the extra money for an air bag? Again, inhead-on collisions, it may well save your life. But what if the bag accidentally inflates while you are driving down the highway, thus causing an accident that would never have occurred otherwise?All of this is another way of saying that nothing we do is completely safe. There are risks, often potentially serious ones, associated with every hobby we have, every job we take, every food we eat-in other words, with every action. But the fact that there are risks associated with everything we are going to do does not, or should not, reduce us to trembling neurotics. Some actions are riskier than others. The point is to inform ourselves about the relevant risks and then act accordingly.For example, larger cars are generally safer than small ones in collisions. But how much safer? Theanswer is that you are roughly twice as likely to die in a serious crash in asmall car than in a large one. Yet larger cars generally cost more than small ones (and also use more gas, thus increasing the environmental risks!), so how do we decide when the reduced risks are worth the added costs? The ultimate risk avoider might, for instance, buy a tank or an armored car, thus minimizing the risk of death or injury in a collision. But is the added cost and inconvenience worth the difference in price, even supposing you could afford it?We cannot begin to answer such questions until we have a feel for the level of risks in question. So how do we measure the level of a risk? Some people seem to think that the answer is a simple number. We know, for instance, that about 25,000 people per year die inautomobile accidents. By contrast, only about 300 die per year in mine accidents and disasters. Does that mean that riding in a car is much riskier than mining? Not necessarily. The fact is that some 200 million Americans regularly ride in automobiles in the United States every year; perhaps 700,000 are involved in mining. The relevant figure that we need to assess a risk is a ratio or fraction. The numerator of the fraction tells us how many people were killed or harmed as the result of a particular activity over a certain period of time; the denominator tells us how many people were involved in that activity during that time. All risk levels are thus ratios or fractions, with values between 0 (no risk) and 1 (totally risky).By reducing all risks to ratios or fractions of this sort, we can begin to compare different sorts of risks-likemining versus riding in a car. The larger this ratio, that is, the closer it is to 1, the riskier the activity in question. In the case just discussed, we would find the relative safety of car travel and coal mining by dividing the numbers of lives lost in each by the number of people participating in each. Here, it is clear that the riskiness of traveling by car is about 1 death per 10,000 passengers; with mining, the risk level is about 4 deaths per 10,000 miners. So although far more people are killed in car accidents than in mining, the latter turns out to be four times riskier than the former. Those ratios enable us to compare the risks of activities or situations as different as apples and oranges. If you are opposed to risks, you will want to choose your activities by focusing on the small-ratio exposures. If you are reckless, then you are not likelyto be afraid of higher ratios unless they get uncomfortably large.Once we understand that risk can never be totally eliminated from any situation and that, therefore, nothing is completely safe, we will then see that the issue is not one of avoiding risks altogether but rather one of managing risks in a sensible way. Risk management requires two things: common sense and information about the character and degree of the risks we may be running.风险与你1 在说不定的某个时候，我们大家都曾充当过疑病症患者的角色,只凭一些轻微的症状便怀疑自己得了某种可怕的病。
Unit 6 RisksRisks and YouAt some time or other, all of us have played the part of a hypochondriac, imagining that we have some terrible disease on the strength of very minor symptoms. Some people just have to hear about a new disease and they begin checking themselves to see if they may be suffering from it. But fear of disease is not our only fear, and neither is risk of disease the only risk we run. Modern life is full of all manner of threats-to our lives, our peace of mind, our families, and our future. And from these threats come questions that we must pose to ourselves: Is the food I buy safe? Are toys for my children likely to hurt them? Should my family avoid smoked meats? Am I likely to be robbed on vacations? Our uncertainties multiply indefinitely.Anxiety about the risks of life is a bit like hypochondria; in both, the fear or anxiety feeds on partial information. But one sharp difference exists between the two. The hypochondriac can usually turn to a physician to get a definitive clarification of the situation-either you have the suspected disease or you don't. It is much more difficult when anxiety about other forms of risk is concerned, because with many risks, the situation is not as simple.Risks are almost always a matter of probability rather than certainty. You may ask, "Should I wear a seat belt?" If you' re going to have a head-on collision, of course. But what if you get hit from the side and end up trapped inside the vehicle, unable to escape because of a damaged seat belt mechanism? So does this mean that you should spend the extra money for an air bag? Again, in head-on collisions, it may well save your life. But what if the bag accidentally inflates while you are driving down the highway, thus causing an accident that would never have occurred otherwise?All of this is another way of saying that nothing we do is completely safe. There are risks, often potentially serious ones, associated with every hobby we have, every job we take, every food we eat-in other words, with every action. But the fact that there are risks associated with everything we are going to do does not, or should not, reduce us to trembling neurotics. Some actions are riskier than others. The point is to inform ourselves about the relevant risks and then act accordingly.For example, larger cars are generally safer than small ones in collisions. But how much safer? The answer is that you are roughly twice as likely to die in a serious crash in asmall car than in a large one. Yet larger cars generally cost more than small ones (and also use more gas, thus increasing the environmental risks!), so how do we decide when the reduced risks are worth the added costs? The ultimate risk avoider might, for instance, buy a tank or an armored car, thus minimizing the risk of death or injury in a collision. But is the added cost and inconvenience worth the difference in price, even supposing you could afford it?We cannot begin to answer such questions until we have a feel for the level of risks in question. So how do we measure the level of a risk? Some people seem to think that the answer is a simple number. We know, for instance, that about 25,000 people per year die in automobile accidents. By contrast, only about 300 die per year in mine accidents and disasters. Does that mean that riding in a car is much riskier than mining? Not necessarily. The fact is that some 200 million Americans regularly ride in automobiles in the United States every year; perhaps 700,000 are involved in mining. The relevant figure that we need to assess a risk is a ratio or fraction. The numerator of the fraction tells us how many people were killed or harmed as the result of a particular activity over a certain period of time; the denominator tells us how many people were involved in that activity during that time. All risk levels are thus ratios or fractions, with values between 0 (no risk) and 1 (totally risky).By reducing all risks to ratios or fractions of this sort, we can begin to compare different sorts of risks-like mining versus riding in a car. The larger this ratio, that is, the closer it is to 1, the riskier the activity in question. In the case just discussed, we would find the relative safety of car travel and coal mining by dividing the numbers of lives lost in each by the number of people participating in each. Here, it is clear that the riskiness of traveling by car is about 1 death per 10,000 passengers; with mining, the risk level is about 4 deaths per 10,000 miners. So although far more people are killed in car accidents than in mining, the latter turns out to be four times riskier than the former. Those ratios enable us to compare the risks of activities or situations as different as apples and oranges. If you are opposed to risks, you will want to choose your activities by focusing on the small-ratio exposures. If you are reckless, then you are not likely to be afraid of higher ratios unless they get uncomfortably large.Once we understand that risk can never be totally eliminated from any situation and that, therefore, nothing is completely safe, we will then see that the issue is not one of avoiding risks altogether but rather one of managing risks in a sensible way. Risk management requires two things: common sense and information about the character and degree of the risks we may be running.风险与你1 在说不定的某个时候，我们大家都曾充当过疑病症患者的角色,只凭一些轻微的症状便怀疑自己得了某种可怕的病。
