RSS Feed (xml)
This is a very old saying. Whether it is the old lie is arguable. In his odes, the Roman poet Horace wrote this no less than three times: 'dulce et decorum est pro patria mori'. He lived from 65 to 8 B.C., was also a soldier, fought at Philippi, afterwards lost his estate, and was reduced to poverty. He remained a patriot. The poet Wilfred Owen, a resident of France, returned to England to enlist in the First World War at the age of 22, fought in the trenches, and was killed at age 25, a week before the Armistice in 1918.
The most prominent war poet, Owen's verse expresses his hatred of war. How much of his virulence was due to the emotional instability caused by his homosexuality is a moot point. The fact remains that he fought. Why?
The intervening two thousand years have polarized the divide between the patriot and the pacifist. Any book of quotations offers scores of examples of quotations supporting both sides; Samuel Johnson described patriotism as the last refuge of a scoundrel ; Thomas Campbell wrote 'The patriot's blood's the seed of Freedom's tree'.
For various reasons, the modern pacifist's case is perhaps stronger than of his predecessors. Firstly, because the 20th century, in two major wars, made civilian enlistment compulsory on the part of the countries involved. In the UK in the First World War, extreme moral pressure was brought to bear. Any man not seen in uniform was in danger of being given a white feather by the women - for cowardice. The actual reasons for opting out varied; it could be cowardice, it could be a different form of national service, it could be a lifelong and previously stated total rejection of violence in any circumstances. In the latter case, such views were generally respected, providing some other contribution to the war effort was made. The Society of Friends (the 'Quakers') provides a good example in the Second World War. These men and women were prepared to risk their lives, and many lost their lives, in some form of national service; medical work, ambulance driving, merchant shipping crews, etc. One Christian school of thought rejects any kind of participation in war, arguing that aggressors should not be resisted, that tyranny, carrying as it does the seeds of its own eventual downfall, should be accepted. Their case has been greatly strengthened by the fundamental difference between earlier wars and those of this century. In the two wars 1914 - 18 and 1939 - 45, civilian populations were involved, like it or not, because of bombing raids, and ultimately the use of the atom bomb against Japan. Nothing, they argue, can justify what happened to London, Coventry, Dresden, Wuppertal, Cologne, Berlin, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nothing justifies mass slaughter. The future use of the hydrogen bomb would be even more horrific.
And now the case for patriotism. Like it or not, the citizens of all civilized countries owe an incalculable debt to their homelands; protection from foreign aggression, from internal crime, from disease, from penury. They receive education, a minimum standard of living, an old-age pension; complete personal freedom, in keeping with law, freedom of religious worship, freedom of movement, every opportunity for self-advancement, at least in the democracies. In such countries, everybody is born under an obligation to the state, and if that obligation is rejected, so also should be the benefits mentioned. Perhaps even more fundamental is a built-in affection for the distinctive characteristics of one's own country, its history, traditions, folk-ethic, literature, music, human relationships. An aggressor such as Hitler would wipe out all these things, as he almost wiped out the Jewish population of Europe. He would replace freedom with tyranny, he would consign dissidents to concentration camps. So not only is force of arms justified in a defensive role, it is also justified in some categories of offence; e.g. intervention in foreign countries where populations are threatened with genocide, as currently in Yugoslavia and Ethiopia. This type of intervention is rightly carried out by professional armed service members at the instigation of the United Nations.
What cannot be justified on patriotic grounds is expansionist aggression as is favored by certain leaders or, as in the past, by the empire-building countries of Europe, whether or not their rule imparted freedom, stability, enlightenment and prosperity.
None of us can accept what our own country has given us and still remain, morally, totally free agents. So given the provisos mentioned, and with every respect to the best kind of pacifist, I believe that the true patriot wins the argument.
Sunday, 14 June 2009
E54:If one could choose to be endowed with a great gift or talent, which one would you choose, and why?
I would certainly choose to be a concert-standard pianist, but please don't misunderstand. I have no desire to hear the thunderous applause, to be taken by the hand as the conductor and I acknowledge the standing ovation, to receive the bouquet, to come back on stage four times, to play a brilliant encore, to read the glowing press notices at the end of a late-night party.
