هنا جميع طلبات القسم الأدبي 2

[منول؟؟؟]

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
مشكوووووووووورة اخت هنودي.
بارك الله فيك وجزاك الله كل خير

[ابوعزيز]

حروف الهجاء

ولا قصور بـ تراي ان شاء الله تفيدك هالروابط

http://justus.anglican.org/resources...2victoria.html

http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Lit/victoria.html

http://shs.westport.k12.ct.us/jwb/Wo...rian/Poems.htm

كان ودي اساعد أكثر بس بالنسبة للي طالبين تعبير أو نقد أنا مو متخصص آسـف

واللي سنة أولى هونها وتهون اللي تخرجوا مو أحسن منكم بشيء انتم بس شدوا حيلكم ودائماً تكون البداية صعبة

سامحونا عالقصور

[نعناعه]

السلام عليكم

انا عندي اختبار يااااااااااااااليت تساعدوني

الله يجزاكم الجنه ابغى شرح لقصيدتين اللي هم

The Wast Land" للشاعر Eliot

After the Funeral" للشاعر Dylan Thomas
---------
وابغى فقط ال images لقصيدة

"Miners" للشاعر Wilfred Owen

[ابوعزيز]

نعناعه
The Wast Land
http://www.gradesaver.com/classicnot.../fullsumm.html
بنفس الصفحة في روابط ثانية تتعلق بنفس القصيدة

After the Funeral
http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/335.html

Miners
http://www.1914-18.co.uk/owen/miners.htm

[Try To Reach]

احسنت يا ابو عزيز

رحم الله والديك يا اخي

وما تقصر

[مرقة كااافيااار]

الله يجزاكم بالخير ضروووووووووووووووووووووووري تكفووووووووووون

ابي بحث بالانقليزي عن اي شي له علاقه بالتدريس ضروري ضروري ضروري

مافي شروط بس بحث بالانقليزي عن اي موضوع تربوي او بالتدريس

ارجوكم رجاااااااء حااااااااااااااااااااااار

وربي بدعي للي يلبيلي هالطلب وكل من يساعدني

[Abo Lama]

مرقة كااافيااار







تفضلي طلبك اختي على الرابط التالي


http://www.saudienglish.net/vb/showt...715#post411715


موفقه ان شاء الله

[spoiled909yuong]

السلام عليكم أنل بصراحة عضو جديد ما سجلت إلا أمس وقريت موضوعك بصراحة عورني قلبي

أنا طالب في الجامعة تخصص أدب ,معي شهادة من جامعة Ubc في كندا .

أوكي ما أحب أطول عليك ولا أحب أتكلم عن نفسي اللي حبيت أوضحة إني هاوي اللغة الإنجليزية

عندي مواقع كثيرة للترجمة الحرفية بالذات. السؤال هنا هل أحد رد عليك أوخلصتي ولقيتي موقع يعني أنتهيتي؟

[Try To Reach]

السلام عليكم أنل بصراحة عضو جديد ما سجلت إلا أمس وقريت موضوعك بصراحة عورني قلبي

أنا طالب في الجامعة تخصص أدب ,معي شهادة من جامعة Ubc في كندا .

أوكي ما أحب أطول عليك ولا أحب أتكلم عن نفسي اللي حبيت أوضحة إني هاوي اللغة الإنجليزية

عندي مواقع كثيرة للترجمة الحرفية بالذات. السؤال هنا هل أحد رد عليك أوخلصتي ولقيتي موقع يعني أنتهيتي؟

مرحبا بكي اختي


نتمنى ان تشاركينا بهذه المواقع

ونتمنى لكي الفائدة هنا

اجمل المنى

[__Princess__]

الله يسعدكم ويرزق ويوفق من يساعدني

انا ادرس برا وطلبت مننا الدكتورة esaay عن how to do اني ثينق ماحددت يعني

بحثت ولقيت مقالات طويييييييييييييييييييييييييييييييييييييييييييييييي يلة ولاني عارفة اختصرها بحيث تؤدي الفكرة


طلبي منكم هو اختصارها لي : ولازم اسلمها بكرة الصبح يعني 11-2-2008 الساعة 9 الصبح يعني عندكم بالسعودية الساعة: 6 المغرب


لقيت مقالين اي واحد عادي مافي مشكلة

how art can be good


I grew up believing that taste is just a matter of personal preference. Each person has things they like, but no one's preferences are any better than anyone else's. There is no such thing as good taste.

Like a lot of things I grew up believing, this turns out to be false, and I'm going to try to explain why.

One problem with saying there's no such thing as good taste is that it also means there's no such thing as good art. If there were good art, then people who liked it would have better taste than people who didn't. So if you discard taste, you also have to discard the idea of art being good, and artists being good at making it.

It was pulling on that thread that unravelled my childhood faith in relativism. When you're trying to make things, taste becomes a practical matter. You have to decide what to do next. Would it make the painting better if I changed that part? If there's no such thing as better, it doesn't matter what you do. In fact, it doesn't matter if you paint at all. You could just go out and buy a ready-made blank canvas. If there's no such thing as good, that would be just as great an achievement as the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Less laborious, certainly, but if you can achieve the same level of performance with less effort, surely that's more impressive, not less.

Yet that doesn't seem quite right, does it?

Audience

I think the key to this puzzle is to remember that art has an audience. Art has a purpose, which is to interest its audience. Good art (like good anything) is art that achieves its purpose particularly well. The meaning of "interest" can vary. Some works of art are meant to shock, and others to please; some are meant to jump out at you, and others to sit quietly in the background. But all art has to work on an audience, and—here's the critical point—members of the audience share things in common.

For example, nearly all humans find human faces engaging. It seems to be wired into us. Babies can recognize faces practically from birth. In fact, faces seem to have co-evolved with our interest in them; the face is the body's billboard. So all other things being equal, a painting with faces in it will interest people more than one without. [1]

One reason it's easy to believe that taste is merely personal preference is that, if it isn't, how do you pick out the people with better taste? There are billions of people, each with their own opinion; on what grounds can you prefer one to another? [2]

But if audiences have a lot in common, you're not in a position of having to choose one out of a random set of individual biases, because the set isn't random. All humans find faces engaging—practically by definition: face recognition is in our DNA. And so having a notion of good art, in the sense of art that does its job well, doesn't require you to pick out a few individuals and label their opinions as correct. No matter who you pick, they'll find faces engaging.