All that is best left to the people who like that sort of thing. I merely want to match the professionals, to play as fluently, to memorize as completely, to express the composer's intentions as deeply.
You may have gathered that I am a competent pianist. I know that I shall never get much better. I need the music in front of me. I do not own a Steinway grand, but a gallant old Brinsmead upright, now in its eightieth year. One plays - and one dreams!
So what about the 'great gift or talent'? Is one born with it, or can it be developed? The answers are yes and no. Occasionally, in a televised piano competition, one sees a young boy or girl, say aged thirteen or fourteen, sit down and play a Chopin ballade or a devilishly difficult piece of Liszt with consummate, almost contemptuous ease. That has to be talent. I could never do it in a thousand years. I used to tell myself that I could if I practiced more. Now I merely recognize that gift in others. I would never deny that to flower into perfection, the gift must be complemented by hours of practice, daily. Yet without the gift, no amount of practice will achieve the result. The word 'practice' implies a chore, the kind of mental resolution which says 'I will do half an hour a day'. Well, yes, that will improve the muscles and therefore the performance. Yet, the talented youngster is content to live at the keyboard, with a short break every few hours for a sausage roll and a coca-cola. And in turn this implies a musical background - since I believe that such people are favored genetically - encouragement, a good piano, and above all opportunity. The development of a great gift has to be at the expense of a good general education. My late wife used to teach maths to Toots Lockwood, and grumble because Margaret's young daughter made little progress. Toots, a budding actress herself, once made the precocious remark 'Mummy didn't need maths to become a star, did she?'
There are various reasons why I would like to have been a gifted pianist. Firstly, for my own satisfaction, since I enjoy playing a wide variety of composers and would dearly love to extend my repertoire. Secondly, I would like to be able to hold each piece, however long, in my memory, and to be able to think exclusively of the interpretation as my fingers automatically translated the score into sound.
Also, I would like to be confident about entertaining my friends, and this demands not only memory but the ability to improvise. Fluent improvisation is a gift not possessed by all great pianists. The story goes that the jazz pianist Art Tatum once challenged the great Solomon to improvise on the tune 'Lady be good' for as long as he could. Solomon gave up after ten minutes. Tatum manipulated the tune for half an hour without repeating himself. So, my guilty secret is that I enjoy playing jazz music as much as classical. Certainly not the modern variety of the Dave Brubeck school, with its unrhythmic runs and depressingly awful harmonies. But give me Duke Ellington, Earl Hines, Teddy Wilson, Fats Waller - especially Waller - and I am happy. If I had Waller's rhythm and Tatum's ingenuity, life would be a rich thing!
So, personal satisfaction, giving pleasure to my family and a few friends, and helping my grandchildren, all of whom play the piano at varying levels consonant with their ages. None is likely to show a great gift or talent, but they will all become competent, like me. There is no greater satisfaction than giving them a hand with their scales, their theory, their pieces at Grades 3, 4 or 5.
One of them is likely to become a better pianist than me. She may even become very good, but like the rest of us, she will never be a virtuoso. I am rather thankful for this, because life is tough at the top, and there are many drawbacks to a concert pianist's life: jet-lag, bad hotels, the envy of one's peers, an unbalanced life, perhaps a marital breakdown.
I prefer to have my cake and eat it. I would like the talent, but none of the pizzazz which always seems to go with it.
Source: www.englishdaily626.com
All that is best left to the people who like that sort of thing. I merely want to match the professionals, to play as fluently, to memorize as completely, to express the composer's intentions as deeply.
You may have gathered that I am a competent pianist. I know that I shall never get much better. I need the music in front of me. I do not own a Steinway grand, but a gallant old Brinsmead upright, now in its eightieth year. One plays - and one dreams!
So what about the 'great gift or talent'? Is one born with it, or can it be developed? The answers are yes and no. Occasionally, in a televised piano competition, one sees a young boy or girl, say aged thirteen or fourteen, sit down and play a Chopin ballade or a devilishly difficult piece of Liszt with consummate, almost contemptuous ease. That has to be talent. I could never do it in a thousand years. I used to tell myself that I could if I practiced more. Now I merely recognize that gift in others. I would never deny that to flower into perfection, the gift must be complemented by hours of practice, daily. Yet without the gift, no amount of practice will achieve the result. The word 'practice' implies a chore, the kind of mental resolution which says 'I will do half an hour a day'. Well, yes, that will improve the muscles and therefore the performance. Yet, the talented youngster is content to live at the keyboard, with a short break every few hours for a sausage roll and a coca-cola. And in turn this implies a musical background - since I believe that such people are favored genetically - encouragement, a good piano, and above all opportunity. The development of a great gift has to be at the expense of a good general education. My late wife used to teach maths to Toots Lockwood, and grumble because Margaret's young daughter made little progress. Toots, a budding actress herself, once made the precocious remark 'Mummy didn't need maths to become a star, did she?'
There are various reasons why I would like to have been a gifted pianist. Firstly, for my own satisfaction, since I enjoy playing a wide variety of composers and would dearly love to extend my repertoire. Secondly, I would like to be able to hold each piece, however long, in my memory, and to be able to think exclusively of the interpretation as my fingers automatically translated the score into sound.
Also, I would like to be confident about entertaining my friends, and this demands not only memory but the ability to improvise. Fluent improvisation is a gift not possessed by all great pianists. The story goes that the jazz pianist Art Tatum once challenged the great Solomon to improvise on the tune 'Lady be good' for as long as he could. Solomon gave up after ten minutes. Tatum manipulated the tune for half an hour without repeating himself. So, my guilty secret is that I enjoy playing jazz music as much as classical. Certainly not the modern variety of the Dave Brubeck school, with its unrhythmic runs and depressingly awful harmonies. But give me Duke Ellington, Earl Hines, Teddy Wilson, Fats Waller - especially Waller - and I am happy. If I had Waller's rhythm and Tatum's ingenuity, life would be a rich thing!
So, personal satisfaction, giving pleasure to my family and a few friends, and helping my grandchildren, all of whom play the piano at varying levels consonant with their ages. None is likely to show a great gift or talent, but they will all become competent, like me. There is no greater satisfaction than giving them a hand with their scales, their theory, their pieces at Grades 3, 4 or 5.
One of them is likely to become a better pianist than me. She may even become very good, but like the rest of us, she will never be a virtuoso. I am rather thankful for this, because life is tough at the top, and there are many drawbacks to a concert pianist's life: jet-lag, bad hotels, the envy of one's peers, an unbalanced life, perhaps a marital breakdown.
I prefer to have my cake and eat it. I would like the talent, but none of the pizzazz which always seems to go with it.
Source: www.englishdaily626.com
E53:Should we be concerned about the greenhouse effect ?
First, what is this effect? Ever since the Industrial Revolution began in the 18th century, smoke from fossil fuels, oil, natural gas and especially coal has deposited carbon dioxide in the lower part of the earth's upper atmosphere. The effect of this has been that part of the energy of the sun's rays reflected from the earth's surface has been absorbed by the CO2 and by water vapor and returned to the earth in the form of heat. Thus the atmosphere is behaving increasingly like a greenhouse. The glass allows the sunlight through but traps the heat. The consequence is what is called global warming.
There is a school of thought which says that the result will be a change in the earth's climate, plus an increase in nitrous oxide, methane gas and FREONS. It is predicted that by the mid-21st century, average temperatures will rise by 5 degrees C (9 degrees F). This will result in the melting of glaciers and the polar ice-caps. Coastal waters will rise and inundate many low-lying countries. Food production for an increasing world population will be put at risk.
Not everyone, of course, accepts this scenario, though the quantity of CO2 in the lower upper-atmosphere is constantly monitored, and the fact that the level is increasing is not disputed. Whether or not the expected rise in average temperature will happen is another matter. There have been no significant climatic changes for centuries, indeed millennia and, the opponents of the doom-merchants argue, nature has its own methods of damage-limitation and self-adjustment. Moreover, there are no present signs of global warming. The weather patter in Britain, for example, is much the same as it was in Victorian days, or Roman days for that matter. Why should it suddenly change? Coal has always been burnt and before coal, wood and charcoal. Forest fires have always raged. Volcanoes, and explosions such as Krakatoa (1883) have always thrown tons of noxious gases into the atmosphere. After that particular explosion, a cloud of dust and gas drifted over Europe and darkened the sun for six months - before dispersing naturally. A tidal wave drowned 36,000 in the Java-Sumatra area. Nature's self-damage greatly exceeds any possible human contribution.