Of course, space aliens probably wouldn't find human faces engaging. But there might be other things they shared in common with us. The most likely source of examples is math. I expect space aliens would agree with us most of the time about which of two proofs was better. Erdos thought so. He called a maximally elegant proof one out of God's book, and presumably God's book is universal. [3]

Once you start talking about audiences, you don't have to argue simply that there are or aren't standards of taste. Instead tastes are a series of concentric rings, like ripples in a pond. There are some things that will appeal to you and your friends, others that will appeal to most people your age, others that will appeal to most humans, and perhaps others that would appeal to most sentient beings (whatever that means).

The picture is slightly more complicated than that, because in the middle of the pond there are overlapping sets of ripples. For example, there might be things that appealed particularly to men, or to people from a certain culture.

If good art is art that interests its audience, then when you talk about art being good, you also have to say for what audience. So is it meaningless to talk about art simply being good or bad? No, because one audience is the set of all possible humans. I think that's the audience people are implicitly talking about when they say a work of art is good: they mean it would engage any human. [4]

And that is a meaningful test, because although, like any everyday concept, "human" is fuzzy around the edges, there are a lot of things practically all humans have in common. In addition to our interest in faces, there's something special about primary colors for nearly all of us, because it's an artifact of the way our eyes work. Most humans will also find images of 3D objects engaging, because that also seems to be built into our visual perception. [5] And beneath that there's edge-finding, which makes images with definite shapes more engaging than mere blur.

Humans have a lot more in common than this, of course. My goal is not to compile a complete list, just to show that there's some solid ground here. People's preferences aren't random. So an artist working on a painting and trying to decide whether to change some part of it doesn't have to think "Why bother? I might as well flip a coin." Instead he can ask "What would make the painting more interesting to people?" And the reason you can't equal Michelangelo by going out and buying a blank canvas is that the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is more interesting to people.

A lot of philosophers have had a hard time believing it was possible for there to be objective standards for art. It seemed obvious that beauty, for example, was something that happened in the head of the observer, not something that was a property of objects. It was thus "subjective" rather than "objective." But in fact if you narrow the definition of beauty to something that works a certain way on humans, and you observe how much humans have in common, it turns out to be a property of objects after all. You don't have to choose between something being a property of the subject or the object if subjects all react similarly. Being good art is thus a property of objects as much as, say, being toxic to humans is: it's good art if it consistently affects humans in a certain way.

Error

So could we figure out what the best art is by taking a vote? After all, if appealing to humans is the test, we should be able to just ask them, right?

Well, not quite. For products of nature that might work. I'd be willing to eat the apple the world's population had voted most delicious, and I'd probably be willing to visit the beach they voted most beautiful, but having to look at the painting they voted the best would be a crapshoot.

Man-made stuff is different. For one thing, artists, unlike apple trees, often deliberately try to trick us. Some tricks are quite subtle. For example, any work of art sets expectations by its level of finish. You don't expect photographic accuracy in something that looks like a quick sketch. So one widely used trick, especially among illustrators, is to intentionally make a painting or drawing look like it was done faster than it was. The average person looks at it and thinks: how amazingly skillful. It's like saying something clever in a conversation as if you'd thought of it on the spur of the moment, when in fact you'd worked it out the day before.

Another much less subtle influence is brand. If you go to see the Mona Lisa, you'll probably be disappointed, because it's hidden behind a thick glass wall and surrounded by a frenzied crowd taking pictures of themselves in front of it. At best you can see it the way you see a friend across the room at a crowded party. The Louvre might as well replace it with copy; no one would be able to tell. And yet the Mona Lisa is a small, dark painting. If you found people who'd never seen an image of it and sent them to a museum in which it was hanging among other paintings with a tag labelling it as a portrait by an unknown fifteenth century artist, most would walk by without giving it a second look.

For the average person, brand dominates all other factors in the judgement of art. Seeing a painting they recognize from reproductions is so overwhelming that their response to it as a painting is drowned out.

And then of course there are the tricks people play on themselves. Most adults looking at art worry that if they don't like what they're supposed to, they'll be thought uncultured. This doesn't just affect what they claim to like; they actually make themselves like things they're supposed to.

That's why you can't just take a vote. Though appeal to people is a meaningful test, in practice you can't measure it, just as you can't find north using a compass with a magnet sitting next to it. There are sources of error so powerful that if you take a vote, all you're measuring is the error.

We can, however, approach our goal from another direction, by using ourselves as guinea pigs. You're human. If you want to know what the basic human reaction to a piece of art would be, you can at least approach that by getting rid of the sources of error in your own judgements.

For example, while anyone's reaction to a famous painting will be warped at first by its fame, there are ways to decrease its effects. One is to come back to the painting over and over. After a few days the fame wears off, and you can start to see it as a painting. Another is to stand close. A painting familiar from reproductions looks more familiar from ten feet away; close in you see details that get lost in reproductions, and which you're therefore seeing for the first time.

There are two main kinds of error that get in the way of seeing a work of art: biases you bring from your own circumstances, and tricks played by the artist. Tricks are straightforward to correct for. Merely being aware of them usually prevents them from working. For example, when I was ten I used to be very impressed by airbrushed lettering that looked like shiny metal. But once you study how it's done, you see that it's a pretty cheesy trick—one of the sort that relies on pushing a few visual buttons really hard to temporarily overwhelm the viewer. It's like trying to convince someone by shouting at them.

The way not to be vulnerable to tricks is to explicitly seek out and catalog them. When you notice a whiff of dishonesty coming from some kind of art, stop and figure out what's going on. When someone is obviously pandering to an audience that's easily fooled, whether it's someone making shiny stuff to impress ten year olds, or someone making conspicuously avant-garde stuff to impress would-be intellectuals, learn how they do it. Once you've seen enough examples of specific types of tricks, you start to become a connoisseur of trickery in general, just as professional magicians are.