The fact is, however, that many people do take the greenhouse threat seriously, and there is a cross-section of people in most industrialized countries who lobby continuously against the continued use of fossil fuels. Whether they are right, or merely alarmist, only time will tell. However, the fact that CO2 is on the increase is undisputed. Further, it cannot be disputed that the greenhouse effect is a possibility, even if remote. Nuclear war is also a possibility, though remote, but every possible step is taken by democratic countries to ensure that it will not happen. So, therefore, should every possible step be taken to reduce, even eliminate CO2 emissions. There are already agreements in the USA and in Europe to cut down, or eliminate the use of fossil fuels by certain target dates.
The problem is that many countries are geared to fossil rather than nuclear power sources. Supplies of coal, and probably of oil and natural gas, are virtually unlimited. In Britain, most pits have closed down, causing wide-spread unemployment and much consequent human suffering. The coal lobby argues for emission cleansing and a compromise, both economic and environmental, may be possible. It would be cheaper, they argue, than to transfer entirely to nuclear power, whose installations may in any event cause health hazards and even the occasional disaster.
One optimistic sign is that proponents of all power sources agree that every generation has an obligation to preserve rather than exploit and pollute the planet. The worst culprits in the CO2 saga are the old-fashioned heavy industry plants, such as those in the Ruhr, East Germany, and what was the Soviet Union, and the fossil-fuel fired electricity-generating stations. Much of the old industrial plant has now been either modernized or superseded, and some countries such as France have moved over almost entirely to nuclear power. That, in my opinion, is the way forward.
I do not believe that in any event, the greenhouse effect would have the dire consequences which have been predicted. Yet, it is a risk which we should not take. Modern technology has outgrown the use of fossil fuels, and apart from any possible dangers to future generations, the kind of world to which we commit them should be a clean, wholesome and beautiful world, as the Creator intended.
Source: www.englishdaily626.com
There is a school of thought which says that the result will be a change in the earth's climate, plus an increase in nitrous oxide, methane gas and FREONS. It is predicted that by the mid-21st century, average temperatures will rise by 5 degrees C (9 degrees F). This will result in the melting of glaciers and the polar ice-caps. Coastal waters will rise and inundate many low-lying countries. Food production for an increasing world population will be put at risk.
Not everyone, of course, accepts this scenario, though the quantity of CO2 in the lower upper-atmosphere is constantly monitored, and the fact that the level is increasing is not disputed. Whether or not the expected rise in average temperature will happen is another matter. There have been no significant climatic changes for centuries, indeed millennia and, the opponents of the doom-merchants argue, nature has its own methods of damage-limitation and self-adjustment. Moreover, there are no present signs of global warming. The weather patter in Britain, for example, is much the same as it was in Victorian days, or Roman days for that matter. Why should it suddenly change? Coal has always been burnt and before coal, wood and charcoal. Forest fires have always raged. Volcanoes, and explosions such as Krakatoa (1883) have always thrown tons of noxious gases into the atmosphere. After that particular explosion, a cloud of dust and gas drifted over Europe and darkened the sun for six months - before dispersing naturally. A tidal wave drowned 36,000 in the Java-Sumatra area. Nature's self-damage greatly exceeds any possible human contribution.
The fact is, however, that many people do take the greenhouse threat seriously, and there is a cross-section of people in most industrialized countries who lobby continuously against the continued use of fossil fuels. Whether they are right, or merely alarmist, only time will tell. However, the fact that CO2 is on the increase is undisputed. Further, it cannot be disputed that the greenhouse effect is a possibility, even if remote. Nuclear war is also a possibility, though remote, but every possible step is taken by democratic countries to ensure that it will not happen. So, therefore, should every possible step be taken to reduce, even eliminate CO2 emissions. There are already agreements in the USA and in Europe to cut down, or eliminate the use of fossil fuels by certain target dates.
The problem is that many countries are geared to fossil rather than nuclear power sources. Supplies of coal, and probably of oil and natural gas, are virtually unlimited. In Britain, most pits have closed down, causing wide-spread unemployment and much consequent human suffering. The coal lobby argues for emission cleansing and a compromise, both economic and environmental, may be possible. It would be cheaper, they argue, than to transfer entirely to nuclear power, whose installations may in any event cause health hazards and even the occasional disaster.