What counts as a trick? Roughly, it's something done with contempt for the audience. For example, the guys designing Ferraris in the 1950s were probably designing cars that they themselves admired. Whereas I suspect over at General Motors the marketing people are telling the designers, "Most people who buy SUVs do it to seem manly, not to drive off-road. So don't worry about the suspension; just make that sucker as big and tough-looking as you can." [6]

I think with some effort you can make yourself nearly immune to tricks. It's harder to escape the influence of your own circumstances, but you can at least move in that direction. The way to do it is to travel widely, in both time and space. If you go and see all the different kinds of things people like in other cultures, and learn about all the different things people have liked in the past, you'll probably find it changes what you like. I doubt you could ever make yourself into a completely universal person, if only because you can only travel in one direction in time. But if you find a work of art that would appeal equally to your friends, to people in Nepal, and to the ancient Greeks, you're probably onto something.

My main point here is not how to have good taste, but that there can even be such a thing. And I think I've shown that. There is such a thing as good art. It's art that interests its human audience, and since humans have a lot in common, what interests them is not random. Since there's such a thing as good art, there's also such a thing as good taste, which is the ability to recognize it.

If we were talking about the taste of apples, I'd agree that taste is just personal preference. Some people like certain kinds of apples and others like other kinds, but how can you say that one is right and the other wrong? [7]

The thing is, art isn't apples. Art is man-made. It comes with a lot of cultural baggage, and in addition the people who make it often try to trick us. Most people's judgement of art is dominated by these extraneous factors; they're like someone trying to judge the taste of apples in a dish made of equal parts apples and jalapeno peppers. All they're tasting is the peppers. So it turns out you can pick out some people and say that they have better taste than others: they're the ones who actually taste art like apples.

Or to put it more prosaically, they're the people who (a) are hard to trick, and (b) don't just like whatever they grew up with. If you could find people who'd eliminated all such influences on their judgement, you'd probably still see variation in what they liked. But because humans have so much in common, you'd also find they agreed on a lot. They'd nearly all prefer the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel to a blank canvas.

Making It

I wrote this essay because I was tired of hearing "taste is subjective" and wanted to kill it once and for all. Anyone who makes things knows intuitively that's not true. When you're trying to make art, the temptation to be lazy is as great as in any other kind of work. Of course it matters to do a good job. And yet you can see how great a hold "taste is subjective" has even in the art world by how nervous it makes people to talk about art being good or bad. Those whose jobs require them to judge art, like curators, mostly resort to euphemisms like "significant" or "important" or (getting dangerously close) "realized." [8]

I don't have any illusions that being able to talk about art being good or bad will cause the people who talk about it to have anything more useful to say. Indeed, one of the reasons "taste is subjective" found such a receptive audience is that, historically, the things people have said about good taste have generally been such nonsense.

It's not for the people who talk about art that I want to free the idea of good art, but for those who make it. Right now, ambitious kids going to art school run smack into a brick wall. They arrive hoping one day to be as good as the famous artists they've seen in books, and the first thing they learn is that the concept of good has been retired. Instead everyone is just supposed to explore their own personal vision. [9]

When I was in art school, we were looking one day at a slide of some great fifteenth century painting, and one of the students asked "Why don't artists paint like that now?" The room suddenly got quiet. Though rarely asked out loud, this question lurks uncomfortably in the back of every art student's mind. It was as if someone had brought up the topic of lung cancer in a meeting within Philip Morris.

"Well," the professor replied, "we're interested in different questions now." He was a pretty nice guy, but at the time I couldn't help wishing I could send him back to fifteenth century Florence to explain in person to Leonardo & Co. how we had moved beyond their early, limited concept of art. Just imagine that conversation.

In fact, one of the reasons artists in fifteenth century Florence made such great things was that they believed you could make great things. [10] They were intensely competitive and were always trying to outdo one another, like mathematicians or physicists today—maybe like anyone who has ever done anything really well.

The idea that you could make great things was not just a useful illusion. They were actually right. So the most important consequence of realizing there can be good art is that it frees artists to try to make it. To the ambitious kids arriving at art school this year hoping one day to make great things, I say: don't believe it when they tell you this is a naive and outdated ambition. There is such a thing as good art, and if you try to make it, there are people who will notice.





Notes

[1] This is not to say, of course, that good paintings must have faces in them, just that everyone's visual piano has that key on it. There are situations in which you want to avoid faces, precisely because they attract so much attention. But you can see how universally faces work by their prevalence in advertising.

[2] The other reason it's easy to believe is that it makes people feel good. To a kid, this idea is crack. In every other respect they're constantly being told that they have a lot to learn. But in this they're perfect. Their opinion carries the same weight as any adult's. You should probably question anything you believed as a kid that you'd want to believe this much.

[3] It's conceivable that the elegance of proofs is quantifiable, in the sense that there may be some formal measure that turns out to coincide with mathematicians' judgements. Perhaps it would be worth trying to make a formal language for proofs in which those considered more elegant consistently came out shorter (perhaps after being macroexpanded or compiled).

[4] Maybe it would be possible to make art that would appeal to space aliens, but I'm not going to get into that because (a) it's too hard to answer, and (b) I'm satisfied if I can establish that good art is a meaningful idea for human audiences.

[5] If early abstract paintings seem more interesting than later ones, it may be because the first abstract painters were trained to paint from life, and their hands thus tended to make the kind of gestures you use in representing physical things. In effect they were saying "scaramara" instead of "uebfgbsb."

[6] It's a bit more complicated, because sometimes artists unconsciously use tricks by imitating art that does.

[7] I phrased this in terms of the taste of apples because if people can see the apples, they can be fooled. When I was a kid most apples were a variety called Red Delicious that had been bred to look appealing in stores, but which didn't taste very good.

[8] To be fair, curators are in a difficult position. If they're dealing with recent art, they have to include things in shows that they think are bad. That's because the test for what gets included in shows is basically the market price, and for recent art that is largely determined by successful businessmen and their wives. So it's not always intellectual dishonesty that makes curators and dealers use neutral-sounding language.

[9] What happens in practice is that everyone gets really good at talking about art. As the art itself gets more random, the effort that would have gone into the work goes instead into the intellectual sounding theory behind it. "My work represents an exploration of gender and sexuality in an urban context," etc. Different people win at that game.

[10] There were several other reasons, including that Florence was then the richest and most sophisticated city in the world, and that they lived in a time before photography had (a) killed portraiture as a source of income and (b) made brand the dominant factor in the sale of art.

Incidentally, I'm not saying that good art = fifteenth century European art. I'm not saying we should make what they made, but that we should work like they worked. There are fields now in which many people work with the same energy and honesty that fifteenth century artists did, but art is not one of them.