One optimistic sign is that proponents of all power sources agree that every generation has an obligation to preserve rather than exploit and pollute the planet. The worst culprits in the CO2 saga are the old-fashioned heavy industry plants, such as those in the Ruhr, East Germany, and what was the Soviet Union, and the fossil-fuel fired electricity-generating stations. Much of the old industrial plant has now been either modernized or superseded, and some countries such as France have moved over almost entirely to nuclear power. That, in my opinion, is the way forward.
I do not believe that in any event, the greenhouse effect would have the dire consequences which have been predicted. Yet, it is a risk which we should not take. Modern technology has outgrown the use of fossil fuels, and apart from any possible dangers to future generations, the kind of world to which we commit them should be a clean, wholesome and beautiful world, as the Creator intended.
Source: www.englishdaily626.com
E52:Young people are slaves to fashion. Discuss.
Young people, or teenagers, are an invention of the American exploitation of the early 60s. The contemporary hype built them up into a separate class of society, and since jobs and money were plentiful in those days, the promotion of fashion in dress, music, politics and general outlook proved very profitable. Prior to 1960, people aged under eighteen were children; above eighteen, adults.
The cult swept the USA, then Britain and Europe, and finally many Eastern and Far Eastern countries, even where it was proscribed, as in China and pre-Gorbachev Russia. The promoters made full use of two factors common to the thirteen to eighteen age group; adolescent insecurity, and the concomitant desire to conform to peer pressures. Hence they became slaves to fashion.
As already indicated, fashion applied not only to clothes but to the whole of life. Some of it was harmless enough. Throughout history, the instinct to conform to current clothing styles was an unchanging phenomenon in the adult world. Up to the 60s, young people wore school uniform; in leisure hours, adult clothing. The radical change in the early 60s reflected the post-war instinct to defy conventions which were basically pre-war, and therefore associated with adult repression. So the tee-shirt and jeans culture was born, the tee-shirts carrying anti-establishment legends, references to hard left social policies, the lure of uncontrolled sex, the support of homosexuality, the attractions of the drop-out culture, and the wonders of the fast-growing hallucinatory drug scene.
As mentioned, some of this was inevitable and harmless. Some of it was pernicious. The pernicious element was centered in San Francisco, though it later infected London, Paris, and other major cities.
Alongside this arose the pop music cult, and the successful stars and groups became the objects of hysterical teenage adulation. Presley, the Rolling Stones, the Beatles became the wealthy heroes. The subversive and corrupting views of some of them did immense harm. The fashions they set became irresistible.
In the later 60s and 70s, violence as well as drugs, alcohol and indiscriminate sex became fashionable. In Britain, for example, teenagers of both sexes joined one of two fashionable groups, the Mods and the Rockers. The Mods wore trendy, velveteen styles and rode mopeds. The Rockers dressed in leather and rode powerful motorbikes. Large groups of each faction would foregather in the main seaside resorts and engage in pitched, sometimes bloody battles. Later, the same cross-section turned to violent protest, vandalism and football hooliganism. The police have managed to stamp out most of this, and most teenage hysteria is currently connected with the pop scene and the occasional acid house party. For thirty years, the slavish following of fashion has led many young people astray.
But not all. Every coin has two sides, and despite all the foregoing, many, perhaps the majority of young people, are proving to be a very fine generation. Certainly they conform to teenage dress norms, enjoy pop music and modern dance, but in all essential respects they are first-class, certainly far more worthwhile than most of my contemporaries at the same age. We were conformist to adult ideas and attitudes, but in many ways we were lazy, self-interested, and entirely lacking in any real social conscience. We were quite oblivious to the overseas poor, the environment, the victims of disaster, whether natural or man-made, and to the animal world. In fact, we were selfish, and rather self-indulgent. No drugs, certainly, but plenty of cigarettes and alcohol.
Today, many admirable features are seen in the young. They are individualistic rather than conformist. They eschew smoking, drugs and alcohol. They are fitter and generally more athletic than their predecessors. Many do social work in their spare time and some spend a year on voluntary service overseas. They have a conscience about people less fortunate and about the well-being of our world. They work hard and prepare for a market in which jobs are far from plentiful.