Thanks to Trevor Blackwell, Jessica Livingston, and Robert Morris for reading drafts of this, and to Paul Watson for permission to use the image at the top.

[__Princess__]

والثاني :

how to do what you love

To do something well you have to like it. That idea is not exactly novel. We've got it down to four words: "Do what you love." But it's not enough just to tell people that. Doing what you love is complicated.

The very idea is foreign to what most of us learn as kids. When I was a kid, it seemed as if work and fun were opposites by definition. Life had two states: some of the time adults were making you do things, and that was called work; the rest of the time you could do what you wanted, and that was called playing. Occasionally the things adults made you do were fun, just as, occasionally, playing wasn't—for example, if you fell and hurt yourself. But except for these few anomalous cases, work was pretty much defined as not-fun.

And it did not seem to be an accident. School, it was implied, was tedious because it was preparation for grownup work.

The world then was divided into two groups, grownups and kids. Grownups, like some kind of cursed race, had to work. Kids didn't, but they did have to go to school, which was a dilute version of work meant to prepare us for the real thing. Much as we disliked school, the grownups all agreed that grownup work was worse, and that we had it easy.

Teachers in particular all seemed to believe implicitly that work was not fun. Which is not surprising: work wasn't fun for most of them. Why did we have to memorize state capitals instead of playing dodgeball? For the same reason they had to watch over a bunch of kids instead of lying on a beach. You couldn't just do what you wanted.

I'm not saying we should let little kids do whatever they want. They may have to be made to work on certain things. But if we make kids work on dull stuff, it might be wise to tell them that tediousness is not the defining quality of work, and indeed that the reason they have to work on dull stuff now is so they can work on more interesting stuff later. [1]

Once, when I was about 9 or 10, my father told me I could be whatever I wanted when I grew up, so long as I enjoyed it. I remember that precisely because it seemed so anomalous. It was like being told to use dry water. Whatever I thought he meant, I didn't think he meant work could literally be fun—fun like playing. It took me years to grasp that.

Jobs

By high school, the prospect of an actual job was on the horizon. Adults would sometimes come to speak to us about their work, or we would go to see them at work. It was always understood that they enjoyed what they did. In retrospect I think one may have: the private jet pilot. But I don't think the bank manager really did.

The main reason they all acted as if they enjoyed their work was presumably the upper-middle class convention that you're supposed to. It would not merely be bad for your career to say that you despised your job, but a social faux-pas.

Why is it conventional to pretend to like what you do? The first sentence of this essay explains that. If you have to like something to do it well, then the most successful people will all like what they do. That's where the upper-middle class tradition comes from. Just as houses all over America are full of chairs that are, without the owners even knowing it, nth-degree imitations of chairs designed 250 years ago for French kings, conventional attitudes about work are, without the owners even knowing it, nth-degree imitations of the attitudes of people who've done great things.

What a recipe for alienation. By the time they reach an age to think about what they'd like to do, most kids have been thoroughly misled about the idea of loving one's work. School has trained them to regard work as an unpleasant duty. Having a job is said to be even more onerous than schoolwork. And yet all the adults claim to like what they do. You can't blame kids for thinking "I am not like these people; I am not suited to this world."

Actually they've been told three lies: the stuff they've been taught to regard as work in school is not real work; grownup work is not (necessarily) worse than schoolwork; and many of the adults around them are lying when they say they like what they do.

The most dangerous liars can be the kids' own parents. If you take a boring job to give your family a high standard of living, as so many people do, you risk infecting your kids with the idea that work is boring. [2] Maybe it would be better for kids in this one case if parents were not so unselfish. A parent who set an example of loving their work might help their kids more than an expensive house. [3]

It was not till I was in college that the idea of work finally broke free from the idea of making a living. Then the important question became not how to make money, but what to work on. Ideally these coincided, but some spectacular boundary cases (like Einstein in the patent office) proved they weren't identical.

The definition of work was now to make some original contribution to the world, and in the process not to starve. But after the habit of so many years my idea of work still included a large component of pain. Work still seemed to require discipline, because only hard problems yielded grand results, and hard problems couldn't literally be fun. Surely one had to force oneself to work on them.

If you think something's supposed to hurt, you're less likely to notice if you're doing it wrong. That about sums up my experience of graduate school.

Bounds

How much are you supposed to like what you do? Unless you know that, you don't know when to stop searching. And if, like most people, you underestimate it, you'll tend to stop searching too early. You'll end up doing something chosen for you by your parents, or the desire to make money, or prestige—or sheer inertia.

Here's an upper bound: Do what you love doesn't mean, do what you would like to do most this second. Even Einstein probably had moments when he wanted to have a cup of coffee, but told himself he ought to finish what he was working on first.

It used to perplex me when I read about people who liked what they did so much that there was nothing they'd rather do. There didn't seem to be any sort of work I liked that much. If I had a choice of (a) spending the next hour working on something or (b) be teleported to Rome and spend the next hour wandering about, was there any sort of work I'd prefer? Honestly, no.

But the fact is, almost anyone would rather, at any given moment, float about in the Carribbean, or have sex, or eat some delicious food, than work on hard problems. The rule about doing what you love assumes a certain length of time. It doesn't mean, do what will make you happiest this second, but what will make you happiest over some longer period, like a week or a month.

Unproductive pleasures pall eventually. After a while you get tired of lying on the beach. If you want to stay happy, you have to do something.

As a lower bound, you have to like your work more than any unproductive pleasure. You have to like what you do enough that the concept of "spare time" seems mistaken. Which is not to say you have to spend all your time working. You can only work so much before you get tired and start to screw up. Then you want to do something else—even something mindless. But you don't regard this time as the prize and the time you spend working as the pain you endure to earn it.

I put the lower bound there for practical reasons. If your work is not your favorite thing to do, you'll have terrible problems with procrastination. You'll have to force yourself to work, and when you resort to that the results are distinctly inferior.

To be happy I think you have to be doing something you not only enjoy, but admire. You have to be able to say, at the end, wow, that's pretty cool. This doesn't mean you have to make something. If you learn how to hang glide, or to speak a foreign language fluently, that will be enough to make you say, for a while at least, wow, that's pretty cool. What there has to be is a test.