Admittedly, the media nowadays bring the world's suffering and problems to their attention with an immediacy unknown in earlier days. Yet the fact is that they respond. They are slaves, not so much to fashion, as to their consciences, and that is by no means a bad form of slavery.
Read the whole essay
Source: www.englishdaily626.com
The cult swept the USA, then Britain and Europe, and finally many Eastern and Far Eastern countries, even where it was proscribed, as in China and pre-Gorbachev Russia. The promoters made full use of two factors common to the thirteen to eighteen age group; adolescent insecurity, and the concomitant desire to conform to peer pressures. Hence they became slaves to fashion.
As already indicated, fashion applied not only to clothes but to the whole of life. Some of it was harmless enough. Throughout history, the instinct to conform to current clothing styles was an unchanging phenomenon in the adult world. Up to the 60s, young people wore school uniform; in leisure hours, adult clothing. The radical change in the early 60s reflected the post-war instinct to defy conventions which were basically pre-war, and therefore associated with adult repression. So the tee-shirt and jeans culture was born, the tee-shirts carrying anti-establishment legends, references to hard left social policies, the lure of uncontrolled sex, the support of homosexuality, the attractions of the drop-out culture, and the wonders of the fast-growing hallucinatory drug scene.
As mentioned, some of this was inevitable and harmless. Some of it was pernicious. The pernicious element was centered in San Francisco, though it later infected London, Paris, and other major cities.
Alongside this arose the pop music cult, and the successful stars and groups became the objects of hysterical teenage adulation. Presley, the Rolling Stones, the Beatles became the wealthy heroes. The subversive and corrupting views of some of them did immense harm. The fashions they set became irresistible.
In the later 60s and 70s, violence as well as drugs, alcohol and indiscriminate sex became fashionable. In Britain, for example, teenagers of both sexes joined one of two fashionable groups, the Mods and the Rockers. The Mods wore trendy, velveteen styles and rode mopeds. The Rockers dressed in leather and rode powerful motorbikes. Large groups of each faction would foregather in the main seaside resorts and engage in pitched, sometimes bloody battles. Later, the same cross-section turned to violent protest, vandalism and football hooliganism. The police have managed to stamp out most of this, and most teenage hysteria is currently connected with the pop scene and the occasional acid house party. For thirty years, the slavish following of fashion has led many young people astray.
But not all. Every coin has two sides, and despite all the foregoing, many, perhaps the majority of young people, are proving to be a very fine generation. Certainly they conform to teenage dress norms, enjoy pop music and modern dance, but in all essential respects they are first-class, certainly far more worthwhile than most of my contemporaries at the same age. We were conformist to adult ideas and attitudes, but in many ways we were lazy, self-interested, and entirely lacking in any real social conscience. We were quite oblivious to the overseas poor, the environment, the victims of disaster, whether natural or man-made, and to the animal world. In fact, we were selfish, and rather self-indulgent. No drugs, certainly, but plenty of cigarettes and alcohol.
Today, many admirable features are seen in the young. They are individualistic rather than conformist. They eschew smoking, drugs and alcohol. They are fitter and generally more athletic than their predecessors. Many do social work in their spare time and some spend a year on voluntary service overseas. They have a conscience about people less fortunate and about the well-being of our world. They work hard and prepare for a market in which jobs are far from plentiful.
Admittedly, the media nowadays bring the world's suffering and problems to their attention with an immediacy unknown in earlier days. Yet the fact is that they respond. They are slaves, not so much to fashion, as to their consciences, and that is by no means a bad form of slavery.
Read the whole essay
Source: www.englishdaily626.com
E51:Eventually computers will allow people to work from home. Is this desirable?
The answer is that computers already allow some people to work from home, though clearly this cannot apply to more than a limited number of people and a limited number of occupations. As to whether this is desirable, the answer is philosophical as well as practical.