So one thing that falls just short of the standard, I think, is reading books. Except for some books in math and the hard sciences, there's no test of how well you've read a book, and that's why merely reading books doesn't quite feel like work. You have to do something with what you've read to feel productive.

I think the best test is one Gino Lee taught me: to try to do things that would make your friends say wow. But it probably wouldn't start to work properly till about age 22, because most people haven't had a big enough sample to pick friends from before then.

Sirens

What you should not do, I think, is worry about the opinion of anyone beyond your friends. You shouldn't worry about prestige. Prestige is the opinion of the rest of the world. When you can ask the opinions of people whose judgement you respect, what does it add to consider the opinions of people you don't even know? [4]

This is easy advice to give. It's hard to follow, especially when you're young. [5] Prestige is like a powerful magnet that warps even your beliefs about what you enjoy. It causes you to work not on what you like, but what you'd like to like.

That's what leads people to try to write novels, for example. They like reading novels. They notice that people who write them win Nobel prizes. What could be more wonderful, they think, than to be a novelist? But liking the idea of being a novelist is not enough; you have to like the actual work of novel-writing if you're going to be good at it; you have to like making up elaborate lies.

Prestige is just fossilized inspiration. If you do anything well enough, you'll make it prestigious. Plenty of things we now consider prestigious were anything but at first. Jazz comes to mind—though almost any established art form would do. So just do what you like, and let prestige take care of itself.

Prestige is especially dangerous to the ambitious. If you want to make ambitious people waste their time on errands, the way to do it is to bait the hook with prestige. That's the recipe for getting people to give talks, write forewords, serve on committees, be department heads, and so on. It might be a good rule simply to avoid any prestigious task. If it didn't suck, they wouldn't have had to make it prestigious.

Similarly, if you admire two kinds of work equally, but one is more prestigious, you should probably choose the other. Your opinions about what's admirable are always going to be slightly influenced by prestige, so if the two seem equal to you, you probably have more genuine admiration for the less prestigious one.

The other big force leading people astray is money. Money by itself is not that dangerous. When something pays well but is regarded with contempt, like telemarketing, or prostitution, or personal injury litigation, ambitious people aren't tempted by it. That kind of work ends up being done by people who are "just trying to make a living." (Tip: avoid any field whose practitioners say this.) The danger is when money is combined with prestige, as in, say, corporate law, or medicine. A comparatively safe and prosperous career with some automatic baseline prestige is dangerously tempting to someone young, who hasn't thought much about what they really like.

The test of whether people love what they do is whether they'd do it even if they weren't paid for it—even if they had to work at another job to make a living. How many corporate lawyers would do their current work if they had to do it for free, in their spare time, and take day jobs as waiters to support themselves?

This test is especially helpful in deciding between different kinds of academic work, because fields vary greatly in this respect. Most good mathematicians would work on math even if there were no jobs as math professors, whereas in the departments at the other end of the spectrum, the availability of teaching jobs is the driver: people would rather be English professors than work in ad agencies, and publishing papers is the way you compete for such jobs. Math would happen without math departments, but it is the existence of English majors, and therefore jobs teaching them, that calls into being all those thousands of dreary papers about gender and identity in the novels of Conrad. No one does that kind of thing for fun.

The advice of parents will tend to err on the side of money. It seems safe to say there are more undergrads who want to be novelists and whose parents want them to be doctors than who want to be doctors and whose parents want them to be novelists. The kids think their parents are "materialistic." Not necessarily. All parents tend to be more conservative for their kids than they would for themselves, simply because, as parents, they share risks more than rewards. If your eight year old son decides to climb a tall tree, or your teenage daughter decides to date the local bad boy, you won't get a share in the excitement, but if your son falls, or your daughter gets pregnant, you'll have to deal with the consequences.

Discipline

With such powerful forces leading us astray, it's not surprising we find it so hard to discover what we like to work on. Most people are doomed in childhood by accepting the axiom that work = pain. Those who escape this are nearly all lured onto the rocks by prestige or money. How many even discover something they love to work on? A few hundred thousand, perhaps, out of billions.

It's hard to find work you love; it must be, if so few do. So don't underestimate this task. And don't feel bad if you haven't succeeded yet. In fact, if you admit to yourself that you're discontented, you're a step ahead of most people, who are still in denial. If you're surrounded by colleagues who claim to enjoy work that you find contemptible, odds are they're lying to themselves. Not necessarily, but probably.

Although doing great work takes less discipline than people think—because the way to do great work is to find something you like so much that you don't have to force yourself to do it—finding work you love does usually require discipline. Some people are lucky enough to know what they want to do when they're 12, and just glide along as if they were on railroad tracks. But this seems the exception. More often people who do great things have careers with the trajectory of a ping-pong ball. They go to school to study A, drop out and get a job doing B, and then become famous for C after taking it up on the side.

Sometimes jumping from one sort of work to another is a sign of energy, and sometimes it's a sign of laziness. Are you dropping out, or boldly carving a new path? You often can't tell yourself. Plenty of people who will later do great things seem to be disappointments early on, when they're trying to find their niche.

Is there some test you can use to keep yourself honest? One is to try to do a good job at whatever you're doing, even if you don't like it. Then at least you'll know you're not using dissatisfaction as an excuse for being lazy. Perhaps more importantly, you'll get into the habit of doing things well.

Another test you can use is: always produce. For example, if you have a day job you don't take seriously because you plan to be a novelist, are you producing? Are you writing pages of fiction, however bad? As long as you're producing, you'll know you're not merely using the hazy vision of the grand novel you plan to write one day as an opiate. The view of it will be obstructed by the all too palpably flawed one you're actually writing.

"Always produce" is also a heuristic for finding the work you love. If you subject yourself to that constraint, it will automatically push you away from things you think you're supposed to work on, toward things you actually like. "Always produce" will discover your life's work the way water, with the aid of gravity, finds the hole in your roof.

Of course, figuring out what you like to work on doesn't mean you get to work on it. That's a separate question. And if you're ambitious you have to keep them separate: you have to make a conscious effort to keep your ideas about what you want from being contaminated by what seems possible. [6]

It's painful to keep them apart, because it's painful to observe the gap between them. So most people pre-emptively lower their expectations. For example, if you asked random people on the street if they'd like to be able to draw like Leonardo, you'd find most would say something like "Oh, I can't draw." This is more a statement of intention than fact; it means, I'm not going to try. Because the fact is, if you took a random person off the street and somehow got them to work as hard as they possibly could at drawing for the next twenty years, they'd get surprisingly far. But it would require a great moral effort; it would mean staring failure in the eye every day for years. And so to protect themselves people say "I can't."

Another related line you often hear is that not everyone can do work they love—that someone has to do the unpleasant jobs. Really? How do you make them? In the US the only mechanism for forcing people to do unpleasant jobs is the draft, and that hasn't been invoked for over 30 years. All we can do is encourage people to do unpleasant work, with money and prestige.

If there's something people still won't do, it seems as if society just has to make do without. That's what happened with domestic servants. For millennia that was the canonical example of a job "someone had to do." And yet in the mid twentieth century servants practically disappeared in rich countries, and the rich have just had to do without.

So while there may be some things someone has to do, there's a good chance anyone saying that about any particular job is mistaken. Most unpleasant jobs would either get automated or go undone if no one were willing to do them.

Two Routes

There's another sense of "not everyone can do work they love" that's all too true, however. One has to make a living, and it's hard to get paid for doing work you love. There are two routes to that destination:

The organic route: as you become more eminent, gradually to increase the parts of your job that you like at the expense of those you don't.

The two-job route: to work at things you don't like to get money to work on things you do.
The organic route is more common. It happens naturally to anyone who does good work. A young architect has to take whatever work he can get, but if he does well he'll gradually be in a position to pick and choose among projects. The disadvantage of this route is that it's slow and uncertain. Even tenure is not real freedom.

The two-job route has several variants depending on how long you work for money at a time. At one extreme is the "day job," where you work regular hours at one job to make money, and work on what you love in your spare time. At the other extreme you work at something till you make enough not to have to work for money again.

The two-job route is less common than the organic route, because it requires a deliberate choice. It's also more dangerous. Life tends to get more expensive as you get older, so it's easy to get sucked into working longer than you expected at the money job. Worse still, anything you work on changes you. If you work too long on tedious stuff, it will rot your brain. And the best paying jobs are most dangerous, because they require your full attention.

The advantage of the two-job route is that it lets you jump over obstacles. The landscape of possible jobs isn't flat; there are walls of varying heights between different kinds of work. [7] The trick of maximizing the parts of your job that you like can get you from architecture to product design, but not, probably, to music. If you make money doing one thing and then work on another, you have more freedom of choice.

Which route should you take? That depends on how sure you are of what you want to do, how good you are at taking orders, how much risk you can stand, and the odds that anyone will pay (in your lifetime) for what you want to do. If you're sure of the general area you want to work in and it's something people are likely to pay you for, then you should probably take the organic route. But if you don't know what you want to work on, or don't like to take orders, you may want to take the two-job route, if you can stand the risk.

Don't decide too soon. Kids who know early what they want to do seem impressive, as if they got the answer to some math question before the other kids. They have an answer, certainly, but odds are it's wrong.

A friend of mine who is a quite successful doctor complains constantly about her job. When people applying to medical school ask her for advice, she wants to shake them and yell "Don't do it!" (But she never does.) How did she get into this fix? In high school she already wanted to be a doctor. And she is so ambitious and determined that she overcame every obstacle along the way—including, unfortunately, not liking it.

Now she has a life chosen for her by a high-school kid.

When you're young, you're given the impression that you'll get enough information to make each choice before you need to make it. But this is certainly not so with work. When you're deciding what to do, you have to operate on ridiculously incomplete information. Even in college you get little idea what various types of work are like. At best you may have a couple internships, but not all jobs offer internships, and those that do don't teach you much more about the work than being a batboy teaches you about playing baseball.

In the design of lives, as in the design of most other things, you get better results if you use flexible media. So unless you're fairly sure what you want to do, your best bet may be to choose a type of work that could turn into either an organic or two-job career. That was probably part of the reason I chose computers. You can be a professor, or make a lot of money, or morph it into any number of other kinds of work.

It's also wise, early on, to seek jobs that let you do many different things, so you can learn faster what various kinds of work are like. Conversely, the extreme version of the two-job route is dangerous because it teaches you so little about what you like. If you work hard at being a bond trader for ten years, thinking that you'll quit and write novels when you have enough money, what happens when you quit and then discover that you don't actually like writing novels?

Most people would say, I'd take that problem. Give me a million dollars and I'll figure out what to do. But it's harder than it looks. Constraints give your life shape. Remove them and most people have no idea what to do: look at what happens to those who win lotteries or inherit money. Much as everyone thinks they want financial security, the happiest people are not those who have it, but those who like what they do. So a plan that promises freedom at the expense of knowing what to do with it may not be as good as it seems.

Whichever route you take, expect a struggle. Finding work you love is very difficult. Most people fail. Even if you succeed, it's rare to be free to work on what you want till your thirties or forties. But if you have the destination in sight you'll be more likely to arrive at it. If you know you can love work, you're in the home stretch, and if you know what work you love, you're practically there.



Notes

[1] Currently we do the opposite: when we make kids do boring work, like arithmetic drills, instead of admitting frankly that it's boring, we try to disguise it with superficial decorations.

[2] One father told me about a related phenomenon: he found himself concealing from his family how much he liked his work. When he wanted to go to work on a saturday, he found it easier to say that it was because he "had to" for some reason, rather than admitting he preferred to work than stay home with them.

[3] Something similar happens with suburbs. Parents move to suburbs to raise their kids in a safe environment, but suburbs are so dull and artificial that by the time they're fifteen the kids are convinced the whole world is boring.

[4] I'm not saying friends should be the only audience for your work. The more people you can help, the better. But friends should be your compass.

[5] Donald Hall said young would-be poets were mistaken to be so obsessed with being published. But you can imagine what it would do for a 24 year old to get a poem published in The New Yorker. Now to people he meets at parties he's a real poet. Actually he's no better or worse than he was before, but to a clueless audience like that, the approval of an official authority makes all the difference. So it's a harder problem than Hall realizes. The reason the young care so much about prestige is that the people they want to impress are not very discerning.

[6] This is isomorphic to the principle that you should prevent your beliefs about how things are from being contaminated by how you wish they were. Most people let them mix pretty promiscuously. The continuing popularity of religion is the most visible index of that.

[7] A more accurate metaphor would be to say that the graph of jobs is not very well connected.