Computers, both analog and digital, have developed out of all recognition since the Second World War, when they were large, mechanical, and limited in use. They were then used in conjunction with radar for missile guidance and also for code breaking and a small range of mathematical functions. Most of these functions are now available in a child's pocket calculator. The application of electronics in the 50s followed by the use of the silicon chip and pre-printed circuits widened the computer's function out of all recognition, permitting a myriad series of voltage controls. The computer today is powerful, compact and relatively small. It combines readily with word-processing, faxing, and the electronic creation of screen graphics, which can be modified either by keyboard control or by electronic pen. The analog computer rapidly solves
differential equations for civil and mechanical engineering problems. The digital computer with its card-punching function permits access to data banks, and allows the processing of records and all the kinds of work connected with bills, orders, wages, VAT, etc. The computer today is integral in the world of business, commerce, design, word-processing and industry in general. Any organization from the small business upwards keeps a computer to which remote terminals may be linked, giving access at a distance to all its functions and information.
The need for all white-collar workers to do a nine-to-five job in the office has disappeared. Today, it is obviously possible for all workers down to lower- management level to work from home, and as computers continue to develop, it is likely that firms will find it convenient to let an increasing number do so. Whether this is a desirable change is a moot point.
Read the whole essay
Source: www.englishdaily626.com
Computers, both analog and digital, have developed out of all recognition since the Second World War, when they were large, mechanical, and limited in use. They were then used in conjunction with radar for missile guidance and also for code breaking and a small range of mathematical functions. Most of these functions are now available in a child's pocket calculator. The application of electronics in the 50s followed by the use of the silicon chip and pre-printed circuits widened the computer's function out of all recognition, permitting a myriad series of voltage controls. The computer today is powerful, compact and relatively small. It combines readily with word-processing, faxing, and the electronic creation of screen graphics, which can be modified either by keyboard control or by electronic pen. The analog computer rapidly solves
differential equations for civil and mechanical engineering problems. The digital computer with its card-punching function permits access to data banks, and allows the processing of records and all the kinds of work connected with bills, orders, wages, VAT, etc. The computer today is integral in the world of business, commerce, design, word-processing and industry in general. Any organization from the small business upwards keeps a computer to which remote terminals may be linked, giving access at a distance to all its functions and information.
The need for all white-collar workers to do a nine-to-five job in the office has disappeared. Today, it is obviously possible for all workers down to lower- management level to work from home, and as computers continue to develop, it is likely that firms will find it convenient to let an increasing number do so. Whether this is a desirable change is a moot point.
Read the whole essay
Source: www.englishdaily626.com
E50:Reading novels is a waste of time. Discuss
The designation novel covers a very wide spectrum of literature. It comprises the classic works of fiction of all countries. By definition, a novel is a prose piece of over 60,000 words. Many are much longer. Anything shorter is a novella ; if much shorter, a short story. The genre grew up independently in many countries, particularly those of Europe, though since this is an English General Paper it is the English (or British) tradition that will generally be referred to, with occasional references to countries which have produced fiction in some kind of English, such as the USA.
Fiction of course is not limited to the classics, which form a relatively small part of it. For at least three centuries the bookshops have always been full of the more ephemeral kinds of prose; the American block-buster , the J Arthur Clarke type of space fiction, the ghost story, the detective whodunnit ?, the romantic novel, the psychological thriller, the historical novel, the adventure story, the war story. The list is endless.
It is quite possible to become hooked on novel reading, and this has two dangers. To read novels when you should be doing something else, e.g. study, or practical chores, is indeed a waste of time. And it is never courteous to have one's nose in a novel when visitors arrive! Secondly, there are some people who find in a novel a means of escape from reality. This has other dangers. Too much relapse into fantasy may destroy one's ability to face facts.
If reading novels can be a waste of time, reading bad novels is always a waste of time and can be positively harmful. A really bad novel is not easy to define, but for anybody with intellect it has some, or even all of the following features: unreality in characterization and situation, poor construction, concentration on sex and violence for the sake of it, bad sentence construction, a boring approach, expletives and bad language generally, a biased attitude to people, situations and issues, and stereotyping of characters.
Read the whole essay
Source: www.englishdaily626.com
Fiction of course is not limited to the classics, which form a relatively small part of it. For at least three centuries the bookshops have always been full of the more ephemeral kinds of prose; the American block-buster , the J Arthur Clarke type of space fiction, the ghost story, the detective whodunnit ?, the romantic novel, the psychological thriller, the historical novel, the adventure story, the war story. The list is endless.