Thanks to Trevor Blackwell, Dan Friedman, Sarah Harlin, Jessica Livingston, Jackie McDonough, Robert Morris, Peter Norvig, David Sloo, and Aaron Swartz for reading drafts of this.



والله يسعدكم لاتنسووووووووووووني لازم اسلمها اليوم 11-2-2008 الساعة 9 الصباح عندنا بالسعودية تكون الساعة 6 المغرب

واحد بس منهم

[Meant To be]

مرحبا فيك اختي الفاضلة

بخصوص المقالين اللي وضعتيهم مره طويلة وراح تاخذ وقت مني في اختصارها لكن بحثت لك عن مقالات طبعا وجدت مقالين واختصرتهم لك وان شاء الله تستفيدي منهم ولكي الاختيار طبعا راح اضعهم هنا وايضا تجدينهم في الملفات المرفقة
كلاهما يحمل نفس العنوان

1st essay

How to Prepare Yourself for a Job Interview

What is an interview?
 The interview is a two way street with both you and the interviewer taking an active role.
 It is also an exciting opportunity to take a positive step on your career path. Previous experience or education is not enough to convince an employer that you are the right person.
 The outcome of a job interview is entirely dependent on how well you sell yourself.
What's the purpose of an interview?
Remember, everything has a reason in life, including an interview. An interview is the employer's way of selecting the right applicant from a group of equally-qualified candidates. An interview is an elimination process, whereby the winner receives a job offer.
There are four main objectives of an interview.
1. The employer wants to know if you're a good fit for his/her company. The interviewer is interested in three things:
1. Can you do the job?
2. Will you do the job?
3. Will you fit in?
2. You want to sell yourself as the ideal candidate and you want to know if the company is suitable for you and your career goals.
3. An interview is your opportunity to tie your skills and experience directly and enthusiastically.
0. What are your strengths?
1. What are your weaknesses?
2. How are you suitable for this job?
3. How long do you plan to stay with the company?
4. What is your ideal position?
5. Why do you want to change jobs?
4. An interview is also your opportunity to assess the company:
0. Is this the kind of place where you want to work?
1. Can you contribute?
2. Will you acquire new skills?
3. Is there a possibility to advance?
4. Will this position open doors for you?
What to do Before an Interview
How do I prepare myself for an interview? Here are some things to do the day before an interview. Remember, first impressions usually last!
 Collect information about the company.
 Prepare what you plan to bring with you to the interview (including a list of references).
 Prepare what you're going to wear.
 Prepare for the interview questions, including topics about your:
• work experience
• academic history
• skills and abilities
• knowledge of the organization
• career goals and objectives
• accomplishments and achievements
• personal and motivational factors
• money and salary
 Prepare your interview responses.
 Rehearse your responses in front of a mirror, or role play with another person.
 Practice your introduction.
 Make sure you have the company's present address and the correct directions.
 Make your transportation arrangements ahead of time.
 BE PUNCTUAL! Get up early, giving yourself plenty time to get ready and arrive before the actual interview begins.
What to do During the Interview
Make Your Entrance
Before you say your first word, the interviewer will make a judgment about you. There are a few key things that they will be looking for, including: a genuine smile, a firm handshake, a confident demeanor, good eye contact, and a friendly, enthusiastic introduction. They'll notice instantly whether your hair is clean and neat, whether or not your attire is appropriate, whether or not your breath is fresh, and if your hands and fingernails are clean.
Getting Started
One good way to kick off an interview is:
 To give a brief summary of your understanding of the position.
 Ask for any additions or clarifications.
 Ask the interviewer to share the points in your resume or letter that triggered their interest. Then you will know their priorities, making it easier for you to target your responses precisely to the position.
Attitude Counts
This is the time to show off your interpersonal skills. Employers are looking for key character traits and you need to demonstrate them at the interview. Keep the following things in mind:
1.Listening Skills: good listening skills and a pleasant demeanor are key attributes in any job.

2. Enthusiasm.

3. Eye Contact.

4. Flexibility: You need to demonstrate to the interviewer that you are willing and able to adapt readily to new environments, demands, personas styles, . . . etc.

5. Professionalism: Above all, BE PROFESSIONAL! Respect the interviewer. Remember the interview boundaries at all times, don't behave in an either overly-casual fashion or overly-aggressive manner with the interviewer.









2nd essay

A job interview can be successful if you follow a number of smart strategies. Some of these strategies are to have a well written resume, an appealing personal appearance, and a prepared plan of action regarding questions for the interviewer.

First of all, the resume plays a very important role for a job interview. What the interviewer is going to think depends on how the resume is written. It is necessary to organize ideas that describe your work experience. Also, you need to mention your best qualities which are related with the job you are applying for. For example, if you are applying for a job in which you are going to be with a computer,and phone calls, it is relevant to say how fast you type on the computer and if you do speak more than one language. In addition, have in mind to use high level vocabulary words and proper grammar. Therefore, you may consider a friend’s or professor’s opinion in order to check your resume before showing it to a prospective employer.

Secondly, it is important to present yourself well. That means to have a nice appearance. Consequently, you need to be careful with the clothes you are going to wear, and the hairstyle you are going to use. Even little details such as having clean teeth and neat nails, can prevent you from an embarrassing situation. If you are a woman, try to avoid “mini-skirts” for a job interview, since that could cause a misunderstanding. Also, a person who seems to have dirty hair makes a poor impression. Hence, if you have free time go to a hair salon before going to the interview.

Finally, before you arrive at the job interview, it is good idea to have a couple of questions for the interviewer. For instance, you can ask if the job you are applying for does cover “sick days” and health insurance. Also, it is important to know if you are going to have vacation time and how often. It is also essential to ask how much you are going to earn, and how often are you going to be paid.

In conclusion, everyone who attends a job interview should be prepared with a well written resume, an appealing presentation, and have questions in mind. Following all these suggestions is going to make your job interviews much easier.