It is quite possible to become hooked on novel reading, and this has two dangers. To read novels when you should be doing something else, e.g. study, or practical chores, is indeed a waste of time. And it is never courteous to have one's nose in a novel when visitors arrive! Secondly, there are some people who find in a novel a means of escape from reality. This has other dangers. Too much relapse into fantasy may destroy one's ability to face facts.
If reading novels can be a waste of time, reading bad novels is always a waste of time and can be positively harmful. A really bad novel is not easy to define, but for anybody with intellect it has some, or even all of the following features: unreality in characterization and situation, poor construction, concentration on sex and violence for the sake of it, bad sentence construction, a boring approach, expletives and bad language generally, a biased attitude to people, situations and issues, and stereotyping of characters.
Read the whole essay
Source: www.englishdaily626.com
E49:What childhood illusions have you had shattered as you were growing up?
For the student, this essay should prove easy enough, since childhood and growing up are recent experiences. For this writer, it is not so easy, the growing up period being rather a long time ago. However, it is said that as we get older, childhood memories become much sharper, so I hope that what will now be written is based in fact and not in fancy!
I was lucky enough to have good parents, who gave me a secure background and who were ambitious for me to achieve success. in life. Some children then, and perhaps more now in Britain, lacked this basic advantage. Almost from birth, these children are neglected, often ill-treated, subjected to violence or abuse. Few are given incentives. They grow up believing that the world is against them, and quickly become street-wise , concerned with self-protection, and using violence to get something out of life. Childish illusions are knocked out of them almost from birth. Their view of life may be distorted, but it is realistic.
As a more fortunate boy, my first illusion was that life is essentially fair, that people who merit life's rewards always receive them, and that the tragedies of life are somehow deserved. It took the death of my best friend following a sudden terminal illness to shatter that illusion. That episode, and at a later stage, the deaths of so many of my contemporaries in the Second World War, finally convinced me that life is not a tight moral framework. It was not until many years had passed that I began to perceive the answers which a religious faith supplies. The obverse of that coin is that life often is fair when one hopes for a little unfairness. I remember having to take a History exam for which I had done little or no work. The night before the exam, I prayed hard for the few questions I could answer which would give me a pass. The right questions didn't come, and quite rightly I failed.
Children brought up with a religious background believe that prayers are always answered. One day, as a small boy, I had been stopped by my father from doing something I wanted to do, and I was angry. It came to bedtime, and prayers, finally to 'God bless ...' So I said, with my father present, 'God bless Mummy, and Grannie and Grandpa, and my dog, and that's all!' It took me some years to realize that God takes a rather more sophisticated view of our prayer life.
Read the whole essay
Source: www.englishdaily626.com
I was lucky enough to have good parents, who gave me a secure background and who were ambitious for me to achieve success. in life. Some children then, and perhaps more now in Britain, lacked this basic advantage. Almost from birth, these children are neglected, often ill-treated, subjected to violence or abuse. Few are given incentives. They grow up believing that the world is against them, and quickly become street-wise , concerned with self-protection, and using violence to get something out of life. Childish illusions are knocked out of them almost from birth. Their view of life may be distorted, but it is realistic.
As a more fortunate boy, my first illusion was that life is essentially fair, that people who merit life's rewards always receive them, and that the tragedies of life are somehow deserved. It took the death of my best friend following a sudden terminal illness to shatter that illusion. That episode, and at a later stage, the deaths of so many of my contemporaries in the Second World War, finally convinced me that life is not a tight moral framework. It was not until many years had passed that I began to perceive the answers which a religious faith supplies. The obverse of that coin is that life often is fair when one hopes for a little unfairness. I remember having to take a History exam for which I had done little or no work. The night before the exam, I prayed hard for the few questions I could answer which would give me a pass. The right questions didn't come, and quite rightly I failed.
Children brought up with a religious background believe that prayers are always answered. One day, as a small boy, I had been stopped by my father from doing something I wanted to do, and I was angry. It came to bedtime, and prayers, finally to 'God bless ...' So I said, with my father present, 'God bless Mummy, and Grannie and Grandpa, and my dog, and that's all!' It took me some years to realize that God takes a rather more sophisticated view of our prayer life.
Read the whole essay
Source: www.englishdaily626.com
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