[Try To Reach]

احسنت يبو خلود

كريم وما تقصر

جزاك الله خير

[fulla86]

السلام عليكم ورحمه الله وبركاااته

اولا اود شكر كل من قام وساعد في استمرااار هذا العمل الرائع والمتميز

وثانيا اود ان اطلب معلومات او ترجمه او اي شي او مقال يمكنني من خلا ل قراءته ان افهم روايه

mice and men

ولكم منى جزيل الشكر والعرفان

يا ريت ما تتأخروو علي بالرد

[الزهرة الخضراء]

وثانيا اود ان اطلب معلومات او ترجمه او اي شي او مقال يمكنني من خلا ل قراءته ان افهم روايه

mice and men

وضعت موضوع مستقل عن الرواية ليستفيد جميع من يطلبونها بإمكانك الاطلاع عليه من هذا الرابط ... http://www.saudienglish.net/vb/showt...234#post424234

[fulla86]

يسلمووووو ايكي كتييير

والله يسعدك

[ROAD ROSE]

السلام عليكم

ممكن احد يساعدني

باي شي عن هذه الروايه


Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe

[Meant To be]

السلام عليكم

ممكن احد يساعدني

باي شي عن هذه الروايه


Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe

تفضلي اختي هذا الرابط اتمنى ان تستفيدي منه رغم اني لست متخصصا في اللغة الانجليزية ولكن ربما تجدي ضالتك


Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe

[الزهرة الخضراء]

الله يوفقك لكل خير اخي Meant To be ... ضربت مثلاً للتعاون والحرص على نفع الاخرين ...
وللإضافة لما سبق ... قمت بوضع موضوع موضوع مستقل عن الرواية ليستفيد الجميع ... هنـــــــــــااا

[manal232]

ممكن تعطوني اسماء روايات او مسرحيات مترجمة اقدر احملها واستفيد منها
واكون لكم شاكرة

[ROAD ROSE]

السلام عليكم

ابغى اشكر كل من يقف وراء هذا

العمل الرائع

وابغى اي شرح للشعر
sonnet 73

shakespear

[Meant To be]

السلام عليكم

ابغى اشكر كل من يقف وراء هذا

العمل الرائع

وابغى اي شرح للشعر
sonnet 73

shakespear

الشكر لله اختي الفاضلة

وتفضلي هذا الرابط في المنتدى وهو موضوع لأختنا الراحلة " الغزالة " رحمها الله

sonnet 73

[تتعلم E]

السلام عليكم

ح بايبي .. أنأ اليوم

راح أطلب منكم مساعده بسيطه جدا

عندي مادة المقال .. دكتورنا طلبتـ

كتابت مووضوع عن التلوثـ اما الهواء او الماء

فان كتبت شء بسيط .. وهي طلبت منا ان يتعدا اكثر

من اكثر من سطر.. السبلنق عندي خطا مو مكشله اقدر اصلحه

بس الافكار عندي ضيقه فما اقدر اجيب اكثر من 12 سطر
فياليت احد يتكرم ويساعدني .. في كتابت هذا التعبير

عن التلوثـ اما الماء او الهواء

كتبت ع اللوح .. هذي الكلمة انا مافهمتـ منها شيء

ماادري يستند عليها التعبير او ايش ..؟؟

3Rs=Recycle
Reuse
Reciuce

ياليت احد يفهمني اذا كان يستند عليها التعبير وكيف يكتب بعد كذا

او تكمله للشرح ...؟

[الزهرة الخضراء]

Air Pollution

Air pollution is a worldwide problem. Because the air can be blew by wind. If the there are some toxic gas comes out, after a short while, the toxic gas will be spread everywhere. The same with the air pollution, the bad gas will spread by wind. The bad gas comes from the motorcycle, air conditioner and some factories. It is important to know what pollutants caused the air pollution and try to prevent. Air pollution not only brings some bad effect to earth, but also brings bad effect to human beings. In order to live healthily, finding the solution to the air pollution is the most important thing for us to do.

Pollutants can be divided into two kinds; one is the primary pollutants, the other is secondary pollutants. The primary pollutants are directly produced by a process. For example, the volcano eruption and the carbon monoxide exhaust gas from motorcycles and cars. The secondary pollutants are from in the air when primary pollutants react. There is an important example of the secondary pollutants that is ground level ozone. The ground level ozone is the secondary pollutants that make up photochemical smog.

Air pollution can be a killer of people. Some diseases that related to air pollutants are asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, lung and heart disease. The disease’s range that caused by air pollution is very wild, from subtle biochemical and physiological changes to difficulty breathing and cardiac conditions. We can know that there is a big connection between air pollution and human health.

In order to live healthily and happily, control air pollution is very important. There is not only air pollution but also water pollution. People nowadays are living in a place filled with pollution. How can we control air pollution efficiently, it depends on how much conscious that people have.
________
http://ccueng.blogspot.com/2007/06/essay.html

[الزهرة الخضراء]

Water Pollution

The earth is facing a lot of environmental problems today; humans cause these problems. In the search for the technology, humans begin to improve their lives without giving attention to what this development has caused to the other types of life on the face of the earth. Everyone is so caught up in paying attention to the growing industries and the growth of the community that they don’t realize how the things that are good for us as humans can also be harmful to all forms of life on earth. All aspects of life on the earth have been affected, as well as the sources of water.

Water pollution is a global plague that affects the people, animals, and plants. These life forms need water to survive. Sea and river pollution is one of the problems that resulted from the new technology. Water is one of the most important sources of life on earth a lot of animals live in seas, rivers and lakes. In addition water in also important for humans, not just for drinking; seas are one of our main sources of food today, for example fish. Sea pollution has become one of the biggest problems facing our environment.

Across the world, about half of all sewage is dumped into water bodies in its original form. Water pollution is a senseless act that people can help stop. Often, governments either do not care or simply look the other way. The main effect of chemical water pollution is that it kills life that inhabits water-based ecosystems. In addition to sewage, chemicals dumped by industries and governments are another major source of water pollution. And another solution is to think of an alternative farming practice that allows the wastes to be eliminated safely without causing any health or environment problems. Some of these alternatives things such as regulations and accountability for the actions taken by the factories, more public awareness and participations in the community they live in, and new technology that can help eliminate this problem.

In some countries they polluted some of their big lakes because of the big factories that were built beside them in order to throw the waste of chemicals on these lakes, and the result was big loss of natural life. Water pollution is a problem that will not be eliminated unless the proper actions are taken by the government and the general population as well as the companies. The pollution of water greatly affects humans and animals alike. Thousands of animals suffer a slow, agonizing death.

Some chemicals cause a whole food chain to be changed. Ecosystems can be severely changed or destroyed by water pollution.
________
http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/96966.html